Monday, November 2, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Defiance
I just finished watching Defiance. It’s an awesome movie. It has all the good things that awesome movies have: good lines, some romance, some humor, action, and a great plot. Supposedly, it’s also a true story (as opposed to “based on” a true story. There’s a big difference) It’s a serious movie, because it’s about Jews during WWII, but not depressing. It’s inspiring, and more importantly, it has some good points that make you reflect on the value and meaning of life.
There was one scene which was the most powerful for me, and it made me cry… it was the scene which brought home an important theological point: sometimes, you just have to kill somebody.
Let me explain. I’m not talking about Jews fighting Germans out of revenge or self defense. There was plenty of that in the movie, and there is plenty of that in most movies. In this scene, a Jew has to kill a Jew. It’s a perfect picture of good and evil, standing face to face, and yet the good one was the one who pulled the trigger. The scene is powerful because I understood the motivation, at least what I imagine the motivation was, of the person who pulled the trigger. He didn’t do it out of anger, pride, or any other self-centered thought. It wasn’t out of a sense of self-righteousness. It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. He thought about it, maybe even prayed about it, and in the end he knew it was the only choice he had. He didn’t want to do it… and that was the most powerful part. In a way, the action contradicted everything he had been striving to accomplish up until that moment, and at the same time, any other action would have completely destroyed everything he had built. I knew he would do it, and yet I was still surprised when it happened. After the shock, I realized that it was the only right and moral thing to have done in the situation.
I realize that I am a second generation of a young religion. If for some reason our faith has to survive for two millennium (which I pray every day that it doesn’t) I realize these words could be interpreted in exactly the opposite way that I intend then. I don’t want to create a justification for murder… However, I think motivation is an important factor in understanding what is right and wrong. An action by itself cannot be either good or bad, I think, but the motivation behind the action determines whether it is good or evil.
It’s like the scene from Wizards First Rule. (Spoiler Alert and Obscure Reference Alert) When the main character has to kill the girl who bonded him to her, he has to turn the Sword of Truth into a blazing white fire. No one had ever done this before, because it only turns white when you kill a person with love for that person. I think the main character in Defiance did the same thing. He understood that the person he was going to kill was just young, a bit arrogant, starving, and not really an evil person. Also, he was a fellow Jew, struggling to survive in a world gone crazy. He didn’t want to kill him, and in a way, he loved him. But he had to. It was the only way… and if you’ve seen the movie, I think you would agree.
Then I understood Moses, and why he had to have people killed when they started worshipping the golden calf. Or when there was a rebellion and he had all those that wanted to return to Egypt stand on one side, and once they were separated into two camps, the earth opened and swallowed the rebellious group whole… It’s same thing, on a larger scale. It was the motivation that God was looking at, and it is the motivation that determines whether an action is good or evil. That is why when he struck the rock twice it was a sin. He let anger control him, and even though the action was small, the motivation was completely wrong. He lost faith, and if his anger had been directed at a person, he would have killed them. The Bible says that he killed the Egyptian soldier out of anger, but maybe he also did that with the right heart. Who knows?
I think it is the same with God. The Bible has many stories where God kills people, or orders the Jews to kill people. Atheists read this and say that if there is a God, he’s genocidal and sadistic, but I think they’re missing the point… it’s possible to kill with the right motivation.
If you don’t think so, watch Defiance.
I hope I was making sense. I get sentimental at two in the morning…
On a lighter note, please watch my newest “Ask a Moonie 6 – DCPS” http://tinyurl.com/nyrv7y. It’s kinda funny, and hopefully educational.
I love you guys…
-Youngil Ely LoewMonday, April 13, 2009
Is America a Christian Nation? Article by Kevin McCarthy
(NOTE: This is not my work. I am reposting an excellent article I recieved from a good friend, the Rev. McCarthy - check out his website at: www.truemasterplan.com )
At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama took issue with the idea that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation. Some were taken aback by his statement.
"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
The problem, today, is that Americans are confused over the specific “set of values” to which we will be bound. In 2007, the Culture and Media Institute did an in-depth study of Americans’ beliefs and attitudes. Like most studies, it found that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that when the study also probed further, to understand how those beliefs translated into ethical choices, what became clear is that Americans are increasingly ambivalent or confused about values. This study reached the following conclusion: “America no longer enjoys cultural consensus on God, religion, and what constitutes right and wrong."
