Shyam
We now know that Bernie Madoff's so-called 'Hedge Fund' had absolutely no external source of revenue. Although he steadfastly pretended that he was making billions of dollars of legitimate profits on behalf of his investors, Madoff's company was merely the cover for an ingenious, but nonetheless pernicious, money circulation (or Ponzi) scheme in which victims had been peddled infinite shares of what could only be their own finite money. Prior to 2008, Madoff succeeded in maintaining an absolute monopoly of information about his absurd activities. Some of the world's most-respected financial publications published Madoff's fantastic fiction as fact, and he used these (apparently independent) reports to sustain his crimes. He followed the old advertizing maxim:
If you want to hide something, then make as big as you possibly can.
The fact that Madoff pretended affinity with financial regulators and was never rigorously investigated, also convinced many of his victims that he was legitmate.
With financially illiterate regulators and journalists, and naive fellows like Trivedi, in the world, it is no wonder that enormous criminogenic groups like 'Amway' and 'Scientology' exist to dupe them. Sadly, it's not just Trivedi who cannot understand the vital question which I advised him to ask his 'Amway' handlers?
Over the last several years, what percentage (by value) of 'Amway's' published 'Multi-Billion Dollar Sales' have actually been to persons who are not agents of the organization? (i.e. does the 'Amway' scheme have sufficient external revenue to pay the majority of its participants a profit, or is it just another Madoff-style scam hiding behind a wall of complex pseudo-economic drivel?)
In his favour, Trivedi has politely asked us to explain, but how is it possible that he still insists that 'Amway' should be compared to legitimate manufacturers - who wholesale their products to genuinely-independent businesses (which have a vast choice of other manufacturers) to retail them to the public (who have a vast choice of other retailers)?
In simple terms, the profits of all legitimate businesses derive from an external source and they have no reason to be evasive.
Tellingly, 'Amway's' non-salaried commission agents have been arbitrarily defined in their contracts as 'Independent Business Owners' (although this reality-inverting term has recently been forbidden in the UK). However, these same contracts prevent them (on pain of summary excommunication from the organization) from offering 'Amway' products on the open market (in traditional retail outlets) or from offering the products of other manufacturers.
In simple terms, 'Amway' agents are obliged by their contracts only to buy their stock from 'Amway' and to offer no other products.
In reality, so-called 'Amway Independent Business Owners' are completely dependent on 'Amway'. The organization retains absolute control over all the most important factors of any real business, price, quality, nature, etc. of the products being offered.
Each time 'Amway' has been investigated, it has been revealed that due to the banal quality and exorbitant prices, the so-called 'IBOs' are (effectively) the only people buying 'Amway' products, and that the so-called 'Amway Business Opportunity' is, thus, merely the cover for an ingenious, but nonetheless pernicious, money circulation (or Ponzi) scheme in which victims have been peddled infinite shares of what can only be their own finite money. However, for decades, the 'Amway' bosses have escaped criminal prosecution by pretending affinity with regulators - holding up their hands and promising to reform their activities. Prior to these reforms, according to Trivedi, for years, 'Amway' was allowed to publish misleading 'sales figures' that were deliberately exaggerated by more than 30%. In other words, the organization pretended that all its products were being retailed to the public. Trivedi now says that 'Amway's sales figures' only represent 'wholesale' transactions between itself and its own agents.
In plain English, 'Amway' figures are complex pseudo-economic drivel (in the style of Bernie Madoff), for they do not reveal if the 'Amway' scheme has sufficient external revenue to pay the majority of its participants a profit.
David Brear
We now know that Bernie Madoff's so-called 'Hedge Fund' had absolutely no external source of revenue. Although he steadfastly pretended that he was making billions of dollars of legitimate profits on behalf of his investors, Madoff's company was merely the cover for an ingenious, but nonetheless pernicious, money circulation (or Ponzi) scheme in which victims had been peddled infinite shares of what could only be their own finite money. Prior to 2008, Madoff succeeded in maintaining an absolute monopoly of information about his absurd activities. Some of the world's most-respected financial publications published Madoff's fantastic fiction as fact, and he used these (apparently independent) reports to sustain his crimes. He followed the old advertizing maxim:
If you want to hide something, then make as big as you possibly can.
