Talk:Pyramid scheme/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Connection to Egypt

Removed the "citation needed" notice from :

"Though sharing a similar nomenclature the concept of the pyramid scheme does not have any direct association with the Great Pyramids of Egypt, nor did it in fact originate in Egypt."

since the only connection is obviously just the geometric relation between the object and the organization of victims in "pyramid" scams. It hardly needs a citation, particularly since it would be difficult to find a citation for a negative (a lack of connection between the two things).156.34.60.157 11:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. You'll need to actually source any claim made, especially one that is "in fact". -Eep² 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pyramid Scheme Illegality

"Although pyramid schemes have been declared illegal..." Where? USA Jurisprudence?

• illegal in Austria (clem 17:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I believe pyramid schemes are illegal under mail fraud statutes, and perhaps false advertising, but I don't think there is a specific law against them. Superm401 02:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are illegal in the UK now. Davidbod 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And Aus. its in the trade practices act. THE KING 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely a topic the article should address. I myself have witnessed friends participating in pyramid schemes (which of course, always offer some reason why they are not technically a pyramid scheme), but have been unsure what to do about it. Are they illegal? I'm guessing that in some form, they are, in other forms, they are not. We really need a legal expert on the matter JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes a pyramid schemes illegal varies. Sometimes it due to fraud statues, other it is lottery statues, and still other it is compensation statues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gratis

Should Gratis be used as one of very few concrete examples of pyramid schemes in the article? It seems like the fact that even if you participate in it, but don't succeed in getting the free item you haven't lost anything, or sent anyone money differentiates it from a straightforward pyramid scheme. --AliasXIII 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't think it's a very good example of a pyramid scheme. From my understanding, the idea of a pyramid scheme is that the base of the pyramid pays the return on the top's investment, requiring (as the article states) exponential growth, and crashing once new users run out. Like you stated, with Gratis there isn't (necessairly) any investment to lose, and the fact that users can sign up for multiple offers means that the growth required is drastically reduced. It might well be some kind of scheme, but by definition it's not a pyramid scheme. I've edited the Gratis page to say as much, (link: Gratis Internet), and will change this one as well in a few days, but if someone has a better example I'd rather the section be replaced rather than removed. Thanks, --Dashpercent 09:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gratis Internet is not a pyramid scheme. They do not recieve money from their members or their member's referals. Gratis Internet is an affiliate marketing company and earns it revenue from the fees advertisers (such as eBay and Netflix) pay to aquire new customers. On the surface the distinction is subtle, but look at the trends in affiliate marketing/ incentivized marketing and one will see that one business model (pyramid) is illegitimate and the other is not.

^Correct. The fact that signing up for Gratis does not cost anything, and also that after you sign up, you're not required or even pressured to complete an offer. It's all about effort, and the likelyness of completion does not matter when, or how you sign up.

Pyramid schemes without money

I have seen pyramid schemes where no money gain is advertised; as a kid, I participated in one, sending chocolate to others on the list; I think my father (he has a clothes shop) mentioned a pyramid letter thing where business friends would send underwear (unused, I hope). Variants might also include postcards or smthn like that. (clem 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Beware Pixstar and Worldwide Dreambuilders

These people act like they are interested in you, talking about financial independence, being your own boss, serving more people is the way to make more money, etc. Pixstar and Worldwide Dearmbuilders are pushing a pyramid scheme on you. They try to get you to sign up for online access to products and then motivate you to excite others to do the same through your reference. The more people sign up through YOU, the more you "upline" (i.e. guy who conned YOU into doing it) makes in terms of a bonus.

Come on. I dare you to meet the people that I work with. You don't have a big enough desire to make a difference in this world to make a statment like that. It is obvious that you know nothing about the details of what WWDB does and stands for. Just build the buisness and help someone change there life for the better and then come talk.

Its funny, i just ran into some guy who made me watch a dvd on Pixstar and Worldwide Dearmbuilders. its true, they do act like they are interested in you. watch out for this.

• I vote for removal of this entire section since it's so obviously POV on both parts. Orthografer 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor Change

I changed the term "IBO" to "participant" as the former acronym was not defined earlier in the article.--Chuckhoffmann 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the (broken) link to "Cutco Knife Company" to correctly point to Vector Marketing.--Britannicus 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"What to do" section

Should Wikipedia be giving advice? While I generally agree with the advice given, I don't know that it's the role of an encyclopedia to provide that sort of advice. Though a link to a gvt. web page where that sort of advice is given would be apropriate. Generic69 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, on all points. 68.14.76.141 09:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Market Saturation

Is the math in this section correct? I think if each member must recruit 2 more beneath them the percentage of losers is 87.5%. See http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/pyramids/progression.html.

You are probably correct. I wrote the section to emphasise that the bottom layer always loses money but in truth, the people in the layer above, and maybe the layer above that do too because of the way the money is divided. I suggest it would be worth changing the section to make it clearer if your link is a more accurate representation of how these schemes work. --MagicMoose 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally rewrote the section after a lot of thought and hopefully it makes a lot more sense. I initially misunderstood how the recruit 2 / 8-ball models worked and have adjusted the description and stats now that I do know how they work. --MagicMoose 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Paypal Pyramid Schemes

Recently a lot of paypal pyramid schemes are appearing on the Internet. It would be great if someone would discuss on that subject in this article, or maybe in a new article. Dooga 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

I've always been wondering one thing when I read mails advertising pyramid schemes. They tell me to mail a few dollars to some guy and put my name at the bottom of a list. What's stopping me from putting my name at the bottom of a list without mailing any money to anyone? In fact, what's stopping me from putting my name right at the top of a list? Who's going to know whom I have sent money to, or where I have posted the mail? All this makes pyramid schemes even more dangerous and false, because there is no guarantee a new recruit will ever be paid any money, no matter how many levels of recruits come after him. JIP | Talk 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing...except, of course, that you wouldn't want to put your name at the top of the list, since then you'd be knocked off the pyramid after one iteration.

But this page was still pretty helpful in explaining the problems. I just got a form letter that said I should purchase names and addresses from some random company. I have a feeling the creators of the letter don't care about the $1 at all, but rather the $150 for names and addresses...pretty slick.

Civic Duty and Due Dilligence

I have removed this section entirely, as it violates Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 8. Instruction and advice is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. In addition, the entire section pertained only to the United States. --Xyzzyplugh 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrix Scheme Link

I have noticed that someone added that Matrix schemes are mostly viewed to be legal, yet there is no evidence to this. I agree with the comparison, but do not agree with that statement. The OFT has identified them as being scams and at this point there are no statemtns which would lead someone to believe they are legal. Arzel 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is clearly no longer true in this regard. I have re-written the intro to make this clearer.Davidbod 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Names of famous schemes

Bit disappointed some schemes were not mentioned by name here - in particular Women Empowering Women which is so notorious it probably deserves its own article. Any others we should name? Davidbod 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made a mention of it in the 8-ball section and of "gifting". It could probably be described in more detail in its own section. I think it would also be worth going through some of the psychological techniques that these scams use to push people's buttons. For example, someone in a scheme near me started putting it about that a local celebrity was involved, thereby conveying some kind of legitimacy on it - "well if he's doing it, it must be legal etc.". The WEW scam no doubt went to great lengths to make women think their hubbies were yahoos who wouldn't understand the scheme and therefore best not mention it at all etc. Unfortunately there are so many links to WEW that I've yet to describe one with a first hand description of how it works but it's clear it's just an 8-ball --MagicMoose 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a contradiction?