The spiritual principles that once formed a values consensus in America no longer hold sway today. In its place, a society of confused values has emerged with uncertainty about what constitutes right and wrong. Without clear standards, we are a ship without a rudder and compass. We lose the cohesion that binds the nation together. This is why we are witnessing such upheaval in America today. We have lost our ethical and moral clarity.
The discussion of America as a Christian nation usually proceeds without touching upon the most essential elements that should be discussed. We need to be extremely clear about how the Founders viewed religion generally, and what they thought would be religion's contribution toward society. The Founders saw a vital role for religion in the public square. It is a historical fact that in the 18th century, the Founders, and most of America, experienced religion within the Christian experience. However, their views on the civil role of religion are relevant to all faiths, then and now. The Founders emphasized religious principles, the "self evident" truths, as the foundation of our nation. They saw religion as absolutely necessary for our form of government to operate properly. Religion provided the virtues. ..the cultural consensus, the national morality. ..that was essential for liberty. It was essential because freedom necessitated a virtuous populace to willingly practice the discipline required for a functional self-government to occur. This is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Rush, a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence was equally emphatic,
“The only foundation for a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.“
There is no question that it was the Founders' Christian faiths that brought them to these universal truths about liberty and equality. But it was also the idea of "civil religion," as expressed by the 18th century French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that "There is a profession of faith which is purely civil. . . not strictly as religious dogmas but as expressions of social conscience without which it is impossible to be a good citizen" Our “ideals and set of values” as President Obama refers to them, in the Founders' view were not the doctrines of personal Christian faith but were, rather, transcendent principles, “self-evident truths” that were rooted in a public affirmation of God, the Creator, from which we received the endowment of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe the Founders' would have asserted that it was only the Christian religion from which could be derived the transcendent principles of good citizenship. In a letter to the President of Yale, shortly before his death, Benjamin Franklin articulated an overview of what he considered the essential principles of a sound religion. In doing so, he gives us an insight into the Founders' views on religion. They spoke in terms of common principles of faith around which believers could unite in the interest of the well-being of the nation. Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles is a fine example of that view. The Christian religion, to its good credit, was the avenue by which the Founders, themselves, discovered those values, but they never asserted any particular religion as the exclusive channel to those principles. They are available to all and are, therefore, "self evident" . . . even those who profess no faith can resonant with virtues that "without which it is impossible to be a good citizen."
In that respect, those that say "we are not a Christian nation". . . are correct. However, when it is then further asserted that the Founders were only seeking to establish a secular society and saw no public role for religion in the affairs of the nation, this would be entirely not correct. It is especially a problem today when virtually all religious influence is to be separated from the "State," on the one hand while, on the other hand, "The State" keeps expanding.
Today, separating church and state, means also separating traditional virtue from an exclusively secular and expanding State. This was the very circumstance that religious freedom was supposed to prevent. An example of this, recently displayed, is the circumstance of the reaction to the invitation extended former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, Tony Dungy, to participate in the President’s Faith-based Council.
Josh Gerstein from Politico reports:
Dungy’s potential appointment drew flak from liberal groups such as People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said Dungy’s vocal opposition to gay marriage made him an inappropriate choice for the panel.
“The Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships council shouldn't be used to reward voices of intolerance like Tony Dungy,” PFAW’s director of public policy, Tanya Clay House, had said in an earlier statement.
“It is extremely important for the advisory council to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and I am concerned that Coach Dungy is far from the best person to do that,” Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United, said.
Both groups pointed to Dungy’s endorsement of a gay marriage ban in Indiana and his involvement with a conservative public policy group, the Indiana Family Institute. For most people, especially for those who know him, Tony Dungy is a living saint, a man of God and an embodiment of integrity. Dungy strongly supports the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. It should concern everyone today that the traditional moral system that upholds marriage between a man and woman is not deemed worthy of “faith” councils that advise the Chief Executive.
I make this point because peoples of all faiths must come together today to affirm that the nation must turn, once again, to transcendent principles that embrace the idea of God and the family. Religious bodies will never agree on the various components of personal dogma. ..but with regard to "civil religion" . ..that is, the "virtues" rooted in transcendent principles. . .a new cultural consensus on values can be and must be forged.
