lol, wat?

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ha ha!]

9/21/2011 4:51:36 PM

Quote :

"Again, the players were using fulltilt as a bank account and collecting interest as well."

and, again, doesn't matter. that's not an investment. when you put money in a checking account, you are not "investing it". The interest is not an actual return on investment, it is an enticement by the bank to get you to put your money there for safe keeping. It serves to make you choose to put your money there as opposed to a shoe-box in the closet. Literally no one of any intelligence tries to make money off of the interest in a checking account

Quote :

"but you're ignoring the 4 other definitions of investors"

please explain how those other 4 matter. that's right, they don't. I am specifically talking about the first definition, and that is what a Ponzi Scheme references. It doesn't talk about "furnishing with power", and to boil "investment" down to "using money" is about as disingenuous as it gets, dude.

Quote :

"Well his semantic argument just got owned."

no it didn't. You came in an explicitly ignored the obvious meaning of a word I was using, even to the point of showing the meaning I am using is the primary definition and then discounting it, and tried to substitute another meaning that is clearly not the intent.

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2011 5:47:49 PM

christ


the level of stupid in this thread is breathtaking


someone call a sociologist, they need to document this shit

9/21/2011 6:03:44 PM

Quote :

"no it didn't. You came in an explicitly ignored the obvious meaning of a word I was using, even to the point of showing the meaning I am using is the primary definition and then discounting it, and tried to substitute another meaning that is clearly not the intent."

Is this real? lol

9/21/2011 7:04:15 PM

then why did you post the other 4 definitions? It's clear I'm using the first definition, as would any one else when talking about this topic. Or are you trying to say I can use two definitions of "invest" at the same time? what's the point? that you "blew my claims apart" by trumping up a definition I clearly wasn't using and saying it should apply? shit, I could do that with almost anything if that were legit

9/21/2011 7:16:36 PM

I just want to know why your definition matters if the Fed and Ponzi are using the definition #2 or #3, but you're using a definition #1?

I do believe the Fed and Ponzi's definition override your chosen definition since, you know, they're the ones calling it a ponzi scheme first.

Ponzi doesn't specify which definition of investor in its definition, therefore you can use all 5 definitions.

9/21/2011 7:34:30 PM

Quote :

"I just want to know why your definition matters if the Fed and Ponzi are using the definition #2 or #3, but you're using a definition #1?"

Because if the Fed is using 2 or 3, then they are being equally fucking stupid, as a Ponzi scheme is explicitly known as an investment fraud under the first definition of investment. That's just how it is. No one talks about a Ponzi Scheme with respect to someone randomly spending money on some set of books or the like. Even Ponzi represented his scheme to potential investors as the first definition of investment. Shit, dude.

Quote :

"I do believe the Fed and Ponzi's definition override your chosen definition since, you know, they're the ones calling it a ponzi scheme first. "

So, again, if the Feds declared that 2+2=5, you would take their word for it, because, well, they are the Feds, right?

Quote :

"Ponzi doesn't specify which definition of investor in its definition, therefore you can use all 5 definitions."

Yes, you can be a fucking idiot and assume that "invest" means a power bestowed upon someone and take out entirely the financial aspect of what a Ponzi Scheme is. yes, that makes perfect fucking sense.

Moreover, when talking abot a Ponzi Scheme, we also routinely talk about investors. That term, alone, then implies that the first definition is what is being used. It makes it entirely fucking retarded to use the remaining definitions, because an investor simply isn't involved in the other definitions

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2011 9:39:55 PM

Quote :

"Ponzi scheme is explicitly known as an investment fraud under the first definition of investment. That's just how it is. No one talks about a Ponzi Scheme with respect to someone randomly spending money on some set of books or the like. Even Ponzi represented his scheme to potential investors as the first definition of investment. Shit, dude."

Untrue. Check your facts again.

9/21/2011 9:55:38 PM

really? Ponzi doesn't refer to investment? well then, oh great Genius, how about YOU provide a definition of what a Ponzi Scheme is. I've provided essentially the dictionary and wikipedia definitions. now it's your turn. Or are you denying history where Ponzi told investors he was dealing in postal coupons as the investment vehicle for his supposed returns? Or, are you equating "random spending on books" with a bogus claim of purchasing financial instruments in an attempted investment strategy?

for the record, THIS is the definition I am working from:
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation[b] that [b]pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

notice the use of the words "investment" and "investors".

how about Merriam Webster?
"an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks "
http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ponzi%20scheme

Again, notice the use of the words "investment" and "investors". Kind of blows the lid off of any claim of the last three definitions of "invest," unless you use the ol' trick that was disallowed in 3rd grade of defining a word using the word, itself.

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2011 10:07:42 PM

Quote :

"the level of stupid in this thread is breathtaking"

Quote :

"someone call a sociologist"

ahahaha

9/21/2011 10:35:22 PM

lol, you just proved yourself wrong. thank you.

9/21/2011 10:35:26 PM

how? how did I prove myself wrong? you STILL haven't offered a definition, dude. you've got to be trolling at this point, especially in trying to suggest that an "investment of power" is in any fucking way what people are talking about with respect to a Ponzi Scheme investment. oh, let me guess: you think that a guy coming in and ordering a pizza is making an "investment", right? no wonder your fucking store went under

[Edited on September 21, 2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2011 10:52:47 PM

Honestly, and not just trolling, but seems like you are getting way to hung up on the part about investing.

