Dear Shyam
When you read the pathetic, ego-defensive comments of unquestioning 'Amway' believers such as 'Tex' (Scott Johnson) you begin to realize just how much of a waste of time and effort it is trying to explain to them exactly how they have been deceived. In a criminogenic cultic group like 'Amway,' core-adherents' minds have been programmed systematically to exclude all rational argument and to denigrate all free-thinking individuals challenging the authenticity of the group. You might as well be trying to explain to a group of 3 year old children that 'Santa Claus' does not exist and that television, magazines, their parents, etc. have all lied.
The UK government investigation confirmed quite conclusively that less than 4% of all 'Amway's' transactions were genuine retail sales. Therefore, since virtually all the money available in 'Amway UK' to be divided up as commission payments was coming from the commission agents themselves, it was a mathematical impossibility for the overwhelming majority of them to receive a profit. The simplest way to prove that a closed-market is an economic fallacy, would be to ask 'Tex' and 9 of his arrogant 'Amway' chums each to place $10 on a table, then ask them to divide up the resulting $100 so that each contributor receives more than he paid in. Obviously, it cannot be done. Anyone who claims the contrary is a liar, and anyone peddling commission agencies in a such a deliberately unviable system is a thief.
Kindest regards
David Brear
When you read the pathetic, ego-defensive comments of unquestioning 'Amway' believers such as 'Tex' (Scott Johnson) you begin to realize just how much of a waste of time and effort it is trying to explain to them exactly how they have been deceived. In a criminogenic cultic group like 'Amway,' core-adherents' minds have been programmed systematically to exclude all rational argument and to denigrate all free-thinking individuals challenging the authenticity of the group. You might as well be trying to explain to a group of 3 year old children that 'Santa Claus' does not exist and that television, magazines, their parents, etc. have all lied.
The UK government investigation confirmed quite conclusively that less than 4% of all 'Amway's' transactions were genuine retail sales. Therefore, since virtually all the money available in 'Amway UK' to be divided up as commission payments was coming from the commission agents themselves, it was a mathematical impossibility for the overwhelming majority of them to receive a profit. The simplest way to prove that a closed-market is an economic fallacy, would be to ask 'Tex' and 9 of his arrogant 'Amway' chums each to place $10 on a table, then ask them to divide up the resulting $100 so that each contributor receives more than he paid in. Obviously, it cannot be done. Anyone who claims the contrary is a liar, and anyone peddling commission agencies in a such a deliberately unviable system is a thief.
Kindest regards
David Brear
9 comments:
Brear, you're an idiot.
I have criticized Amway, you need to read my blog more often.
Brear, you're stupid.
You go on and on with your wordy posts, hardly saying anything.
Brear, you're a moron.
You are living in the past in the UK. Amway prices have been reduced, no tool profit is allowed, and retail sales are required prior to sponsoring anyone. Similar changes need to be made in other countries, but the UK is not one of them. In fact, there have been several dozen Amway price reductions in the U.S. in the past 4 months. I further have stated there could be some products having high PV/BV that could drive internal consumption, yet the other products are marketable, and there is still a problem.
Brear, you're a loser.
If the 10 people (me and 9 others I invited) went to Walmart, spent their $10 each for a PRODUCT, and Walmart rewarded the 9 of them with $1, and me with $5, because I told the other $9 about the good deal, what's the problem? You are leaving out the FACT the money isn't merely pushed around, it is EXCHANGED for products. I agree if the products are overpriced for their VALUE (price plus quality, which is both objective and subjective), then you have a problem, but this is why retailing is required. I also agree retailing has been discouraged by the LCK's and not enforced by Amway.
Brear, you're a liar.
Kindest regards,
Tex
The problem with tex's argument is that in the Walmart situation, he is talking about being a customer and receiving a rebate.
So in Amway, are you a customer or a business owner? There is a big difference.
jc,
It's an analogy. Do you know what means?
So use an analogy using business owners and not customers. That would make it much more clear.
Thanks for answering the question. Your answer was NO. The purpose of an analogy is to illustrate a concept, not provide an identical scenario. If it were identical, it would be the same scenario, not a different one. Dumbass.
The purpose of the analogy was to show how stupid Bream is (and by your response, and Shyam's posting Bream's BS, includes the 2 of you as well), as he talked about moving the money, but not the product. Whether the analogy applied to a business owner or customer is irrelevant, just like your idiotic and unfounded opinions.
The answer to your original question is business owner, although it merely proves you missed the point.
Buying something and receiving a rebate is very different from selling a product or service and earning a profit. The reason why you see this as a good analogy is because you think buying from yourself is a business activity.
For the purpose of illustrating Brear was talking about a Ponzi scheme, without products, and I was using an MLM model, WITH products, there is ZERO difference between my Walmart analogy and and MLM payout model, except for the exact percentages paid back. You could easily substitute me being the "Walmart business owner" and getting paid $5 for attracting 9 customers, who are unable to get more than the $1 rebate, and the same end result occurs. Too bad you're not quite brain dead enough to prevent you from typing!
Well then tex, a better analogy would be paying $10 for a $3 item and then getting back $1.
(Jay factor)
The so called "J-factor" isn't much different than any other manufacturer to retail markup, so what's your point?
And, why can't you stay focused on the original issue, and you have to space off onto another unrelated issue?
Post a Comment