Such a movement is desperately needed at this time and it should involve peoples of all faiths. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." There is no freedom, without practiced virtues – virtues that find their origins in the traditions of faith. As Benjamin Rush had said, "no religion, no virtue, . . . .no liberty." This is our problem today and if we can only saunter down the primrose path of easy fixes and false hopes, we should know that only tyranny awaits us there. . . .and it is the form of tyranny that is the worst of them all - the one of our own making; born out of the fading awareness that God is essential to the experience of freedom. If the nation continues down this path, it will only be pulled by the vacuum created where God has left.
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. . .a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” Patrick Henry.
At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama took issue with the idea that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation. Some were taken aback by his statement.
"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
The problem, today, is that Americans are confused over the specific “set of values” to which we will be bound. In 2007, the Culture and Media Institute did an in-depth study of Americans’ beliefs and attitudes. Like most studies, it found that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that when the study also probed further, to understand how those beliefs translated into ethical choices, what became clear is that Americans are increasingly ambivalent or confused about values. This study reached the following conclusion: “America no longer enjoys cultural consensus on God, religion, and what constitutes right and wrong."
The spiritual principles that once formed a values consensus in America no longer hold sway today. In its place, a society of confused values has emerged with uncertainty about what constitutes right and wrong. Without clear standards, we are a ship without a rudder and compass. We lose the cohesion that binds the nation together. This is why we are witnessing such upheaval in America today. We have lost our ethical and moral clarity.
The discussion of America as a Christian nation usually proceeds without touching upon the most essential elements that should be discussed. We need to be extremely clear about how the Founders viewed religion generally, and what they thought would be religion's contribution toward society. The Founders saw a vital role for religion in the public square. It is a historical fact that in the 18th century, the Founders, and most of America, experienced religion within the Christian experience. However, their views on the civil role of religion are relevant to all faiths, then and now. The Founders emphasized religious principles, the "self evident" truths, as the foundation of our nation. They saw religion as absolutely necessary for our form of government to operate properly. Religion provided the virtues. ..the cultural consensus, the national morality. ..that was essential for liberty. It was essential because freedom necessitated a virtuous populace to willingly practice the discipline required for a functional self-government to occur. This is why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Rush, a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence was equally emphatic,
“The only foundation for a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.“
There is no question that it was the Founders' Christian faiths that brought them to these universal truths about liberty and equality. But it was also the idea of "civil religion," as expressed by the 18th century French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that "There is a profession of faith which is purely civil. . . not strictly as religious dogmas but as expressions of social conscience without which it is impossible to be a good citizen" Our “ideals and set of values” as President Obama refers to them, in the Founders' view were not the doctrines of personal Christian faith but were, rather, transcendent principles, “self-evident truths” that were rooted in a public affirmation of God, the Creator, from which we received the endowment of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe the Founders' would have asserted that it was only the Christian religion from which could be derived the transcendent principles of good citizenship. In a letter to the President of Yale, shortly before his death, Benjamin Franklin articulated an overview of what he considered the essential principles of a sound religion. In doing so, he gives us an insight into the Founders' views on religion. They spoke in terms of common principles of faith around which believers could unite in the interest of the well-being of the nation. Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles is a fine example of that view. The Christian religion, to its good credit, was the avenue by which the Founders, themselves, discovered those values, but they never asserted any particular religion as the exclusive channel to those principles. They are available to all and are, therefore, "self evident" . . . even those who profess no faith can resonant with virtues that "without which it is impossible to be a good citizen."
In that respect, those that say "we are not a Christian nation". . . are correct. However, when it is then further asserted that the Founders were only seeking to establish a secular society and saw no public role for religion in the affairs of the nation, this would be entirely not correct. It is especially a problem today when virtually all religious influence is to be separated from the "State," on the one hand while, on the other hand, "The State" keeps expanding.
Today, separating church and state, means also separating traditional virtue from an exclusively secular and expanding State. This was the very circumstance that religious freedom was supposed to prevent. An example of this, recently displayed, is the circumstance of the reaction to the invitation extended former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, Tony Dungy, to participate in the President’s Faith-based Council.
Josh Gerstein from Politico reports:
Dungy’s potential appointment drew flak from liberal groups such as People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said Dungy’s vocal opposition to gay marriage made him an inappropriate choice for the panel.
“The Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships council shouldn't be used to reward voices of intolerance like Tony Dungy,” PFAW’s director of public policy, Tanya Clay House, had said in an earlier statement.
“It is extremely important for the advisory council to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and I am concerned that Coach Dungy is far from the best person to do that,” Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United, said.