The fact that Madoff pretended affinity with financial regulators and was never rigorously investigated, also convinced many of his victims that he was legitmate.
With financially illiterate regulators and journalists, and naive fellows like Trivedi, in the world, it is no wonder that enormous criminogenic groups like 'Amway' and 'Scientology' exist to dupe them. Sadly, it's not just Trivedi who cannot understand the vital question which I advised him to ask his 'Amway' handlers?
Over the last several years, what percentage (by value) of 'Amway's' published 'Multi-Billion Dollar Sales' have actually been to persons who are not agents of the organization? (i.e. does the 'Amway' scheme have sufficient external revenue to pay the majority of its participants a profit, or is it just another Madoff-style scam hiding behind a wall of complex pseudo-economic drivel?)
In his favour, Trivedi has politely asked us to explain, but how is it possible that he still insists that 'Amway' should be compared to legitimate manufacturers - who wholesale their products to genuinely-independent businesses (which have a vast choice of other manufacturers) to retail them to the public (who have a vast choice of other retailers)?
In simple terms, the profits of all legitimate businesses derive from an external source and they have no reason to be evasive.
Tellingly, 'Amway's' non-salaried commission agents have been arbitrarily defined in their contracts as 'Independent Business Owners' (although this reality-inverting term has recently been forbidden in the UK). However, these same contracts prevent them (on pain of summary excommunication from the organization) from offering 'Amway' products on the open market (in traditional retail outlets) or from offering the products of other manufacturers.
In simple terms, 'Amway' agents are obliged by their contracts only to buy their stock from 'Amway' and to offer no other products.
In reality, so-called 'Amway Independent Business Owners' are completely dependent on 'Amway'. The organization retains absolute control over all the most important factors of any real business, price, quality, nature, etc. of the products being offered.
Each time 'Amway' has been investigated, it has been revealed that due to the banal quality and exorbitant prices, the so-called 'IBOs' are (effectively) the only people buying 'Amway' products, and that the so-called 'Amway Business Opportunity' is, thus, merely the cover for an ingenious, but nonetheless pernicious, money circulation (or Ponzi) scheme in which victims have been peddled infinite shares of what can only be their own finite money. However, for decades, the 'Amway' bosses have escaped criminal prosecution by pretending affinity with regulators - holding up their hands and promising to reform their activities. Prior to these reforms, according to Trivedi, for years, 'Amway' was allowed to publish misleading 'sales figures' that were deliberately exaggerated by more than 30%. In other words, the organization pretended that all its products were being retailed to the public. Trivedi now says that 'Amway's sales figures' only represent 'wholesale' transactions between itself and its own agents.
In plain English, 'Amway' figures are complex pseudo-economic drivel (in the style of Bernie Madoff), for they do not reveal if the 'Amway' scheme has sufficient external revenue to pay the majority of its participants a profit.
David Brear
5 comments:
Shyam (and the veritable plethora of other readers Brear likes to refer to),
LOL Brear really needs to quit taking whatever drugs he's on. LOL
Clueless Tex returned with a bang. His reaction is on expected lines. He is suffering from halucination probably induced by drugs. That is why he presumes that everybody is under the influence of drugs. LoL.
Clueless Legan Scan returned with a bang. His reaction is on expected lines. He is suffering from hallucination probably induced by drugs. That is why he presumes that Tex is under the influence of misinformation. LOL.
"In simple terms, 'Amway' agents are obliged by their contracts only to buy their stock from 'Amway' and to offer no other products."
Tell me a single word where company has obliged to buy products from amway only. amway not even compels an ibo to do buy specific amount of products in a month.
many of our newly joined distributors were ex amway distributors who had purchased product for once in year and that to at the time of joining the business.
regarding your statement
"Over the last several years, what percentage (by value) of 'Amway's' published 'Multi-Billion Dollar Sales' have actually been to persons who are not agents of the organization? "
Can u tell which persons can be included in non-agents of the organisation?
I asking for the sake of my
understanding.
or it would be better what do u mean by external source of revenue.
Infact it would be great if u give e.g of a company which satisfies ur point.
Post a Comment