Authentic retail sales of Amway products is an absurd lie
The most recent comments posted by two of your resident little flock of intellectually-castrated 'Amway' apologists have proved one thing: mathematics is definitely not their strong suit. Unfortunately for Messrs. 'IBOFB' Steadson and 'Tex'Johnson, when you subtract 32% from 100% you get 68%. In their most recent comments, the pair of them simply went along with the erroneous 78% figure which I gave, despite the fact that this is a well-known mathematical trap.
Futhermore, Mr. Steadson's capacity to read plain unambiguous English, but then pretend to extrapolate a sense from it which does not, and cannot, exist (in that text) is fascinating. In his latest demonstration of this particularly-devious thought-stopping technique, the 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw pretends that I am suggesting that the victims of the 'Amway' swindle have been giving counterfeit money to the bosses of the 'Amway' mob. By what twisted linguistic path Steadson arrived at this deliberately fantastic destination, is virtually impossible to fathom.
Steadson remains unable to refute the simple fact that (for more than 50 years) virtually no member of the public anywhere in the world has voluntarily purchased products, and/or services, from any transient non-salaried commission agent of the 'Amway' organization, because they were maliciously fixed at a quality and price that rendered them (effectively) unsaleable on the open market. Thus, the only money circulating within the so-called 'Amway MLM' scheme could only have come internally via the contributing participants in that scheme, making it a mathematical certainty that the overwhelming majority of these contributing participants could never hope to receive an overall profit. In order for any system of economic exchange to be viable for its participants, it must have a significant and sustainable source of revenue external to the participants themselves. For more than half a century, the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob, and their apologists, have steadfastly pretended that their scheme was economically viable because the money which the scheme generated, derived mainly from authentic retail sales to members of the public. This has always been an absurd lie, but no doubt Mr. Steadson will again endeavour to extrapolate something completely different to what I have just clearly stated.