Karma?
The name "karma" has definitions which many people do not define similarly enough.
One guy's significance for this mechanism is not the same as the next guy's... usually because of the experiences associated to the word are different.
Therefore I claim the right to call it a construct and simply do not use it.
What can be seen to actually be happening which originators of this "discovery" karma tried to explain, is the returning conditions of unresolved PERSONAL concerns.
This word karma has been morphed into meaning some natural law that the person is effect of.
Like the person is not the reason the "law" exists. Like the "law" existed before the person. This simply is not true. It then is not a law. It is an agreement. Take it on or don't.
The mechanism which was observed then called karma can be seen to be is this:
A person agreed (by decision to agree) to a new "truth" which then was new but now everyone "knows" it is this way. Just for kicks let's say the first time ever that a token was used to represent value (money). Now, so many lifetimes later we fear if we do not have money. Because everyone knows this is needed.
It's a "truth".
Later, yeah let's say another life or lifetimes later, this person is in circumstances which present a conflict to his previously agreed to decision. He wants to store wealth but no one else wants money. They want what you can do for them now. They only allow help. You can either help now or you can't. These new people do not allow you to store help. It's a new truth that you either agree to or you get no help.
But, because memory is as it might be for this person, he can not resolve the personal conflict. He still wants money but even if he created it, no one would use it.
Now, because people generally like to know "the unknown" (the unknown is a created construct too - a personal trap of nothing... remember "knowing" is different from "being aware of") and because people generally like to control what they experience, when there is a personal conflict which they can not resolve they are likely to return their living into similar conditions... until they resolve their conflict.
My basic difference here is that karma is something desired to be enforced by some, but actually the meaning (if expecting to get anywhere by using it) one might consider the meaning to be, "I still have something I decided which does not mesh well with what I am living now. I would probably be best off if I found out what it is that I disagree within myself about."
If that were done then one would properly want to search memory for the places and things he was with when he made the related or relevant decision (even if those are within previous lives).
Money is just one example. Every personal conflict is similar to this mechanism. An unwillingness or inability of one to simply change one's mind along with the willingness (desire) to self discover why the personal conflict exists.
Karma in this meaning is not enforceable.
If you accept this meaning, I can agree with you. If not, then I will assume you have an agreement which you do not want to change your mind about and don't want anyone (of intelligence) to disagree with you about it - in other words, not be free of your choice for "how to live". Not be free of your ideas of right and wrong.
To me, that just is not karma but some believe it is. So I do not use the word unless I think the person I am talking to understands it.
Okay? Feel better?