Untrue.
Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World by Juta Academic (South Africa’s leading provider of trusted legal and regulatory information and the largest local publisher of quality student textbooks in the fields of Commerce, Accounting, Communications, Social Science, Health, Education and the Law.) accepts MLM Watch website as well as Fitzpatrick as reliable references and say that ALL MLMs are deceptive scams with odds worse then with pyramid schemes. So even though it is a Philosophy book its comments regarding law were peer-reviewed by a publisher of legal and regulatory information.
wow. just wow. The book takes a quote from an anti-MLM page, then asks students to discuss it. It DOES NOT use it as a "reference". It DOES NOT say
anything at all about MLMs. In
another section of the book they cite a large passage from a book that promotes the idea that European Colonialism was a good thing for Africa, and then ask students to discuss it. Does that mean the book supports the idea that colonialism was a good thing?
You haven't even looked at the book have you, outside of finding them referencing FitzPatrick? Or
are you just hoping to deceive people and they won't check the source themselves?
Never mind nobody can even agree on when MLMs started (indicating that there is no really hard and fast definition of the thing making regulation hard at the best of times): Business students focus on ethics that claims the 1920s, while Western Journal of Communication presents 1940s as the start, but Articles in Journal of Small Business Management say lat 1960s, and finally an article in International Journal of Service Industry Management points to the 1970s. It a game of pick that decade. If it is clear what MLMs are then why in the name of sanity is the starting point 50 year range?
Your game appears to be "cherry pick the source". I suppose you're a climate change denier as well? The vast majority of sources agree that the first MLM compensation plan was developed by Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. in or about 1945 when they become official distributors for Nutrilite.
Given Amway's history from foundation in 1959 is extremely well documented. The fact your still giving credence to sources that are so obviously wrong just goes to show how your mind operates.
No they don't. Furthermore in 1998 China outlawed all direct selling (which includes MLMs) only legalizing direct selling (but NOT MLMs) in 2005.
Yup, they banned all direct sales,
for a while. Then they re-licenced legitimate companies like Amway. Contrary to your claims, a multi-level compensation still exists, the government simply requires agents to obtain business licences and registered as "authorized agents" before they can be compensated for sales by their team.
Your characterization of the situation in China is either ignorant or dishonest.
In 2010 MLMs were illegal in Singapore (The Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act).
Not quite. For
the purposes of the act MLM and pyramid selling are defined as the same thing. There is then a separate part of the law,
Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Selling (Excluded Schemes and Arrangements),which you are either ignorant of or chosen to deceptively ignore, which provides exclusions. I cite the
Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry -
Not all multi-level marketing techniques are undesirable. There are legitimate businesses using innovative sales tactics, and should not be lumped together with pyramid schemes
Your characterization of the situation in Singapore is either ignorant or dishonest.
And even those areas where MLMs are legal the vast majority of them are in reality disguised ILLEGAL pyramid schemes.
As I said, this is arguably true. I've neither conducted research to ascertain this, nor have I seen any research to support this claim.
If you have, please supply it.
"MLM program is a highly leveraged product-based pyramid scheme in concept, structure, and effects. Nowadays, MLM industry is so well-entrenched in our society that effective laws for protecting consumers may be next to impossible without massive public support and clamor for change - which is not likely to happen, In fact, opposite is more likely - participants in all types of pyramid schemes will fight to defend a scheme until they have had their opportunity to "cash out"." (Sam-Hyun Chun, (2008) 방문ㆍ다단계판매의 판단기준에 관한 비교법적 고찰 "A Comparative Legal Review on Definition of Door-To-Door Sales and multilevel marketing" English abstract)
You want me to believe you can read Korean?
I don't believe that. You don't have the source and are relying entirely on an abstract found on the 'net.
I have however no problem believing their are anti-mlm critics in Korea who mischaracterize the business model in the same way anti-mlm critics do in the US. Meanwhile, companies like Amway flourish, even
coming near the top in surveys of admired foreign companies in the country.
The claim of a huge conspiracy could be used to explain the failure of Prohibition in the 1920s or the Drug War today and it just as silly. Apathy towards what laws are on the books is all that is needed-no huge conspiracy needed.
Except your beliefs require a
worldwide conspiracy.
No it isn't.
"It is considered that 99% of NMOs’ distributors lose profits because the costs associated with building the business exceed the returns." (Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations")
Again you are being dishonest! In that statement they are citing un-peer reviewed unscientific claims by anti-mlm zealot Jon Taylor, based on anecdotal evidence and a
thorough ignorance of even most basic statistical methods.
"Day after day, however, many Americans and others around the world fall prey to a similar type of deception—supposed “business opportunities” in which 99.9 percent of investors lose money." (Pareja, Sergio, (2008) "Sales Gone Wild: Will the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule Put an End to Pyramid Marketing Schemes?" McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83.)
Again, you are being dishonest. This paper also cites Taylor's anecdotal un-peer reviewed unscientific claims. In this case h's citing claims that Taylor made to the FTC when they were reviewing new business opportunity legislation.
The FTC rejected Taylor's position.
Jon Taylor is the Anthony Watts of the MLM world.
