dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/20/85)
[] In article: <826@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Dave Olson repeats the old refrain that Social Security is >"just a pyramid scheme": >... >Social Security has several important differences from pyramid schemes >such as Amway. >... >Moreover as I have tried to point out (probably hopeless to blind >ideologues) payments to Social Security and benefits are time-deferred. >This is really not that different than the operation of a bank. >When I put money into the bank that money does not just sit there- >it immediately goes out in loans to other people. >... >Of course if *all* the banks in the country went >bankrupt so the FDIC had to pay insurance for all those accounts, >the FDIC would be unable to do so - just as auto insurance companies >would go bankrupt if all cars got in wrecks at one time, or >any other insurance company would go bankrupt if *ALL* those insured >made claims. Of course this is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY! Tim, SS is still a pyramid. Bringing up Amway as another does not change that. Secondly, at least with banks and insurance companies, your money has the oportunity to grow; insurance companies are among the largest investors in the stock market. Best of all, with Amway, banks, and insurance companies, nobody is forcing you to join; you can get the hell out when YOU want to. With them, what you have brought into being with your own blood, sweat, and tears in not being forcibly taken from you. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (11/21/85)
In article <645@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >>Social Security has several important differences from pyramid schemes >>such as Amway. > >SS is still a pyramid. Bringing up Amway as another does not change >that. I suggest that you look up the legal findings of several U.S. courts with respect to Amway's supposed pyramid tendencies. They have won such battles at least twice that I am aware of (I have a friend who was an Amway distributor for some time; he kept me informed of such details). The difference between Amway and a pyramid is that, under a pyramid, the inductee at the bottom has no hope of recovering his money *unless* he gets other suckers to join in. Amway, on the other hand, sees to it that even the highest level distributors (with many people under them) still have to sell merchandise themselves, and at some minimum amount in order to keep their distributor-ownership status. Thus, these high-level distributors can still make a living *without* those other underlings; they are not strictly dependent on underlings. That's why Amway has successfully fought such claims in the past. I seem to recall that Amway was actually found guilty of being a pyramid once in Canada, but the definition of a pyramid in Canada is somewhat different from the U.S.' definition. -- Karl Kleinpaste