From the last part of the article:

These businesses thrive on selling sample cases of their products to newly recruited salespersons, and will offer bonuses to members which recruit new salespersons....In addition, these legitimate businesses do not pay bonuses for the recruitment of salespeople.' Thanos6 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to MLM's

I don't see the purpose of this section. For one it does NOT offer a comparison to MLM's. It seems to be nothing more than a shill for a few MLM's. Since this article is not about MLM's I think this section should be removed, or if a comparison section left in, it should deal specifically with the differences between MLM's and Pyramid schemes. Arzel 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There might be reputable MLMs, but there are plenty of disreputable ones with a failure rate mathematically built-in. --MagicMoose 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, the section comparing popular MLMs to pyramid schemes is totally unsourced for something raising such a controversial claim, weasel words also abound ("may lead to" "Simular") and without sources for the assertions that they strongly urge referals over product sales must be sourced because they are boarderline attacks on the companies in question. In addition phrases like "they consider themselves..." speak to a strong POV issue. Would it be alright if I attempt a cleanup of the section? Wintermut3 07:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall once hearing of a "reputable MLM," save from those participating in the particular MLN (which, should we choose to listen to them, makes ALL of them "reputable"). It should also be noted that those individuals who have left a variety of "reputable" MLMs (Amway, Quixtar, and all of the lesser-known MLMs) have consistently cited the push on referrals and the sale of referral-materials (tapes, books, etc.) as the primary reasons for their departure from said MLMs. However, the members of MLMs will never accept such sources as reliable. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Partnerships with UNICEF, UN Awards, Chamber of Commerce awards etc etc don't make something "reputable"? Perhaps not in some eyes, but nevertheless they are. Your evidence is quite obviously a highly self-selecting group, and an extremely, extremely small one given the number of people who have been involved. Problems with excessive "Push on referrals" and sales of related materials fo occur but are (a) not a problem unique to MLM and (b) have nothing to do with this article and Pyramid Schemes. The primary issue with Pyramid Schemes and MLM is that a large number (perhaps even the majority!) of companies that call themselves MLM are actually Pyramid Schemes trying to disguise themselves as legitimate MLMs. This has, not surprisingly, lead many people to the non sequitur that MLM=Pyramid Scheme, thus MLMs do I think need to be addressed in the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Multi-level marketing companies (MLMs) have become an accepted and legally sanctioned form of pyramid scheme in the United States."Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. p. 168. ISBN 0470387963.. Wiley is one of the most respected publishers around and this is the latest comment on the subject.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro mention of MLM

There's a sentence in the intro that seems too strong to me. It's

There are other commercial models using cross-selling such as multi-level marketing (MLM) or party planning which are perfectly legal and sustainable.

I think that's a little strong, and the sentence seems a little weird in its context. I'd be inclined to change it to

There are other commercial models using cross-selling such as multi-level marketing or party planning which can be perfectly legal and are claimed to be sustainable.

and also to move it a little lower. I also might remove the mention of cross-selling and go with a different intro that better matches the related paragraph in the text. Would people mind? William Pietri 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. MLM should be mentioned as a means of business whose model of income relies in part on recruiting new members (i.e. creating a downline), but claiming it is sustainable or legal depends on the MLM. Lots of pyramid / matrix schemes attempt to look like MLMs by selling some product, but they are still pyramid schemes. The legality would MLM would be defined by the income derived from the product and who its sold to outside members of the MLM. There should be a brief description of an MLM with comparison to pyramid schemes including wording to the effect described above, but actual instances of MLMs can be described in their own article. --MagicMoose 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Most business professors will tell you that Network marketing is without a doubt the best format with which to conduct business. It is one of the few business formats that you can pay your employees for their efforts and not a penny more. If more business were structured this way company's would not be wasting good money for bad unproductive employees who milk the clock. It does not make sense to pay an employee for doing less then adequate work the same amount as the guy next to him who is doing quality work. I personally believe that if more company's in America paid there employees peace work or commission rather than hourly or salary company's would finally get what the pay for in a employee. This would improve the ratio between dollars spent and actual production. Note I have been in a number of network marketing company's with minimal financial success but I am mature enough to realize that it is no ones fault but my own. Also note that I am sure that fraudulent network marketing schemes exist as well. In closing I will say that if you are going to bad mouth a company that is one thing, but to stereotype a whole business structure is another. I have personally worked for ACN, FFI, Mona Vie, and I am currently working to build my fortune with Biz Calling Cards. If have worked for any of these company's and are unhappy with your ROI Return on Investment I highly urge you to take a look in the mirror...you might find the problem. Then you may be able to fix it. Love to hear your thoughts on my contribution to this matter. imherejustincase@msn.com Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.140.195 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What "experts" are these? I found two books both published by Wiley that say MLMs are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes and I provided reliable source after reliable source in the MLM article that shows their claims money making opportunities are smoke and mirrors. Peer reviewed journals and papers as well as respected magazines point to MLMs being unsustainable and at best very questionable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also there is a book by Cengage Learning Business Press that say that MLM is a poor method due to motivational issues and very expensive compared to other methods. Again what professors claim MLM are a good idea?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ANd here's Bruce again on his little anti-MLM crusade. Do you just instantly discard any source that's pro-MLM? You'll find obscure references in works not at all related to MLM, yet ignore entire books on the topic by academics, such as Professor Dominique Xardell's The Direct Selling Revolution and Professor Charles King's The New Professionals.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Extra links

I am removing an external link at the bottom of the page that is labeled "Pyramid scheme - Monavie" and links to a company called Monavie. There is nothing in the text of this article to warrant this random link. If the article wants to discuss Monavie and how it relates to pyramid scheme, then go ahead. But for now, I'm going to remove it.

Thanks! Bsheppard 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From googling around Monavie appears to be some dubious health drink with claimed medicinal properties being promoted via MLM style tactics. So not a pyramid scheme but definitely a MLM and possibly a dubious one. The fact that it makes medical claims complete with nonsense about extracts of plants from the Amazon should set alarm bells off. If it did what it claimed it would be a drug and require FDA approval, if it doesn't then the person selling it is peddling snake oil and on very thin ice indeed.

--MagicMoose 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Every thing written in the above quote is pure conjecture gathered from a googling experience. "The fact that it makes medical claims complete with nonsense about extracts of plants from the Amazon should set alarm bells off. If it did what it claimed it would be a drug and require FDA approval" This statement assumes that the proprietors of this "nonsense" submit to the FDA as the final word on what is healthy and worth marketing, and that anything with medicinal properties is a drug and should be regulated as such. I recommend that simply "googling around" should not be the sole determining factor to determine if something is dubious or not. did the author of this post do enough googling to determine factually that what is writen about this product is "nonsense" or does this poster have the opinion about any and all "extracts" from the Amazon to conclude that any medicinal value claimed from this region is "nonsense". I have "googled this product as well and anyone else who does so will see that the proprietors of Monavie do not mention any kind of "extract". which leads me to believe that the above poster did not google enough about the product or company of Monavie to construct an informed enough opinion to suggest to anyone whether or not Monavie is dubious. Anyone who has read enough reports in medical science and on the Amazon knows that the Amazon region is an as yet unlimited source of known and undiscovered plants and "extracts" containing food and chemicals of medicinal value. Acai berry which is the paramount ingredient in Monavie's marketing is well known as such and therefore any reference to the acai berry as medicinal or nutritious cannot justifiably be considered "nonsensical" without further study or reference.24.1.103.99 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed bad link to FTC

I removed the link to the FTC's section on Pyramid Schemes because it no longer worked. When I have a few minutes, I'll try and find the correct link, unless someone else finds it first.

Bsheppard 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Randomizers

I used to be involved in the GPT (Get Paid To) arena and I used to see randomizers advertised all the time. They are a pyramid scheme slightly upgraded to include indirect referrals. Here's how they work:

Alice signs up for "Dollar Randomizer" by creating an account and paying x amount to a member along with an administrative fee. She is given a referral page that she then promotes to bring in new members who will pay her x amount when they join. On top of this, any random or anonymous visitors to the page are presented with a random referral page, which could be Alice's or someone else's. Alice can increase her chances of it being her page being shown to random people by 1. upgrading her account or 2. bringing in a lot of new members.

Sometimes these programs offer other perks of being a member, such as advertising or stuff for download and/or resale. I actually joined one because they had a lot of e-books and software packages available for free with resale rights (thought there might be something there I could sell and make money from). My guess is the resale stuff is a flawed attempt to make it look like an MLM.

