The ONLY legit money making "scheme" I've ever seen on infomercials is tax certificates.
Having dug into the issue myself....tax certificates are, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others) the highest return/risk investment you could ever make.
Your returns are literally guaranteed by law. The law is there to ensure it's low risk so as to increase confidence and attract potential investors.
There are drawbacks of course. It's called "the millionaires investment" for a reason.
The investment is EXTREMELY unpredictable with respect to liquidity. It only (usually) happens once a year. Your money may be tied up for upwards of 7 years. You could invest and be liquidated in 2 months (the debt is paid).
However, the advantages are significant. You're pretty much gauranteed a return rate ranging from 15% upward to 20% (though typically it's 15-18%) and there's POTENTIAL to earn more.
Depending on the state, you can file for a tax lien siezure between 2-7 years.....at which time, the value of the property (even tremendously discounted) is greater than your initial investment plus interest.
The following user says Thank You to RM99 for this post:
This reminds me of some Game Theory stuff I was reading.
Capitalism without regulation becomes amoral. The Wild West for example. Mob action for example. Drug dealers for example. It seems illogical to expect crime to decrease by removing all forms of regulation.
Your forms of punishment are too oppressive and barbaric for a developed country. Any government that did what you insinuate would be ostracized from the developed countries around the world. Look at the oppressive leaders around the world and tell me how many of those nations are doing well.
The fact that people cannot put gum on the street is why people move to America. The fact that people can't be gay in certain countries is why people move to America. The fact that certain countries don't allow you to make a reasonable amount of money is why people move to America. What you are suggesting is for the country to become like the countries that people flee from.
Regulation forces people to jump through hoops. I would assume that it is a safe assumption that most criminals break the law because they do not want to earn an honest buck or put in the time/effort to reap the rewards. Regulation and bureaucracy in itself would deter a large amount of criminals because it requires effort to overcome. It weeds out small time criminals and leaves only those that are intelligent enough to do DD. Are you as an American citizen unwilling to do paperwork even though it greatly deters the amount of crime in the community?
The problem is that people believe that government give them a 100% chance of security. The security is there, but it is not as encompassing to protect all consumers from all frauds.
Some of your assumptions are exactly why we find ourselves in the mess we're in....
I said, I could live with heavy regulation, IF we would punish people severely for crime against said regulated areas. But we don't.
So what we end up with....is a system that falsely creates a sense of security among consumers, all the while, the criminal element still invariably finds a way to skirt the system and take advantage of people who aren't as cautious or skeptical as they otherwise would have been.
It's a principle underlaying tenet of the small government advocates. IF you assume politicians and bureacrats create rules and laws and regulations with the best of intentions (and that's a large leap), the second, more practical counterargument is that implimentation is nearly always frought with fraud, waste, abuse and unforseen conditions.
How many times have we seen the government or a law, or an interaction that's intended to illicit a certain change or response, get that change, but only lead to other, unanticipated changes?
It reminds me of when someone brings in an animal or an insect to counteract another pest species. MOST times, the cure ends up being worse somehow than that ailment.
You cannot prevent gun crime through regulation. Period. End of debate. Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. You deter and prevent gun crime through PUNISHMENT. Anyone who's willing to use the gun in a comission of a crime, doesn't really care about additional regulations (i.e. pain and suffering) that you place upon the good upstanding citizens who already obey the law.
You don't address things globally, you address them specifically and individually, and then..through shared knowledge and experience...the system distributes that experience and people modify their behavior...VOLUNTARILY, not at the request of the state.
Most things need SOME amount of regulation....but if you think you're going to rid the financial and investment markets of fraud and abuse through regulation....again, you're an idiot.
The only thing that's going to stop the crooks from criminal activity in white collar, financial crimes is prosecution. The two most powerful forces in free markets are fear and greed. Additional regulation modifies neither.
People modify and regulate their own behavior in one of 2 ways. Intrinsically and extrinsically. