• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Traverser

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Brain Dominance


  • Personal Text
    This is not a new world. It is simply an extension of what began in the old one.
  1. Coming around to bitcoin yet?

  2. Ya, that's what I figured too. Pre-recession it was easy to make money off homes.

  3. Ah, so she probably went bust when the housing market crashed...and got desperate. Desperate people do stupid things. It's a pain in the arse, but there are plenty of legitimate online jobs for stay-at-home moms and the like without having to be involved in MLMs. I used to work as a ghostwriter. The pay was crap, but I was never without work. I probably will get back into that again. I think if anything, creating your own gig on craigslist or somesuch would be a huge leap of imagination just for the average American.
  4. Hey, at least you're paying for your own brainwashing...instead of someone else! ---------- Post added 05-12-2014 at 09:44 AM ---------- That's hilarious, because a guy just wrote me back saying, "You're an idiot! You know nothing of the business! Good luck with your corrupt Amway scheme!" after I had just explained to him how his model is recruitment-dependent...and even went so far as to give him resources and links! I'm reminded of The Matrix...where Morpheus warns Neo, "Many people are so hopelesly dependent on the system that they'll do anything to defend it." That kind of sums up many of those indebted to MLM frauds. Cognitive dissonance is a @*!()
  5. Aye. I had a discussion with someone earlier about this problem, and I suggested that if there was any merit to the CO2 argument, that insurance companies (natural disaster insurance that is) would be the first to take it seriously. They would stand to lose enormously if the risk wasn't priced into their models, yet what do we find? Well, it turns out that governments manipulate the insurance market all the time! Case-in-point, the subsidization of flood insurance in flood prone areas! So the result is that government is making natural disasters worse by falsely-promising insurance (when in fact they are insolvent) by under-pricing it at the expense of taxpayers...which encourages more people to live in flood-prone areas! Particularly poor people, since these are the groups that the insurance subsidies purport to help. Anyway, absent any government mischief, I think insurance companies would be the audience to plead to for both environmentalists and skeptics alike. They provide a very valuable service of spreading risk for subscribers, so it stands to reason that if there's anyone with skin to lose by getting the debate's them. Moreover, if the CO2 problem is as dire as many claim, then the insurance companies would encourage less production by offering lower premiums to complying members. Beautiful, aint it? A voluntary system that deals with the issue without the use of a club! ---------- Post added 05-12-2014 at 09:49 AM ---------- Screw citizenship. It's forced upon people at birth, run by monopolistic organizations called "government", and runs roughshod over individual self-ownership. The Common Law of homesteading and trade is enough. No need to complicate it with bureaucrats and politicians.
  6. You're welcome. Well, in all fairness, I could be a pyromaniac (which I'm not) or Captain Planet's worst nemesis (which I'm not). But whether I obliterate a rain forest or preserve a little known species of ant in the South American jungle, the fact is that this case of "climate change" is one of property-rights. You could have 100% of the entire world's population of people agree that agropromorphic (oopsie spelling!) climate change is real and that 100% of the weather is man-made...but they still could not care because the benefits of burning fossil fuels outweigh the future costs. And get this! Both costs and benefits are subjective valuations anyway, so in the end, without any appreciation for private-property rights, this debate amounts to two sides arguing whose god is bigger than the other's. By the way, Arcanist, your memory is right about me. Plus, I have an indoor Lemon Balm garden (just sprouts). The next sprouts...Common Thyme!
  7. Egad! That's terrible, Imperator! I think the only history I have that comes remotely close to that tragic experience was how one of my coworkers that I mentioned tried to pitch the idea to me. The first red flag was how she forbade me from researching her business on the Internet. The second came from her calling me a coward and acting VERY defensive when I pointed out the flaws in the income model. This was a woman who I looked upon as a very good friend and previously respected me as an Econ know-it-all; now, a very distant associate. Very sad. :/
  8. But at least he has the right to ignore someone's argument based on fallacious thinking. Some people out there would go out of their way to punish you just for announcing it! That's exactly what is so toxic about the Climate Change debate; it's become a circus where people on both sides have turned it into a pissing contest. Personally, I think there's merit behind the argument that humans affect climate...but this is not an issue that should be dealt with with one-size-fits-all policies. If someone has a case of provable harm against someone for CO2 emissions, then they ought to settle it in civil court like any other pollution case. The problem, of course, is that everyone produces CO2 in it becomes very difficult to measure the negative impact. In many cases, there's a positive that throws a wrench against the dogma that CO2 is a pollutant. If you really think about it, CO2 production could be treated the same way as water production. Both water and CO2 are beneficial...but too much of either can kill you. That's basically the way I see it. Oh well. In the end, politicians are the ones being allowed to frame the issue, for their benefit and at our expense.
  9. When you can't win an argument, manipulate the record.
  10. You bring up a fair point. My main beef with MLMs is when the promoters outright lie to you or me about the payment structure and make it seem as if it is revolves around the product...when it actually revolves around recruiting. Otherwise, recruiting is a necessary part of any business that is wanting to expand. In fact, I would say that the term "multi-level marketing" scheme is superfluous because every business engages in mult-level marketing! You refer your friends to an employer for a job position, for example, or an employer may refer you to another business for a discount, etc. The only people who use such terms are the scam artists since it makes it appear to be a unique way to generate income when, in actuality, it's nothing new and quite pointless. By the way, I respect Avon ladies. That's a tough gig! But I wouldn't consider it an MLM in the context of this thread if they earn their living primarily through product sales. Unless I am mistaken, I would imagine that every Avon representative is hesitant to recruit knowing how tough it already is to find customers. I suppose it's best to ask if there's any Avon reps here in the forums who can elaborate?
  11. I concur; I recall that there was a feud between him and Herbalife before he decided to short it. It wasn't for moral reasons, that's for sure. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with shorting a company anyway. More so if he plans to redeem the stock directly from the company itself, to test its solvency to investors. That's healthy, so I welcome it.
  12. Thanks, Arthur, for pointing that out. Like I said, any scheme that rewards you more for recruiting than for selling the product is not a real business. You may as well start your own brand of MLM as the original recruiter instead of chancing it with an upfront cost. Edit: Dang! I just realized that I should had replaced "Ponzi" with "Pyramid' in the title of this thread. Sure, they're essentially the same, but there is a technical difference as far as payments go.
  13. Well, in Man, Economy, and State, he alluded to his thoughts about ethics, but kept the text completely value-free since it was just a treatise on economics. I'll have to find the exact quote sometime.

