The arguments for Ponzi scams are supported by nothig more than semantics at this point. The people that support Ponzi schemes call them "games" because they claim to have full knowledge of what the definition of a Ponzi scheme is, but choose to send money to them anyway. It doesn't really matter what they are called or how many people support them. A scam is a scam. You can call it a "game" but supporting them only encourages more. The gambling aspect is that you don't really know when the operator is going to stop paying people out. You're gambling that the money you risk will be paid back. It wouldn't be a gamble if they were always paid back every single time. However that is the aspect of Ponzi scams that is unsustainable. At some point payouts will stop and the Ponzi scam operator will abscond with the funds.
In that regard, it's not a victimless crime - and make no mistake, stealing someone's money is illegal everywhere. So it's not fun or cute to support a scam that is built upon an unsustainable model that eventually, and always, steals money from someone else. I can't believe this even has to be explained that stealing is wrong. Even if you have profited from it or you personally haven't been stolen from (yet) supporting Ponzi scams, it is still absolutely intrinsically wrong. To argue the opposite is to argue from an incorrect perspective. QED.
In that regard, it's not a victimless crime - and make no mistake, stealing someone's money is illegal everywhere. So it's not fun or cute to support a scam that is built upon an unsustainable model that eventually, and always, steals money from someone else. I can't believe this even has to be explained that stealing is wrong. Even if you have profited from it or you personally haven't been stolen from (yet) supporting Ponzi scams, it is still absolutely intrinsically wrong. To argue the opposite is to argue from an incorrect perspective. QED.
Very well said
Not really, notice how he hasn't replied to my question.