-- Arcturis 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People removing links to MLMs or pyramid schemes

I noticed that somebody removed a link to - Alston Price. Upon review of this site it is obviously a pyramid scheme. I would ask people to vigilant to people removing links without good reason. If there is debate about site then take it up in discussion. On a side note I found a site which is a veritable rat's nest of Pyramids, Ponzis and other dubious get rich quick schemes, might be worth a look for other examples - [1]. There is some breathtaking gullibility in that forum. --MagicMoose 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

People remove links to "obvious pyramid schemes" because you are doing original research. Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reduce overlinking

I'll happily admit to being a newbie, but I think some sections of this article exhibit link clutter and could stand being removed - notably the links to Dinner, Captain and others in the "8-ball" model section. Admittedly a minor nit, so I'm asking for clarification here. 213.162.65.17 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. Be bold and fix it. William Pietri 07:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it. I left in gemology but the rest are history. --MagicMoose 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Coporate Companies

Are not all corporate companies gloified pyramid schemes? True many MLM companies turn out to be scams or they cave after a short period of time because their products are not in high demand, but the fundmental principles of a pyramid scheme are inherent in any corporate company. There will always be CEOs and stock holders who employ store owners (who have to pay a fee to own a piece of the franchise, I might add), who hire managers, who hire employees. In every store you see managers and they hire department managers and they hire employees. That's the way it is in small businesses as well. I worked for a small bread company a while back and because my boss owned a franchise license part of his earnings went to the Corporate Offices. Now, working at his company, I could never have his position. I could never exceed his level or pay, no matter how hard I worked. I would never own his business. It's the same with all corporate companies. I can never become a manager unless the person above me gives up there position entirely or dies. Even then, my promotion would be politcal, so there is a chance I wouldn't get the position anyway (and most MLM/direct marketing programs promote you by your numbers, not whether they like you or not). So I don't understand all of the negative hype that surrounds the pyramid scheme when the majority of the world's workers belong to one. It's not the concept of a MLM company or the concept of direct marketing that is to blame for bad experiences, because in my opinion, they are both very good ideas. Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki agree. They said so.. look it up. It's the money horders who abuse a good idea or those you join with a "get rich" attitude who are to blame. But, even then, you should research the credibility of a company and the people who elong to it before you join on the basis of someone's word. Besides, not all MLM/Direct Marketing Companies are built the same. There are some pyramid schemes that are inverted and if you do more work than the person who got you into it you can overcome their position. Trust me, I belong to one. Easiersaid3

REPLY

No, these Corporations PRODUCE ACTUAL PRODUCTS, such as Hamburgers, Widgets, or Lumber. Pyramid Scams produce nothing only sell 'getting rich'

dude, there are many so called legitimate corporations that sell "nothing" ie information,insurance,cyberspace,radio frequencies other non-material services.24.1.103.99 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but they are actual products that peopel can use and most of these corporsations are sustainabele unlike pyramid schemes which usually collapse after a few years 89.242.157.60 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that many pyramid schemes try to confuse people with comparison with corporate structure along with "good" or "services". The reality is unlike corporations pyramid schemes are dependent on an ever expanding number of "members" to keep the whole thing going. Some people have gone as far as saying that MLMs are nothing more than legal pyramid schemes as the very nature of the system itself encourages endless recruiting well beyond market saturation point just like you see with a pyramid scheme. (Carroll 2003) (Coenen 2009)--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Claimed Examples

I've removed a few claims of examples: "Another example is a product (such as a dial-up modem purportedly using higher speed and/or using Voice over IP) sold at higher than ordinary retail price for the same or similar products elsewhere." 1) Not a pyramid scheme, just an over-priced product. 2) Original research.

"One example of this type of scheme is XanGo, whose participants purchase bottles of juice at inflated prices on a recurring purchase plan." 1) Not necessarily a pyramid scheme, just a probably over-priced product with dubious health claims. 2) Original research.

Heck, even if you find an actual pyramid scheme (and there are plenty of them out there), you cannot just add them to the article. You need a reliable source that calls it -- specifically -- a pyramid scheme. This article, and its talk page, are not the place for you to warn people about what you believe is a scam or talk about a business that burned you. Mdbrownmsw 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SOAP. Dreadstar † 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange POV

This might be a weird point to bring up, but is this article slanted against the subject? I know they're not the most positive business strategies, but more contentious subjects have far more neutral articles. Think of the pyramid scammers. They have feelings too. ALTON .ıl 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The article gets the point across that these "schemes" are frowned upon, but it does so in a way that doesn't feel neutral. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or political platform. We should address the facts only. If, as may be the case, "pyramid scheme" has a special and unique meaning in business academics and is by definition "negative" in some way, then we need to make that clear in the article. For example, the intro could be re-written to say, " 'pyramid scheme' is an academic term used to describe a non-sustainable business model," or something like that. Hope that makes sense. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The legal (and moral) status of Pyramid Schemes/MLM, by nature, makes them a negative. Do we argue that articles such as Murder, Rape, or Theft paint these subjects in a negative light? The positives can be debated, but we need no more maintain NPOV here than we do in the Holocaust article. Facts are facts. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

not enough description of pyramid scheme crash!

I have issue with the section "identifying features" section This section is extremely POV. for example:

"A highly excited sales pitch (sometimes including props and/or promos)." uhh, this is not a characteristic limited or in any way exclusively indicative of any scheme or scam.

also: "Assurances that it is perfectly legal to participate" again this is not a feature specific to pyramid schemes or scams.

IN fact this article is rife with POV. the entire section "Market saturation

Over 90% of the people who get involved in pyramid schemes never recoup their initial investment.

The people on the bottom level of the pyramid, no matter how shallow or deep it goes, will always lose their money. It is easy to see that the number in the bottom level of the pyramid always exceeds the total of all those in the levels above no matter how many levels there are. If each level must recruit six more below them, the ratio of losers to winners is close to 5 to 1 - ~84% of all investors will lose their money. The pyramid in reality would not be perfectly balanced and some members might be able to partially fill their number of recruits, but the same principles apply."

where are the citations? Is it really so easy to "see" how this illustrates that over %90 of the people involved never profit? The structure of the model does not indicate the potential of anyone within the model failing or succeeding at the pyramid scheme.

What is the cause of the pyramid schemes "collapse", I did not find it this description. Is it government,consumer, or competitor hostility? Do they "run out" of customers, or product materials? (is that possible?) Is there a time constraint? is it a varied circumstance based upon the particular scheme?

I also have a few suggestions for this article. please define the term pyramid scheme! the description used in this article could he used to define any networked financial enterprise whatsoever. This article could be used to describe an internet access network, such as AOL or Excel(circa 2000) with referral bonuses! I think in this article there should there be a distinction or correlation drawn between pyramid schemes and pyramid scams since it seems to me that scheme describes a business model and scam describes the effect upon those who are conned. Therefore is it true that all pyramid schemes are scams as well? There are just too many generalizations here. The comparison with MLM business models is not thorough and I think it should be supported by defining a contrast with other business models eg corporate,contractor or LLC models this would further develope the distinction and make it clear. Also I think discussion of legality of these business models must be accompanied by definition and reference as to which legal bodies define them as legal or illegal , how and why. for example if the USA is referenced, then the agency that prosecuted or ruled them as such should be referenced as well as what business model is favored and why.