Both groups pointed to Dungy’s endorsement of a gay marriage ban in Indiana and his involvement with a conservative public policy group, the Indiana Family Institute. For most people, especially for those who know him, Tony Dungy is a living saint, a man of God and an embodiment of integrity. Dungy strongly supports the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. It should concern everyone today that the traditional moral system that upholds marriage between a man and woman is not deemed worthy of “faith” councils that advise the Chief Executive.
I make this point because peoples of all faiths must come together today to affirm that the nation must turn, once again, to transcendent principles that embrace the idea of God and the family. Religious bodies will never agree on the various components of personal dogma. ..but with regard to "civil religion" . ..that is, the "virtues" rooted in transcendent principles. . .a new cultural consensus on values can be and must be forged.
Such a movement is desperately needed at this time and it should involve peoples of all faiths. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." There is no freedom, without practiced virtues – virtues that find their origins in the traditions of faith. As Benjamin Rush had said, "no religion, no virtue, . . . .no liberty." This is our problem today and if we can only saunter down the primrose path of easy fixes and false hopes, we should know that only tyranny awaits us there. . . .and it is the form of tyranny that is the worst of them all - the one of our own making; born out of the fading awareness that God is essential to the experience of freedom. If the nation continues down this path, it will only be pulled by the vacuum created where God has left.
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. . .a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” Patrick Henry.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Ponzi Schemes and MLMs
I had a very important realization, one I should have had many years ago… MLMs are an evolution of the Ponzi Scheme. They are legalized scamming, and it is my belief that they have been hurting the economy and leading to its downfall. I’m just disappointed in myself for not seeing it sooner.
The last friend to try to get me involved in a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) company ended up showing me exactly why they are inherently flawed. I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate how grateful I am to him.
At the time, I was dishing out $10/mo to a popular MLM called Global Domains. This company let’s you purchase a domain name and provides you with a very simple web creating system for only $10/mo. They have such a slick little video at the beginning that I was completely sold. I even endorsed it to my friends, something I had never done before (because despite my stupidity, I always maintained a healthy skepticism of MLMs). One friend was so shocked by my email that he thought my email had been hacked into.
Global Domains, because it is a simple MLM, makes it easier to see past the BS that is shoveled at you and actually do the math.
Global Domains is competing with other website companies that offer similar services. The most well-known of these is GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy gives you the same service for roughly $10/year, or slightly more than $0.83/mo. Compare that to Global Domains $10/mo, and for the sake of simplicity, we’ll say that it’s a difference of $9/mo. What could possibly justify this gross over-paying? The potential for unlimited residual income, of course!
That is the crux of the problem: in order for a MLM to be sustainable, it needs to over-charge by at least 2X, probably 3X, the cost of all its non-MLM competitors. With Global Domains, you’re paying $9/mo for the potential to make money. That might seem like a good deal, but let’s see what your chances of making money actually are…
First, let’s imagine that you are the very FIRST person in the chain. You get 5 friends to sign on. The way Global Domains work is that you get a $1 for every person that signs on, up to five levels down. Since $1/mo is actually going toward the service you are getting, we’ll calculate your investment at $9/mo. So now that you found 5 people, you’re getting $5/mo, so you’re only paying $4/mo. If each of them gets 5 people, then that’s 25 people added to your line. Now you’re actually making money! 5+25 = $30/mo - $9 = $21/mo.
You+5+25+125+625+3125. That’s the limit if you bring 5 and each person brings 5 people. You’ll be making $3896/mo, your 5 friends will be making $771/mo, the next 25 friends will be making $146/mo, and the next 125 friends will be making $21/mo. Everything seems pretty nice, except you’re forgetting that 625 friends are paying $4/mo, and another 3125 friends are now paying $9/mo. In other words, since no good or service is being produced, in order for the first 156 people to make ANY money, they have to scam 3750 people into PAYING FOR NOTHING! That’s a ratio of over 24:1. If you keep doing the math, that ratio never changes. There are always 24 TIMES as many people paying for an MLM than people making money for an MLM (in our example only. Depending on the cost and expenses, this ratio changes, but I can assure you it is never lower than 10:1).