Although that is the specific definition, it just seemed to me the term is being used here to describe making payouts when people go to collect their earnings/winnings etc. with the subsequent money that comes in. To me that is why the term ponzi scheme is being thrown around with this.

The only way they could make payouts to people when they went to collect was to pay them with money that had come in from new players. You keep coming back to this idea that it can't be a ponzi scheme because people weren't putting their money into an investment, but the 2nd half of the definition about how the payments are made fit exactly into this. The only difference is WHY the money is being put in(to play poker and hopefully win some money) vs. put in for someone else to invest.

Honestly, the more important part of the definition to me is the idea that money is being paid out with the subsequent money that comes in because that is what makes it unsustainable and eventually collapse if give enough time. The WHY people are putting money into it(investment, gambling, etc.) is secondary.

But I've said it before, you are the expert on everything so I'm sure you are right on this one too.

9/21/2011 11:09:34 PM

You may be too stupid to understand


You know what a return is?

1) you and your friend both invests $100 of your moneys expecting a profit from winning knowing you're probably going to lose. You're not going to invest if you know you are going to lose.

2) You decide to play, your friend wants to wait till tomorrow.

3) YOU win $200, cash out and make a (taxable, if reported) return on your investment.

4) They pay you $200 before your friend plays a single time. How? The company takes your friend's money to pay you off with it.


Ponzi

9/21/2011 11:16:37 PM

consumerist has been on point this morning

Quote :

"While the government has obviously taken issue with the underlying activities of FTP, under any reasonable interpretation, the world-wide operations of the online cardroom are not a so-called Ponzi scheme."

-http://consumerist.com/2011/09/full-tilt-poker-says-it-isnt-a-ponzi-scheme.html

well there we go

9/22/2011 9:50:44 AM

The case is closed because the attorney representing the company being called a ponzi scheme says it isn't?

What was he going to come out and say, "Oh yeah, the government was spot on, it's a Full Tilt ponzi scheme! Get it? Get it..?"

9/22/2011 11:03:31 AM

i think this was just on an episode of

9/22/2011 11:13:03 AM

Quote :

"Honestly, and not just trolling, but seems like you are getting way to hung up on the part about investing. Although that is the specific definition, it just seemed to me the term is being used here to describe making payouts when people go to collect their earnings/winnings etc. with the subsequent money that comes in."

but that broad of a definition describes almost every business on the planet. You take in new revenues and pay outstanding bills. The reason the investment part is so key is that it shows a specific relationship between payments and receipts that shouldn't exist in an investment strategy. THAT is the ponzi element. In an investment, the returns should be coming from profits made elsewhere, not from the incoming investment stream.

Quote :

"You keep coming back to this idea that it can't be a ponzi scheme because people weren't putting their money into an investment, but the 2nd half of the definition about how the payments are made fit exactly into this."

The problem is that that part of it is not a sufficient requirement. It is most certainly a necessary requirement, but not a sufficient one. It's akin to saying that since all cars have wheels that anything with a wheel must be a car. Instead, what you've got with this mode of payments is the basic failure of fractional-reserve system. When you go to your local bank, do you really think you are getting your money back? Absolutely not. You are probably getting the money of the guy right before you in line who just made a deposit. yet you wouldn't call that a Ponzi Scheme.

Quote :

"Honestly, the more important part of the definition to me is the idea that money is being paid out with the subsequent money that comes in because that is what makes it unsustainable and eventually collapse if give enough time."

Not at all. Again, almost every business in America is run in this manner, and most certainly every bank runs this way. Ponzi specifically speaks to how the "returns" on investment are generated.

Quote :

"You know what a return is? 1) you and your friend both invests $100 of your moneys expecting a profit from winning knowing you're probably going to lose. You're not going to invest if you know you are going to lose. 2) You decide to play, your friend wants to wait till tomorrow. 3) YOU win $200, cash out and make a (taxable, if reported) return on your investment. 4) They pay you $200 before your friend plays a single time. How? The company takes your friend's money to pay you off with it."

congrats. you have, again, described the basic business model of every business in America. You have NOT described a Ponzi Scheme. Again, I'm waiting for you to give an explicit definition of a Ponzi Scheme. Moreover, winning money in a poker game is not really an investment. it simply doesn't fit the way "investing" works. You may have certainly made money, but you did so through gambling, not investing. There is a difference in the two. And, again, what makes this business slightly different is that customers both pay in and receive money out. Kind of like a bank. Or are you now accusing every bank in the world of being a Ponzi Scheme?

Moreover, you've conveniently ignored what happened to YOUR money. You have a total of 200 bux. 100 of that came from someone else you beat. 100 of it is yours. Gambling. Wow, what a shocking idea! On an accounting level, the money you gained is perfectly sound and came from an actual source, which is NOT the case in a Ponzi scheme. The "return" is literally made up and claimed to exist in a Ponzi when it simply does not. Here, your extra money was derived from a legitimate deduction in someone else's account. In a Ponzi Scheme, no one else's account is actually reduced. It stays at the same level, despite the fact that the schemer took the new person's money and gave it to you. The schemer says "here is your money", which he took from another guy's recent investment, yet keeps that guy's account at the same level. Do you see the difference?

[Edited on September 22, 2011 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2011 2:37:57 PM

you people...

9/22/2011 2:46:00 PM

I think pyramid schemes should make a come-back

9/22/2011 3:09:38 PM

I got a letter for a pyramid scheme via snail mail a couple years ago and loled

9/22/2011 7:24:12 PM

It's ok everyone, burro doesn't even understand what money is.

10/30/2011 12:04:36 AM