I think this article may be a good start at defining this phenomenon but perhaps it is far from complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.103.99 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

About pyramid crash I have seen it claimed that the reason the pyramid crash is due to the mathematical impossibility of the system sustaining itself. Obviously this is a vague conceptual answer. I have yet to find an "expert" example of how it crashes..the explanation above put in layman terms by the person I inquired about this(I don't believe the person was an expert so I won't reference him.) explained that its because there is not enough global population to sustain the economic model of the pyramid schemes. I find that argument completely unsatisfactory since it could be used to describe ANY economic model particularly the "inflatable paper money system". I don't see this as the reasonable explanation of its legality or a valid explanation of how subscribers to pyramid schemes are somehow doomed to fail. There is no system that is designed in which EVERYONE participates can be guaranteed to be successful. I hypothesize that there is no such system designed in such a way that any and everyone who is willing able to participate(lets say if the entire global population for example will be able to profit. ANY economic system in which the entire global population were participating in an attempt to profit would NATURALLY fail at least in theory because everyone will be "selling" and there would be no one "buying". That would be true of stocks, bonds, franchises ANYTHING. IF everyone owned shares of Wal Mart for example wouldn't the value of its stock be reduced to much LESS than zero!?! I think we need probably a few good neutral minded experts for this highly controversial and theoretical topic. A good start would probably be a study of how it came to be classified as illegal in mast developed countries. Was it recommended by economists to make it illegal? who were they were they neutral in their motives? 71.239.189.97 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Amway

in a recent Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, it was mentioned how Amway is a pyramid scheme, yet the FTC has not brought it down due to govt ties. Can someone add this to the article? Not sure how confident I am in doing it myself. 64.6.6.13 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Skeptics Guide podcast was quoting a guy, Robert FitzPatrick who is a self-proclaimed expert in the field and whose only supporters are anti-mlm zealots. He believes essentially all MLMs are pyramids, and backs his belief with false claims. A california court recently refused to allow him as an expert witness. The claim of "government ties" is prime facie absurd. Amway is operating in more than 50 countries and next year celebrates it's 50th anniversary. Those governments around the world have been of all variety of political hues. For FitzPatrick's claim to be correct there is a conspiracy to outdo the illuminati going on. It's ridiculous. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 FitzPatrick is cited in reliable sources (listed below) and therefore is himself a reliable source:

• Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.
• Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic
• Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.
• Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" American Board of Sport Psychology
• Walter J. Carl, Phd "Organizational Legitimacy As Discursive Accomplishment in Multilevel Marketing Discourse" paper at the Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference Nov 21-24, 2002
• Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds"

Furthermore two different authors using Wiley (who Insider201283 said was reliable on its merits alone) have flat out stated that MLMs in general are pyramid schemes even if they do sale a legitimate product or service.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a report on Amway a couple years back for a class, and it is definitely not a pyramid. There's goods and services being sold outside the structure, and nobody (supposedly) makes money on registering others, just on volume moved. I just about died when I saw the 50 or so volumes on Amway from the FTC's case in the 1970s, thankfully the summary was rather short and sweet, blasting the way grocery stores and manufacturers shut out the new guys and praising Amway as innovative and a model business for others to follow. There WERE concerns with price-fixing and with distributors making unsupportable claims, and from my interview with one successful distributor they show a standard plan that was last approved by the FTC about ten years ago. In addition two generations of owners of the parent company were elected president of the US Chamber of Commerce by their peers, which can be seen on the CoC website. I believe the UN gave them an award for green manufacturing. And the only problem I've heard from my business professors about Amway is that they rely too much on the idea of value rather than price point, which is a built-in limiter on market penetration, since many consumers today won't pay more regardless of how much better one's goods are. However, their compensation blows away what Radio Shack paid me before I went back to school.76.252.44.115 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Amway is a pyramid as stated as early as 1985 in Stephen Butterfield's Amway, the cult of free enterprise‎ South End Press on page 13 and reiterated in later books with similarly reliable publishers (such as Wiley); Butterfield's exact words are "The marketing system of Amway, disclaimers notwithstanding, is a legal form of pyramid sales." Ronald D. Michman in his 1988 Retailing triumphs and blunders stated on page 242 "Amway would seem to operate a legal pyramid scheme. Amway sells their distributors a dream." and as recent as 2006 Chryssides in The A to Z of new religious movementsstated on page 30 "Amway uses a form of pyramid selling, albeit one that has been ruled legal in US courts." Just because Amway is legal doesn't mean it is not a pyramid scheme and there are reliable sources that say MLMs in general are legalized pyramid schemes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Funnel System

I think the new Reverse Funnel System pyramid scheme needs its very own wiki page. The reason being, if you look it up, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find impartial information on it. It has expanded to truly insanely massive levels. Youtube and Google are utterly saturated with information that is in the scheme's favour. It's practically impossible to find anything impartial about it. It deserves its own wiki page simple because of the scale of the phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.245.5 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult to include it if there's no impartial information. Do you have a link at least to a description? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on that. There must be some impartial information somewhere about this, it's just so difficult to find, because people being sucked into the scheme have saturated search results, youtube, the lot. Matt 87.194.245.5 (talk)

There's plenty of material to be found by Googling "Reverse Funnel" pyramid scam. For example, this article. 07:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that, if you are looking for cash gifting and programs, you are redirected to the pyramid scheme, there's no information about 1ups and reversed 1ups and half ups. An encyclopedia should explain those systems, and not just ignore it, there's after all a page on cancer too, even if cancer is bad. Welcome to Nehtefa's talking page. (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Experts Needed

There are several issues addressed in the discussion that could benefit from experts. Some of these issues are:

1. The legality issue. (We need a lawyer)

2. The "bound to collapse" issue. (We need a business academic)

3. The "connection to Egypt" issue discussed up top. We need an archaeologist (just kidding!)

The overwhelming tone of the article is that pyramid schemes are "non-sustainable" (which is technically true, using business jargon) and "bound to collapse." This may be fact, but the point is not supported or explained at all. For all practical purposes, a "non-sustainable" business may be sustained throughout the founders' entire lifetimes. In other words, the exponential nature of these schemes may not be as "non-sustainable" as the jargon suggests. In order to become a "good" article, it needs to be self-contained enough that readers do not have to research "sustainability" in order to have a neutral POV. We need experts, so I'm tagging the top of the page. Please help if you can. (Also, and completely unrelated, the "8-Ball" section smells strongly of original research). Happy editing. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

This is a continuation of the "POV" discussion hidden above. The more time I spend with this article, the more it seems to have serious neutrality issues. I don't think this was done on purpose, rather it is the product of certain attitudes and language use. "Scheme" itself can be interpreted as a weasel word. Many of these issues can be addressed by simply operationally defining "pyramid scheme" as an academic term. Thus, this article in a sense has been changed to "pyramid scheme" as an academic term, not a reflection of the reality of these "schemes." If for some reason we find it necessary to cover these "schemes" from an alternative perspective, I think we'll need to have two separate articles. Discussion is encouraged. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UT

Second that. I also feel that the person(s) that wrote the Charles Ponzi article and the Ponzi scheme article wrote this article as well - the POV issues continue in those also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.10.3 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

does this really happen?

how could anybody be so dumb so as to fall into such a trap?? you're selling and buying not products but recruits! it's obvious that it has no point, and so is not a good idea to invest in it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.171.114 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Think about it rationally. If no one fell for the scam, do you really think people would be wasting their time sending it out? Obviously they're only risking breaking the law because it's profitable. If no one fell for it, I guarantee it would not exist. Period. 128.227.27.130 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does seem to attract some people, often the same ones, over and over. My BIL has been sucked into several mlms by his friend who has been sucked into them first. At one point it seemed to be a new one every two or three months. It does seem to target a certain personality. No-one has discussed the similarity to religious fervour per se but that's what it can be akin to.PeterSmithee (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect Peter, read the article. Legitimate MLMs are not pyramid schemes. Many pyramid schemes call themselves MLM for the very reason that MLMs are legitimate businesses, trying to hide their true nature. That said, I've no idea if your BIL is joining legitimate MLMs or scams calling themselves MLMs. If the latter, then they're not MLMs. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Insider201283, but at least two reliable sources both published by Wiley state that while legal MLMs are pyramid schemes regardless of how they are run. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT)

In the See Also section there is a link for LGAT, but in the LGAT article there is nothing mentioned about pyramid schemes. What is the connection between those two articles? Retinoli (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)retinoli

Scientology

I would propose that in its structure the Church of Scientology is much akin to a pyramid scheme. It requires its members to pay large sums of money to progress through the ranks, at which point they may theoretically be paid in turn by newcomers to the institution. Accordingly, I propose that the Church of Scientology be added to the "see also" links. 128.227.127.149 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but sounds like OR. Any discussion of this in reliable sources? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of this in every non-CoS Scientology source. But, according to the Scientologists, any resource that is not the CoS is immediately "non-reliable." Given that the CoS has taken to policing the internet for anything that is not pro-Scientology, it would be difficult to include a section on Scientology here without ensuring that the article is locked at the same time. Unfortunately, this makes including references to Scientology ANYWHERE on Wikipedia a non-trivial matter. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Colombia

The controversial case of pyramid case in Colombia should be sourced. Please do not include unverified statements. Please read What Wikipedia is not for guidelines. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is difficult to figure out what the author is trying to say here. It would be nice if someone cleaned up the ambiguity. The YouTube source is in Spanish, which I don't speak. Mantipula (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal statements should not be included in wikipedia, this affects the neutrality. Andressoler (talk) 09:55, 17 Nivember 2008( GMT-5)

the last paragraph says that "The lack of regulation by the Colombian government has allowed certain unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of naive investors" the article cited in reference number 13 talks about the pyramid schemes in different colombian towns, but does not adress the position of the government in detail. I think it should be removed. Gcancelado (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet section

The internet section seems to be a misfit right at the top. Surely the first section is for readers to understand what the subject is.