The trick is, the MLM people always make you think you can be one of the 1 in 25 that actually makes money. At 6 levels, there were already 3905 people. If you’ve ever done the doubling math, then think how fast the 5x math gets into ridiculous number. At level 10, there are already 2.44 million people (and remember, only 1 in 25 of them is making any money). At level 13, there’s over 300 million people in the MLM (which will never happen). In other words, if you get approached by someone to join an MLM, you’re already near the end of the line. You can only make money in an MLM if you start one, or if you know the guy who knows the guy who started it. Even worse, even if you do make money, you’re doing it at the gullibility of others. You’re making money out of their wrong belief that they can also make money, so hopefully Karma will kick your ass.
A Ponzi Scheme pays out their dividends using the money that the newcomers bring in. This is only sustainable while there are more new-comers each year than people part of the scheme. Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme could last so long because he was only dishing out a 15% return. Even at 15%, the market eventually saturates, because of the simple law of exponential growth. What if, however, the newcomers DIDN’T get a return? Well, then, you could keep the Ponzi Scheme going INDEFINITELY! The new-comers could continually pay into the scheme, and not get any money in return… and so MLMs were created.
This comes the next ingenious step in MLM; what I like to call SUPER-HYPE!!!J!!!. You have to convince the bottom rung of the ladder that they have the potential to make as much as you do, so they don’t leave. That’s why ALL MLMs make a nice side business selling promotional videos and holding seminars. They register you as a ‘business owner’ and show you simple upside-down diagrams of your earning potential (upside-down because they show you at the top of the ladder instead of where you really are – the bottom). The worst part is that the people telling you this believe it themselves, because it worked for them (or is ‘working’ for them, since they are not quite breaking even yet...) They’re making money, so why can’t you? They don’t realize they’re promoting a system that is inherently flawed and unbalanced. The smartest ones convince you that their products are actually WORTH what you’re paying for them, and that there is plenty of room for growth. I actually had a MLM person, who was paying $50/mo for some kind of daily vitamin supplement, tell me that market saturation was impossible! I should have realized then how full of BS the whole thing was right then. Unfortunately, I was kinda caught up in it all…
If you are involved in a MLM, please get out. I promise you that you can find the same product or service you’re paying for at a much cheaper price. If so, then every $1 you’re spending over the true value of that product is going into the MLM Ponzi Scheme machine, and paying for someone else to get rich. Even if the person who brought you in is a close friend, get out for their sake as well. I promise you they aren’t making money either, and even if they are making slightly over their monthly payments, do you really want them to be making money at the expense of 24 other people? Also, do you really even WANT or need that product you’re grossly over-paying for?
If you think this post has any merit, and if you know someone who is involved in an MLM, feel free to tag them or copy and paste this onto anywhere you think it will be helpful.
Thanks for reading.
A brother and friend,
Youngil Ely Loew
The last friend to try to get me involved in a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) company ended up showing me exactly why they are inherently flawed. I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate how grateful I am to him.
At the time, I was dishing out $10/mo to a popular MLM called Global Domains. This company let’s you purchase a domain name and provides you with a very simple web creating system for only $10/mo. They have such a slick little video at the beginning that I was completely sold. I even endorsed it to my friends, something I had never done before (because despite my stupidity, I always maintained a healthy skepticism of MLMs). One friend was so shocked by my email that he thought my email had been hacked into.
Global Domains, because it is a simple MLM, makes it easier to see past the BS that is shoveled at you and actually do the math.
Global Domains is competing with other website companies that offer similar services. The most well-known of these is GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy gives you the same service for roughly $10/year, or slightly more than $0.83/mo. Compare that to Global Domains $10/mo, and for the sake of simplicity, we’ll say that it’s a difference of $9/mo. What could possibly justify this gross over-paying? The potential for unlimited residual income, of course!
That is the crux of the problem: in order for a MLM to be sustainable, it needs to over-charge by at least 2X, probably 3X, the cost of all its non-MLM competitors. With Global Domains, you’re paying $9/mo for the potential to make money. That might seem like a good deal, but let’s see what your chances of making money actually are…
First, let’s imagine that you are the very FIRST person in the chain. You get 5 friends to sign on. The way Global Domains work is that you get a $1 for every person that signs on, up to five levels down. Since $1/mo is actually going toward the service you are getting, we’ll calculate your investment at $9/mo. So now that you found 5 people, you’re getting $5/mo, so you’re only paying $4/mo. If each of them gets 5 people, then that’s 25 people added to your line. Now you’re actually making money! 5+25 = $30/mo - $9 = $21/mo.