  14. The following is in reference to "multi-level marketing schemes". Here's a thought. If you're being rewarded more for recruiting sellers of goods and services (who will undercut your ability to profit as a fellow seller) compared to being rewarded for selling more goods by yourself... then this "business opportunity" is actually a pyramid scheme. And yet, despite this very clear observation...these scams are running rampant because of their legality and the gullibility of the public. It's sickening, and I'm so frustrated that these fraudsters get a free pass by pointing out that they sell goods on the side. True, and yet the vast majority of their "business" revolves around enrollment! Sorry for the rant, but this is quite serious to me. My town is infested with these kinds of "get rich quick" plans and the state of the economy isn't helping to deter people from looking beyond their greed. I know two former coworkers who are involved in an MLM, and just this week someone else tried to recruit me at my local area by email. A distant member of my family was also approached (fortunately, I gave her my opinion before she signed onto anything), and the vast majority of posted local jobs (complete with local phone numbers!) are such scams. When I talk to these marketers and bring up the fact that their income-generation is largely dependent on new recruits and cannot survive without constantly expanding, they call me an idiot and a coward. Truth be told, if they were honest in how they presented their "amazing opportunity", then it would be no different than making a bet at the casino. Except, you see, it's not easy to convince someone to give you money when the chances of profiting are abysmal and everyone can start their own ponzi-scheme. So they dress it up with manuals, websites, cable services, health drinks...anything to divert your attention away from the bulk of all revenue streams: the signature of your next "partner". Thoughts, anyone?