Amspock (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please correct the image!

In the third image it says that the red section represents 88.1% of the people. This is false, it represents 88.2%, as is plainly obvious since the blue section represents 11.8% and together they make 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.143.240 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Questnet

Questnet does not fall into the definition of a pyramid scheme and should be removed from the article. It is a legitimate multi-level marketing company that sells “real” products, e.g. vacation club memberships, and is licensed by the local governments in the 160 countries which it has presence in. The company has 3 million members worldwide and just recently celebrated it’s 10th anniversary.

Vistaultimate (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering there are reliable sources that call all MLMs regardless of their legality pyramid schemes that alone is not enough to remove something. Now Wikipedia:Coatrack would be good grounds for removal for much of what is in the article. The purpose of this article is to provide a general description pyramid schemes not to provide an ever growing list of examples (some of which may have OR issues).

That said Thaindian News back in May 6th, 2008 reported actions against the company and allafrica.com cited the New Times July 29, 2009 by stating "The National Bank of Rwanda's (BNR) investigations into the business practices of Questnet have revealed that the company is operating a money swindling pyramid scheme and could be involved in money laundering".--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to Vector Marketing

Can someone explain why there is a link to Vector Marketing? I would like some feedback before I remove it. Vector Marketing is not a pyramid scheme. They do encourage recruiting and compensation for some is based on numbers recruited but their operating business cash flow does not rely on an increasing number of salespeople, like a pyramid scheme. It relys on profit from selling Cutco, which is then distributed top-down to the salespeople. This is multi-level marketing and there is already a link to multi-level marketing and in multi-level marketing there is a link to Vector Marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.77.203 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there MUST be a solid defined distinction drawn between programs legally identified as pyramid schemes,ponzi schemes,etc and legally operating programs that are known as MLMs. If all pyramid schemes are OR are not exercises in multi-level marketing, that should be noted but it is obvious at least in legal terms that not all MLMs can be identified as pyramid schemes. I accept that some MLM programs might desire to be referenced because of the "popular" but apparently POV conception that they are indeed pyramid schemes but that would be a cultural fact not a definitive fact and so if at all it should be referenced in a pop,cultural or anecdotal section. Also I believe I have come across a program that I myself would consider a legalized pyramid scheme(I do not cite it here because I am no expert and would not want to defame or characterize it as such publicly.) Yet, If it turns out to be legal and still economically definable as a pyramid scheme would it then still be classifiable on wikipedia/or wictionary as a pyramid scheme? I think this raises one question that must be answered for the sake of wikipedia, ARE Pyramid schemes to be defined based solely as a systemic, finance structural,and or economic phenomenon that can be identified by economy experts and mathematicians? Will the programs' legal statuses be a major part of the definition of what is a pyramid scheme(eg if the U.S. supreme court rules it to be a pyramid scheme does that definitively make it true to be a pyramid scheme academically?) Also will the theorized impact of the model upon the general economy of their operating centers be included in the definition as well(It does seem to some at least of those who discuss it, to be an important aspect of the overall definition of the phenomenon.) How important are backgrounds of the people who design them to be considered in the definition(again some people seem to think this matters.) I guess the big question in my mind comes to this. IS "Pyramid Scheme" a legal term, an economic industry term, a layman term used to describe something systemic,a mathematical/statistical term, or a business/financial/investing plan or model like a limited liability companies,franchises,stock options,investment clubs etc. I hypothesize that IF it is to be some definition that encompasses all of these subjects then the term will be limited and quite specific. In other words the more definition terms applied to this subject then probably the less existing or previously existing examples we will be able to cite in its definitive articles.71.239.189.97 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid Schemes & Cash Gifting

I'm currently working on a legal / business definition of a pyramid scheme, for the sake of improving this article. So far, there appears to be three main factors...

- no real product - the cash goes up the chain - only those at or close to the top get rich, and the majority lose out.

Currently, a search on "cash gifting" is redirected to this pyramid scheme article, and I think this is erroneous because cash gifting set-ups (at least the better ones) satisfies only one of the above three criteria for a pyramid scheme.

There is no real product in cash gifting, just like a pyramid scheme. However, there is no huge amount of cash that goes up the chain, and it is thereby impossible for only the top few to get rich; indeed, there is no real 'top' at all!

The better cash gifting schemes that I've researched (from an academic viewpoint) work like this...

John sends an invitation to join to Sara. Sara can choose the amount she comes in at - that amount affects how much she can receive in the future. She chooses the $1,500 level. Sara sends $1,250 to John as a gift, with no strings or expectations attached. And she sends the other $250 to Pete, who invited John originally. Sara sends no more payments, and she gets the bulk of any gift sent by someone she invites. Pete gets a small percentage of the total gift made my anyone John invites. And John gets a small percentage of the total gift made by anyone Sara invites.

In other words, the payments made are generally one-off, and the levels up the payments go are limited to 2. In the above transaction, the person who brought in Pete gets nothing, and nor do any of the people "above" him. The only payment made to the 'top' or the 'centre' is a annual admin fee, which should be fairly modest ($50-100).

This may seem a small distinction, but I believe it to be an important one. We may or may not like the idea of people sending cash gifts to other people within a structure, in the hope of getting more back than they put in, but it is a legitimate activity, OK'd by the US courts, and therefore deserves an article of it's own. Any takers??

Yes, there is some wishful thinking in assuming that "Sara" will get her money back Here is how it probably really goes:

John sends an invitation to Sara, she gets greedy and thinks the entire thing makes perfect sense, she sends her $1500 (!) dollars to the leeches who "invited" her into the scheme, Sara never hears from "John" again. There is nothing that guarantees her money back whatsoever; no written agreements to show up in court, no knoledge on who "John" is since the internet is anonymous and worst of all she probably won't go to the authorities since she probably "invited" every single relative and friend she has into the scheme.

Cash gifting is by no means a "legal activity", you are either decieving yourself or just don't know much about it (or you are just a another cash gifting crook). It is legal to gift cash away if it's in a small amount, yet it is ilegal to gift it expecting a return. Cash gifting is also not a legal investment as con artists usually say, as the entire thing is based on false assumptions.--99.192.53.131 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Connection to MLMs is relevant

The connection of Pyramid scheme to Multi-level marketing needs to be explored a little more than just having it in the intro.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I think you need to review WP:FRINGE. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, you are straw grasping again. Pointing out that "Pyramid Selling" is used for MLMs in general and as a way to distinguish pyramid schemes from "genuine" MLMs is not fringe. If anything the idea that MLM is a sustainable business model where anyone and everyone can make money doing if they put in enough work is fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrast Network Marketing for Dummies by Zig Ziglar from 2001 (which you threw out as possible source) to Home-Based Business for Dummies by Paul Edwards, Sarah Edwards, Peter Economy from 2009. In fact, several points I raised that you claimed had no basis appeared in the second book. The endless recruiting aspect appears on page 42 and it states on Page 251 that 90 percent of people in direct selling only do it part time as only 2 percent do well enough to do it full time. Also it states that the "typical" Quixtar/Amway distributor in 2006 made only $115 a month.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I think it's perfectly OK to throw out "home-based business for dummies" as a possible source too. A quick look shows it requires caution, with it claiming Mytinger & Cassellbery formed California Vitamins in 1945. California Vitamins, Inc was formed by Carl Rehnborg in 1934, something Network Marketing for Dummies has correct. Page 46 also claims "gross income" doesn't include cost of goods sold, which it does. Page 42 [2] doesn't mention "endless recruiting" in the version I looked at. Indeed a search for "endless" doesn't show it used in the context anywhere. Overall the book is very positive towards direct sales though. Irrelevant for an article on pyramids though. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, you're playing word games again. Page 42 clearly states "Because of the need to continuously recruit a downline of new distributors in multi-level marketing--'to replace those who fall by the wayside as well as to grow organizations--competition for recruits can be quite lively." And the definition of continuous is "Without break, cessation, or interruption"; "uninterrupted in time"; "unbroken"; "continual"; "unceasing"; ie endless. So continuously recruit means endlessly recruit. You lose.