You+5+25+125+625+3125. That’s the limit if you bring 5 and each person brings 5 people. You’ll be making $3896/mo, your 5 friends will be making $771/mo, the next 25 friends will be making $146/mo, and the next 125 friends will be making $21/mo. Everything seems pretty nice, except you’re forgetting that 625 friends are paying $4/mo, and another 3125 friends are now paying $9/mo. In other words, since no good or service is being produced, in order for the first 156 people to make ANY money, they have to scam 3750 people into PAYING FOR NOTHING! That’s a ratio of over 24:1. If you keep doing the math, that ratio never changes. There are always 24 TIMES as many people paying for an MLM than people making money for an MLM (in our example only. Depending on the cost and expenses, this ratio changes, but I can assure you it is never lower than 10:1).
The trick is, the MLM people always make you think you can be one of the 1 in 25 that actually makes money. At 6 levels, there were already 3905 people. If you’ve ever done the doubling math, then think how fast the 5x math gets into ridiculous number. At level 10, there are already 2.44 million people (and remember, only 1 in 25 of them is making any money). At level 13, there’s over 300 million people in the MLM (which will never happen). In other words, if you get approached by someone to join an MLM, you’re already near the end of the line. You can only make money in an MLM if you start one, or if you know the guy who knows the guy who started it. Even worse, even if you do make money, you’re doing it at the gullibility of others. You’re making money out of their wrong belief that they can also make money, so hopefully Karma will kick your ass.
A Ponzi Scheme pays out their dividends using the money that the newcomers bring in. This is only sustainable while there are more new-comers each year than people part of the scheme. Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme could last so long because he was only dishing out a 15% return. Even at 15%, the market eventually saturates, because of the simple law of exponential growth. What if, however, the newcomers DIDN’T get a return? Well, then, you could keep the Ponzi Scheme going INDEFINITELY! The new-comers could continually pay into the scheme, and not get any money in return… and so MLMs were created.
This comes the next ingenious step in MLM; what I like to call SUPER-HYPE!!!J!!!. You have to convince the bottom rung of the ladder that they have the potential to make as much as you do, so they don’t leave. That’s why ALL MLMs make a nice side business selling promotional videos and holding seminars. They register you as a ‘business owner’ and show you simple upside-down diagrams of your earning potential (upside-down because they show you at the top of the ladder instead of where you really are – the bottom). The worst part is that the people telling you this believe it themselves, because it worked for them (or is ‘working’ for them, since they are not quite breaking even yet...) They’re making money, so why can’t you? They don’t realize they’re promoting a system that is inherently flawed and unbalanced. The smartest ones convince you that their products are actually WORTH what you’re paying for them, and that there is plenty of room for growth. I actually had a MLM person, who was paying $50/mo for some kind of daily vitamin supplement, tell me that market saturation was impossible! I should have realized then how full of BS the whole thing was right then. Unfortunately, I was kinda caught up in it all…
If you are involved in a MLM, please get out. I promise you that you can find the same product or service you’re paying for at a much cheaper price. If so, then every $1 you’re spending over the true value of that product is going into the MLM Ponzi Scheme machine, and paying for someone else to get rich. Even if the person who brought you in is a close friend, get out for their sake as well. I promise you they aren’t making money either, and even if they are making slightly over their monthly payments, do you really want them to be making money at the expense of 24 other people? Also, do you really even WANT or need that product you’re grossly over-paying for?
If you think this post has any merit, and if you know someone who is involved in an MLM, feel free to tag them or copy and paste this onto anywhere you think it will be helpful.
Thanks for reading.
A brother and friend,
Youngil Ely Loew
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama is left handed!
Obama is left-handed!! How did I miss that? All I need to find out know is that he's got a Jewsih grandma and I'll believe he's the Messiah! LOL...
Anyway, the daily show from yesterday is highlighting some views that Obama is the anti-christ or a second coming of Hitler... so embarrasing. The Christians who believe that, and worse, publicy declare it, are such an embarrasment, not just to Christianity, but to all religious people. Adding fuel to the athiest fire... I, for one, would just like to declare that the majority of religious people are NOT so ridiculous. If anything, the idea of the Anti-Christ was a symbol for Hilter and Stalin (and similar people), who came to power at the beginning of the 20th Century and sent millions to an early grave... the only other possible candidate would be Rev. Moon, with his theology of one world government. I often tell people that Father is either the Messiah or the Anti-christ, and the first one makes a lot more sense.
