Shyam
I notice that young Trivedi is still inviting you to come and play with him in his controlled world of 'Amway' make-believe. The poor little lad insists that you ask him serious questions about the mind-numbing mathematical detail of 'Amway's' version of Bernie Madoff's absurd 'split strike conversion' fairy-tale.
Lord Haw Haw Steadson, has posed an ambiguous question:
What makes someone an agent of 'Amway' ?
We could of course answer: vulnerability, stupidity, ignorance, desperation, group pressure, greed, etc., but I presume your resident, masked character-assassin means: what defines an agent of 'Amway'?
Perhaps Steadson should simply consult one of the many contracts which he has signed with the 'Amway' mob.
For 50+ years, 'Amway' contracts have arbitrarily and falsely defined their dependent signatories as 'Distributors' and 'Independent Business Owners' (except in the UK where this particualr, reality-inverting jargon has recently been prohibited). In legalistic terms, any participant in a pyramid sales scheme, is a non-salaried commission agent of the scheme's sponsors. If (over a period of time) the pyramid sales scheme is proved to have insufficient external transactions (i.e. authentic retail sales to persons who are not the non-salaried commission agents of its sponsors), then it is an illegal money circulation scheme camouflaged by (effectively) unsaleable products, and/or services; for, no matter how the scheme's finite revenue is divided, it can never pay the overwhelming majority of its contributing participants an overall profit.
In a desperate attempt to escape from being held to account for running a global racket (comprising an illegal money circulation scheme and related advanced fee frauds), the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob (via their de facto agent, Lord Haw Haw Steadson) would now have the world believe that all the tens of millions of individuals who have been churned through their so-called 'Business Opportunity' down the years, were really 'authentic retail customers of Amway' rather than the dependent operators of non-salaried commission agencies maliciously designed never to produce an overall profit.
David Brear
I notice that young Trivedi is still inviting you to come and play with him in his controlled world of 'Amway' make-believe. The poor little lad insists that you ask him serious questions about the mind-numbing mathematical detail of 'Amway's' version of Bernie Madoff's absurd 'split strike conversion' fairy-tale.
Lord Haw Haw Steadson, has posed an ambiguous question:
What makes someone an agent of 'Amway' ?
We could of course answer: vulnerability, stupidity, ignorance, desperation, group pressure, greed, etc., but I presume your resident, masked character-assassin means: what defines an agent of 'Amway'?
Perhaps Steadson should simply consult one of the many contracts which he has signed with the 'Amway' mob.
For 50+ years, 'Amway' contracts have arbitrarily and falsely defined their dependent signatories as 'Distributors' and 'Independent Business Owners' (except in the UK where this particualr, reality-inverting jargon has recently been prohibited). In legalistic terms, any participant in a pyramid sales scheme, is a non-salaried commission agent of the scheme's sponsors. If (over a period of time) the pyramid sales scheme is proved to have insufficient external transactions (i.e. authentic retail sales to persons who are not the non-salaried commission agents of its sponsors), then it is an illegal money circulation scheme camouflaged by (effectively) unsaleable products, and/or services; for, no matter how the scheme's finite revenue is divided, it can never pay the overwhelming majority of its contributing participants an overall profit.
In a desperate attempt to escape from being held to account for running a global racket (comprising an illegal money circulation scheme and related advanced fee frauds), the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob (via their de facto agent, Lord Haw Haw Steadson) would now have the world believe that all the tens of millions of individuals who have been churned through their so-called 'Business Opportunity' down the years, were really 'authentic retail customers of Amway' rather than the dependent operators of non-salaried commission agencies maliciously designed never to produce an overall profit.
David Brear
2 comments:
So, in short you're saying *Amway* (through their contract) defines who an Amway agent is?
So if Amway simply changes their contract to say "preferred customer" if all you do is purchase products, then "poof", your "closed" scheme is no longer closed (not that it ever was) and has billions of sales to customers!
All from some minor changes in wording ....
You can't object to that can you David?
Yes, it is the contract that defines someone being an IBO. If the person didn't want to be an IBO, they could save $50/year in sign up/renewal costs, pay IBO product costs, and get free shipping for orders $75 or more. The first and last are not available to IBOs.
Post a Comment