Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SGJ who wrote (151339)	9/27/2008 7:57:45 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Smart answer. However you are again having problems with definitions. I said something of value AND something with a market. A grain of sand has no marketability. Similar ridiculous claims could be made for a drop of water, a splinter of wood, etc. that have marketability and value in a material volume, but singly, worthless. I am debating you on these seemingly obsessive points because I believe it shows classically how liberals operate. Really? By all means substitute something of value that is marketable. It does not change the frigging point I'm trying to drum into your skull. Make it 1 share of IBM. The point is that if the "value" you get is WAY less than your investment, and the business is actually structured fundamentally as a scam, it is a scam. Do you think getting a $100 dollar very marketable item for investing $10K dollars in a scam, makes the scam something else? Here are the details you must not have read: The FTC alleges that the defendants deceptively represented that consumers who participated in their scheme would earn substantial income, when in fact most consumers lost money in the operation. The complaint also states that the defendants provided deceptive marketing material to affiliates - providing them with the means to deceive others. The agency alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that a substantial percentage of participants would lose money, and that the scheme was actually an illegal pyramid. The FTC alleges that the practices violated the FTC Act. I will admit that I've been using the term Ponzi Scheme when I should have been saying Pyramid Scheme. They are different in that a Ponzi Scheme does not have the Pyramid structure, although it can I suppose. They are similar in the way money flows however, i.e. money comes in from an increasing base, and flows out to existing members.