"A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." -Mark 3:24
-Ely Loew
By the way, if you haven't yet, please join the Youth Federation for World Peace - International group. I'm doing some work for new media, and that's the official group. Also, check out the Suport IYLS cause and help us raise some money for the work we'll be doing in Africa next month.
Anyway, the daily show from yesterday is highlighting some views that Obama is the anti-christ or a second coming of Hitler... so embarrasing. The Christians who believe that, and worse, publicy declare it, are such an embarrasment, not just to Christianity, but to all religious people. Adding fuel to the athiest fire... I, for one, would just like to declare that the majority of religious people are NOT so ridiculous. If anything, the idea of the Anti-Christ was a symbol for Hilter and Stalin (and similar people), who came to power at the beginning of the 20th Century and sent millions to an early grave... the only other possible candidate would be Rev. Moon, with his theology of one world government. I often tell people that Father is either the Messiah or the Anti-christ, and the first one makes a lot more sense.
"A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." -Mark 3:24
-Ely Loew
By the way, if you haven't yet, please join the Youth Federation for World Peace - International group. I'm doing some work for new media, and that's the official group. Also, check out the Suport IYLS cause and help us raise some money for the work we'll be doing in Africa next month.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
My favorite things
I love snow. Don’t know why I love it so much, but I love walking down the street, bundled up in a scarf and hat with snow falling down all around me (like today). If there’s wind, then it’s annoying, but today was perfect.
Beyonce’s song “If I were a boy” has quickly become one of my favorites. The music video, however, is beyond amazing and is my all-time favorite music video. It is just awesome. The switch at the end is ingenious… and it makes the point of the song more real. Never really liked Beyonce’s other songs.
This song and video is also really sweet, for the romantic types (like me) out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZcqBgCS74
I also saw a really funny music video with a bunch of fat cupids running around the city shooting all the women on the street and throwing pink love bombs. I thought it was hilarious, but have no idea who sings it or what it’s called. Help me out somebody…
I’ve been watching this TV series (on one of those free online portals) called Merlin. The girl who plays Guinevere (Angel Coulby) is my now my favorite fictional TV character. So I have to like the actress as well. I love how the writers show the relationship between Gwen and Merlin, and how Gwen stumbles over her words.
Since we’re talking about actresses, I also love Keira Knightley. I actually don’t think she’s that good looking (actually, I’d go so far to say she’s a bit funny looking, like Urma Thurman), but I sincerely love her acting. Especially in Pirates 3, when she becomes the Pirate Queen. That’s on my list of all time favorite movies scenes (along with Braveheart’s ‘Freedom’ scene, and Die Hard Four’s climax, which literally left me breathless for about a full 5 seconds).
I’ve also been seeing random episodes of Criminal Minds on TV here in Macedonia. I like it. It works, with a good balance of humor and blood. Also have to give some props for Dr. House. Last episode I saw left me in stitches (translation for Americans: left me laughing my ass off).
Just random thoughts.
-Ely Loew
Beyonce’s song “If I were a boy” has quickly become one of my favorites. The music video, however, is beyond amazing and is my all-time favorite music video. It is just awesome. The switch at the end is ingenious… and it makes the point of the song more real. Never really liked Beyonce’s other songs.
This song and video is also really sweet, for the romantic types (like me) out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZcqBgCS74
I also saw a really funny music video with a bunch of fat cupids running around the city shooting all the women on the street and throwing pink love bombs. I thought it was hilarious, but have no idea who sings it or what it’s called. Help me out somebody…
I’ve been watching this TV series (on one of those free online portals) called Merlin. The girl who plays Guinevere (Angel Coulby) is my now my favorite fictional TV character. So I have to like the actress as well. I love how the writers show the relationship between Gwen and Merlin, and how Gwen stumbles over her words.
Since we’re talking about actresses, I also love Keira Knightley. I actually don’t think she’s that good looking (actually, I’d go so far to say she’s a bit funny looking, like Urma Thurman), but I sincerely love her acting. Especially in Pirates 3, when she becomes the Pirate Queen. That’s on my list of all time favorite movies scenes (along with Braveheart’s ‘Freedom’ scene, and Die Hard Four’s climax, which literally left me breathless for about a full 5 seconds).
I’ve also been seeing random episodes of Criminal Minds on TV here in Macedonia. I like it. It works, with a good balance of humor and blood. Also have to give some props for Dr. House. Last episode I saw left me in stitches (translation for Americans: left me laughing my ass off).
Just random thoughts.
-Ely Loew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)