The term "Gross" with reference to income does not always agrees with the definition the IRS uses:

• Gross Income (accounting): total revenue received before any deductions or allowances, as for rent, cost of goods sold, taxes, etc. (dictionary.com via Random House Dictionary 2010).
• Gross Income (Financial): For a business, its total revenues exclusive of any expenses. (Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms).
• "In a manufacturing, merchandising, or mining business, “gross income” means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources." (Title 26 26 C.F.R. § 1.61-3 Gross income derived from business.)

So your counterpoints are not really counter points.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're going to edit the articles for every company and business model on wikipedia and point out they need to "continuously recruit" to maintain their customer and staffing base? Also just noticed you said If anything the idea that MLM is a sustainable business model where anyone and everyone can make money doing if they put in enough work is fringe.". You are absolutely correct!!!! Now, care to point out where anyone, anywhere, of any kind of notability or reliability, is making that claim? If you want to argue with yourself, go and do it at home alone so you don't bother the grown ups.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, you are really blowing smoke with this. In regular businesses there is a clear difference between a customer and an employee while the MLM structure confuses this. Also a regular business will generally recruit only as many employees as it believes the market can support and adjust accordingly. Customers are attracted by advertising which can take a while to ramp up especially if you go for the cheap but very long term word of mouth approach. The September 1997 edition of "Nation's business" published by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America warned "Turnover for some MLM companies is 100 percent a year." (pg 51) and even Michie's pro-MLM 2007 book "Street smart internet marketing" admits "However, most MLM companies still typically structure their payment plan so that recruiting is more profitable than selling." (pg 27). Then you have Coenen in 2009 saying "The real business in MLM companies is recruiting new distributors into the scheme."--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If what you're trying to suggest is that some authors are clueless about the distinction between pyramid schemes and legitimate MLM, then you're proving your point well. Coenen is clearly clueless, since if the money is in the recruiting then by definition it's a pyramid scheme she's talking about, not MLM. Same with Michie. I challenge either of them, and you, to find a single compensation plan out of the worlds top 100 direct sales companies (the vast majority of which use MLM, where "recruiting is more profitable than selling" or where more money is made through recruiting than selling. Find one Bruce. Why is it that you feel the likes of Tracy Coenen are more authoritive on matters of business law than the governments and agencies that draft and enforce them? --Insider201283 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Insider20128, given the past COI issues regarding particular MLMs you have had as demonstrated on you talk page this 'they don't know what they are talking about because it doesn't agree with my view' song and dance isn't going to work. Either find reliable sources that directly challenge Carroll, Coenen, Ogunjobi, and Salinger or stop wasting our time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce again resorts to personal and false attacks. I used to operate a business that used MLM. By that logic, anyone who has ever owned a store has a COI editing an article on retail selling! I've also ALREADY provided you with a long list of quotes from government authorities (may have been on JREF) with regard your claim of "legal pyramid schemes", an idea promoted by the likes of Coenen and Carroll. Are you standing by your view that undistinguished authors like Coenen (with a COI, she runs an anti-MLM organisation and website and is a former Mary kay rep) are more authoritive on matters of business law than the governments and agencies that draft and enforce them? Here's a bunch of links to ftc.gov with the FTC stating "pyramid schemes are illegal" Here's links to Australian government sites saying the same thing - "pyramid schemes are illegal". Royal Canadian Mounted Police - "pyramid schemes are illegal". UK Government - "Pyramid schemes are illegal". European Parliament - "practices which are clearly illegal... e.g. ... pyramid schemes". Nowhere does any authority state "some pyramid schemes are illegal, but there's also legal pyramid schemes". A legal pyramid scheme is an oxymoron, and a similar word may be considered for those who promote the idea. They clearly don't know what they're talking about. Do I have to start with non-english speaking countries too? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Insider201283, but your own talk page archive shows there COI issues so there is no Personal or false attacks here. You are basically engaging in WP:SYN with your argument of A says this and B says that so A + B = C. Pyramiding falls under Pyramid Scheme in most states in the US but not under federal law and is legal in some other countries and that is only a small simple of the differences. Even "Who Stole the American Dream?" by the International Network Training Institute talks about legal pyramid schemes. "Pyramid scheme refers to any number of illegal and legal get-rich-quick plans predicated on drawing large numbers of people in into the system. [...] Ultimately, even legal plans are unsustainable because they require too many investors to be practical (or even possible)" Pg 667 Class in America H-P by Robert E. Weir (2007) by Greenwood ("Publisher of reference titles, academic and general interest books, and textbooks." "This Greenwood Press title is highly recommended for large high school, most public, and all college or university libraries." (American Reference Books Annual 2008). So there you have it; a book recommenced by American Reference Books Annual for college and university libraries published by a publisher of reference titles. As the final nail in this nonsense the recommended reading includes Carrol's online Skeptic Dictionary and Fitzpatrick's False Profits book. Face it Insider201283, I can find quality material that supports what I am claiming while all you have is either out of date or questionable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You're claiming the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Australian Government, European Parliament and UK Government are "out of date or questionable sources"!!!!?!?!?!?!?!? Do you really want me to put them up on RS/N for 3rd party comment--Insider201283 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wiley, Sage, and Greenwood Press don't know what they are talking about?!? Do you have any idea how insane and irrational this makes you sound?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, are you seriously claiming that everything in every book those companies publish is correct, and that they are greater authorities on the law than the lawmakers and enforcers themselves? And what are you going to do when other Wiley books contradict the Wiley book you want to cite? I cannot believe you think undistinguished authors are greater authorities on the law than the actual authorities on the law .... --Insider201283 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Considering the Wiley book I am citing is supported by a book by Sage and another one by Greenwood Press one of which was the same year as Rubino's book and the other post dates it and is "highly recommended for large high school, most public, and all college or university libraries" by the American Reference Books Annual it is clear you are blowing smoke. Frankel in his 2005 "Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at a Crossroad " published by no less then Oxford University Press talks about pyramid schemes both legal (calling them pyramid type) and illegal from pg 64 to 66. Current developments in monetary and financial law (1999) put out by the International Monetary Fund on pages 421-436 shows the problems with separating pyramid schemes from MLM especially in point 5 which could and can still be applied to many an MLM. All keeping up the nonsense does is get me to seek out and find even more reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, why don't you answer the question? Are you claiming these books are greater authorities on the law than the actual makers and enforcers of the law? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you answer my question of how you can challenge statements made in books published by the likes of Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press and now Oxford University Press and expect to be taken seriously? Especially given the nonsense you gave in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article which you lead in with the very clear statement "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." In this list we got people like Yarnell (who was part of NuSkin and was involved in that whole IE Crystal nonsense), Clements (whose online resume was shown to at best be a joke by wserra at scam.com), Kiyosaki (who admits to using a cat as a business partner to get out of contracts), and Poe mixed in with Xardel (who doesn't seem to have had anything notable published in English since the 1994 book presented) and Grayson (1996). Later you still claimed "The books I listed are good under WP:RS and WP:V." Kiyosaki is on that list and hardly qualifies as either WP:RS or WP:V.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce - AGAIN I ask you - Are you claiming these books are greater authorities on the law than the actual makers and enforcers of the law? How can I challenge them? Easy - because the actual makers and enforcers of the law say something different! I'm not even going to bother responding the rest of your rant --Insider201283 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The makers and enforcers of the law come up with all kinds of legal fig leaves to allow things that a strict letter of the law reading would say is illegal. Take West Virgina for example. A strict reading of Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution would seem to say that it shouldn't even exist as the Legislature of Virgina never even consulted in the matter. But various legal fig leaves were created to explain why it was constitutional.

