What he wrote made sense, but he didn’t use the clearest example at the end. Let me try a different example.
And elementary school bully demands a dollar from the lunch money of 10 kids he has intimidated at his school. So every day he gets $10 from them. But then he gets greedy and demands that each of them also chip in a dime, so every day they will pay him $1.10, for a total of $11.
But one kid just can’t take it anymore, so he convinces his parents to move him to another school. This means that, from the 9 remaining kids, the bully only gets a total of $9.90, so even by charging more, he is getting less.
The trouble is that the *reason* the bully demanded money in the first place is because he is a drug addict. And he’s already maxed out his tab with his drug dealer, so to get any more of the increasing amounts of drugs he craves, he has to pay cash. No cash, no more drugs.
So what is the bully going to do? He could cut back on his drugs, or he could lean even harder on the remaining 9 kids. Which do you think he will do?