Another example is Social Security where current workers paying into the system provide benefits to current retirees--all the classic earmarks of a Ponzi Scheme as no investment of the money happens. (Mandel, Michael (2008) "Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?" BusinessWeek Dec 28, 2008). Lee Mercer in "Full committee hearing legislation updating improving SBA's investment surety bond programs" Volume 1, Issues 110-144 pg 32 made the off the cuff comment regarding stuff like Build-a-Bear: "It is just a legal pyramid scheme" to which Steve Chabot replied "One that has worked quite effectively, at least in my house." So there is an governmental official tangentially admitting in a committee meeting that there are legal pyramid schemes.

Here are the FBI's word on Pyramid schemes: "Pyramid schemes, also referred to as franchise fraud, or chain referral schemes, are marketing and investment frauds in which an individual is offered a distributorship or franchise to market a particular product. The real profit is earned, not by the sale of the product, but by the sale of new distributorships." Another FBI paper states "Among the fraud schemes targeted are those involving on-line auction fraud, systemic non-delivery of merchandise purchased over the Internet, credit/debit card fraud, bank fraud, investment fraud, multi-level marketing and Ponzi/Pyramid schemes."

I have Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, Oxford University Press, and several others supported what I have said while much of what we have gotten out of you is WP:SYN--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, now you'er being downright dishonest. I have given multiple unimpeachable high quality WP:V WP:RS sources that CLEARLY state "pyramid schemes are illegal". I also have given sources from some of the same publishers as you have saying the same thing! It's telling that you think that authors from those publishers that agree with you are right and good sources, since they're quality publishers, but authors from the very same publishers that instead agree with the indisputed experts in the field are wrong! In about a week I'll have some time to contribute to wording all this stuff accurately. As stated, I have no problem reporting that there is confusion on this issue but the indisputable reality is that there "legal pyramid scheme" is an oxymoron and that needs to be made clear. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(Remove indent)Insider201283, you really need to actually READ WP:SYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You are doing exactly that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the direct quotes that states "pyramid schemes are illegal". No joining together of anything is necessary, they were direct quotes. What are you talking about? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. Your argument boils down to "pyramid schemes are illegal" (A), 'This is legal' (B), therefore this is not a pyramid scheme (C). I would remind you that I am using direct quotes too:

"The reason MLM schemes cannot succeed is because MLM marketing is, in essence, a legal pyramid scheme". Carroll (2003) (This is the book by Wiley not the web site)

"Multi-level marketing companies (MLMs) have become an accepted and legally sanction form of pyramid scheme in the United States." Coenen (2009) (another Wiley book)

"Multi-level Marketing: a form of pyramid scheme not necessarily fraudulent..." Salinger (2005) (Sage Publications)

"Pyramid scheme refers to any number of illegal and legal get-rich-quick plans predicated on drawing large numbers of people in into the system. [...] Ultimately, even legal plans are unsustainable because they require too many investors to be practical (or even possible)" Weir (2007) Greenwood

This is ignoring all the borderline, questionable, and totally useless sources I also found: "Amway would seem to operate a legal pyramid scheme." (Michman 1995), "Many MLM companies meet minimal legal requirements to say they are direct selling companies when in fact they really are pyramid schemes." (DePetris 2010), and entire chapter titled "Legal Pyramid Schemes" Hedges (1992) and ironically enough one from Network 21 (N21) own blogspot titled "A legal pyramid scheme?".

Finally, I would like to point out that these agencies will use the term "illegal pyramid scheme" which by the logic you present makes no sense unless there are legal pyramid schemes as the other authors state. Saying "illegal pyramid scheme" as the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("For the purpose of Section 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code a pyramid scheme is illegal when a person participating in the scheme becomes entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others."-didn't read what the links you provided actually went to on that one too well did you?) implies that there are legal pyramid scheme otherwise the adjective "illegal" would be needed would it? In fact, UK government admits in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) that the Government was "considering legal action against the schemes and options to close legal loopholes related to pyramid schemes.". The [EU's Unfair commercial practices Directive] only one talks once about Network Marketing and that is with regards to outrageous entry fees and their definition of "pyramid scheme" is closer to what in the US is called pyramiding which in of itself is NOT illegal in all the states (just most of them).

So in every one of your supposed counterexamples thing like "illegal pyramid scheme" admitting legal loopholes to pyramid schemes exist, and definitions that don't quite match up between them show that legal pyramid scheme do exist just as my reliable source state. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the term non sequitur? I suggest you need to brush up on your logic if you think your claims follow from my logic --Insider201283 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know of non sequitur; it's right here on my own user page (another example of your inability to do actual research as seen with Cruz) and means its doesn't follow. The fact is the idea that "illegal pyramid scheme" implies that there are legal pyramid schemes is NOT a non sequitur but a very logical reasoning process:

If all pyramid schemes are illegal then the phrase "illegal pyramid scheme" is redundant (like Army General--not to be confused with General of the Army which is a totally different thing) therefore there must be legal pyramid scheme otherwise the word illegal wouldn't be there.

(Edit conflict)

The phrase "pyramid schemes are illegal" can be demonstrated to be a No true Scotsman fallacy by both the FTC and Royal Canadian Mounted Police own reports as they use the exact phrases "illegal pyramid scheme" and "a pyramid scheme is illegal when". Please explain how 'a pyramid scheme is legal when a person participating in the scheme does not become entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others.' and "pyramid scheme is illegal when a person participating in the scheme becomes entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others." differ. Oh, here is the exact actual text of Canada's Section 206 is in regards to "Offense in relation to lotteries and games of chance" and is actually the WRONG LAW. The correct law the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be referring to is the [Competition Act]:

Pyramid Selling Schemes

55.1 (1) ... "scheme of pyramid selling" means a multi-level marketing plan whereby

(a) a participant in the plan gives consideration for the right to receive compensation by reason of the recruitment into the plan of another participant in the plan who gives consideration for the same right; (b) a participant in the plan gives consideration, as a condition of participating in the plan, for a specified amount of the product, other than a specified amount of the product that is bought at the seller's cost price for the purpose only of facilitating sales; (c) a person knowingly supplies the product to a participant in the plan in an amount that is commercially unreasonable; or (d) a participant in the plan who is supplied with the product (i) does not have a buy-back guarantee that is exercisable on reasonable commercial terms or a right to return the product in saleable condition on reasonable commercial terms, or (ii) is not informed of the existence of the guarantee or right and the manner in which it can be exercised.

So here your "reliable source" of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policecan be shown to be totally incompetent because it refers to the WRONG BLOODY LAW!!! You keep doing this and I will keep showing just how wrong you and your supposed "reliable sources" are.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try another approach to resolving this. The sine qua non of a pyramid scheme is "recruitment with rewards unrelated to product sales"[3]. So, to have a pyramid scheme, you must earn money for recruiting. Can you provide me with ANY examples where ANY court or legal authority ANYWHERE in the world has approved a multilevel marketing scheme where you get paid for recruitment with rewards unrelated to product sales. Is there ANY "legal pyramid scheme" anywhere? --Insider201283 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Sorry Insider201283, but those would be under Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources and you know that interpretations must come from WP:SECONDARY sources like the Times (not to be confused with the Sunday Times which is a totally different paper published by the same publisher)--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you personally apply Wikipedia sourcing guidelines to your research into understanding things? That if understanding law you refuse to consider what court decisions say? (Court decisions can be RS.) Not that it matters since the Koscot Test is cited in many other RS also. Anyway, I'm asking you Bruce - can you find a single example of a legal pyramid scheme? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Besides you can NOT draw conclusions from your primary source of WEBSTER v OMNITRITION, No. 94-16477 'only quote from it directly:

"Operation of a pyramid scheme constitutes fraud for purposes of S 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, S 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various RICO predicate acts.[...] The Federal Trade Commission has established a test for determining what constitutes a pyramid scheme. Such contrivances are characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users. Id. (emphasis in original). The satisfaction of the second element of the Koscot test is the sine qua non of a pyramid scheme: "As is apparent, the presence of this second element, recruitment with rewards unrelated to product sales, is nothing more than an elaborate chain letter device in which individuals who pay a valuable consideration with the expectation of recouping it to some degree via recruitment are bound to be disappointed." Id. We adopt the Koscot standard here and hold that the operation of a pyramid scheme constitutes fraud for purposes of several federal antifraud statutes." When quoted in context the case shows that that only the second part of the FTC guidelines is being applied here. The "right to sell a product" part is not really addressed here so the case does not say what you claim it says. Besides you can NOT draw conclusions from your primary source of WEBSTER v OMNITRITION, No. 94-16477 'only quote from it directly: "Operation of a pyramid scheme constitutes fraud for purposes of S 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, S 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various RICO predicate acts.[...] The Federal Trade Commission has established a test for determining what constitutes a pyramid scheme. Such contrivances are characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users. Id. (emphasis in original). The satisfaction of the second element of the Koscot test is the sine qua non of a pyramid scheme: "As is apparent, the presence of this second element, recruitment with rewards unrelated to product sales, is nothing more than an elaborate chain letter device in which individuals who pay a valuable consideration with the expectation of recouping it to some degree via recruitment are bound to be disappointed." Id. We adopt the Koscot standard here and hold that the operation of a pyramid scheme constitutes fraud for purposes of several federal antifraud statutes." When quoted in context the case shows that that only the second part of the FTC guidelines is being applies here. The "right to sell a product" part is not really addressed here so the case does not say what you claim it says.

While amquix.info's Q&A - Illegal Pyramid Schemes is not a reliable source the cases it refers to are: "Many other courts have viewed buyers' club-type pyramid schemes in the same manner as the Sixth Circuit, the Western District of Michigan, the Ninth Circuit and the FTC in In re Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 86 F.T.C. 1106 (1975). As indicated in FTC v. Five Star Auto Club, No. Civ-99-1693, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) and FTC v. Equinox Int'l. Corp., No. CV-S-99-0969-JBR, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19866 (D. Nev. 1999), the FTC continues to consider a purported MLM in which most of the products are sold to the "distributors" rather than "retail customers" an illegal pyramid scheme. Id. ("Retail Sales do not include sales made by participants in a prohibited marketing scheme or multi-level marketing program to other participants or recruits in that scheme or program or to such a participants' own accounts") If this source is summing up these cases correctly you just lost the whole ball game. The quote regarding retail sales is actually from FTC vs Mall Ventures for what it is worth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask about illegal pyramid schemes Bruce. They exist, including ones that re using bogus products as a "defacto payment for recruiting". Note the FTC said "purported MLM" in your quote above? You are claiming there are such things as legal pyramid schemes - ie legal "schemes" where you get paid to recruit people, who get paid to recruit people etc etc. Please give an example --Insider201283 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)You're avoiding the issue, Insider201283, as the FTC's position of "Retail Sales do not include sales made by participants in a prohibited marketing scheme or multi-level marketing program to other participants or recruits in that scheme or program or to such a participants' own accounts" (FTC vs Mall Ventures) would make many so called legal MLMs pyramid schemes as their main consumers are "other participants or recruits in that scheme or program". IE for something to be called a retail sale by the standard set forth in FTC vs Mall Ventures it must be to someone outside the MLM. We are also waiting for that source tha proves directly and expressly that Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press don't know what they are talking about; so far we have seen nothing but rhetoric, out of date references, and WP:SYN galore.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you're not being honest. I provided a bunch of references earlier. Here they are again. I'll dot point them just to make them obvious.

• United States Federal Trade Commission - "pyramid schemes are illegal"links to ftc.gov
• Australian Government - "pyramid schemes are illegal"[4]
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police - "pyramid schemes are illegal" [5]
• UK Government - "Pyramid schemes are illegal" [6]
• European Parliament - "practices which are clearly illegal... e.g. ... pyramid schemes" [7]

But since you think Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press are better sources on the law than the lawmakers and law enforcers themselves -

• The Virtual Office Survival Handbook, Wiley Press - "pyramid schemes are illegal" (p.56) [8]
• PNG fact book, Oxford University Press - "pyramid schemes are fraudulent and illegal" (p.182) [9]
• Refugee communities: a comparative field study, Sage Publishing - "akin to "Pyramid Schemes" and hence against the law" (p.176) [10]
• The dark side of the Internet, Greenwood Press - "all pyramids are illegal in the United States" (p.125)[11]

So there you go Bruce, your sacred publishers all have books clearly stating that pyramid schemes are illegal. What are you to do? They contradict themselves! Here's a thought Bruce, how about looking at the absolute authoritive sources - like the damn governments and agencies that write and enforce the law???? And I ask again - can you provide me with a single example of a "legal" pyramid scheme?--Insider201283 (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Insider201283, you are still missing the point. The United States Federal Trade Commission talks about "illegal Pyramid schemes" which as I have pointed out before is redundant if all Pyramid schemes are illegal ergo there much be legal Pyramid schemes otherwise the word "illegal" wouldn't be there in the first place. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police page was demonstrated to have cited the wrong bloody law making you wonder if the guy running their web page know what they are doing, [Australia's definition of Pyramid scheme is broader than the US http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/acccpyramid1.pdf]; Virtual Office Survival Handbook (1996) and Refugee Communities (1991) are way older than the references I am using; the PNG fact book is only a snippet that end ends at "often disguised as" which leave too much of the definition out there. Frankel, Tamar (2005) "A pyramid scheme combines two usual and legitimate transactions to create an unusual sales force of a third, illegal kind." "The illegal pyramid scheme serves to “market” marketing. Most buyers are future distributors." Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at a Crossroad Oxford University Press is saying what the others are saying. Clearly you are just doing random google searches and throwing whatever come up regardless of how old it is or if it really expressly and directly contradicts the point the other reliable sources raise (which none of your sources do). Furthermore in "Full committee hearing legislation updating improving SBA's investment surety bond programs" Volume 1, Issues 110-144 put out by the United States Congress regarding Build-a-Bear I will quote: "Mr Mercer. It is just a legal pyramid scheme Mr. Chabot. One that has worked quite effectively, at least in my house." No correction that there are no such things as legal pyramid schemes but an acceptance that there are such things and that this particular one had worked quite well in his own house. There you are, admission on the floor of the United States Congress from Steve Mercer a US Congressman during a Full committee hearing that not only there are legal pyramid scheme but by his own words "one that has worked quite effectively, at least in my house" Give it up, Insider201283, and stop wasting our time with this nonsense that is either WP:OR or WP:SYN. To quote Welch to Joseph McCarthy "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, reduncancies are redunancies, an inefficient use of words but they're not in themselves impossible and prove nothing. Is there such a thing as a Canadian Mounted Police? Isn't "Royal" redundant? Does the fact there's a "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" provide any evidence at all that there must be a "Canadian Mounted Police"? Oxymoron's on the other hand are impossible. The fact you're now claiming Congressman as an authority goes to show how desperate your argument has become! --Insider201283 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm engaging in not OR or SYN. The legal authorities are clear on the matter. Pyramid schemes are illegal. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, and the legal authorities are hardly clear on the matter. The FTC talks about illegal pyramid schemes implying that there are legal pyramid schemes, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police references the wrong law, the UK admits there legal loopholes pyramid schemes can hide behind and so on. Oh per Thomas Sowell Social Security itself is a legalize pyramid scheme. Are you going to say that a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who has won the Francis Boyer Award, National Humanities Medal, and Bradley Prize does not know what he is talking about or are you going to finally concede this point?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So you believe there's such a thing a the non-Royal Canadian Police then Bruce? And you also believe people get paid to recruit people in to social security? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283 clearly missed this also by Royal Canadian Mounted Police under Investment and Securities Fraud: "Another form of a Ponzi scheme is a called a Pyramid or Multi-Level Marketing Scheme."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Albania 1996-1997

If anyone has the time, a section on Albania post-Communism would be a good addition to the article. (I know I am welcome to do it myself, and I may, but right now time is tight.) There were entire cities in revolt after a huge number of people lost everything in a number of large pyramid schemes. It is mentioned on an Albanian history page, but no details are given. Boomcoach (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2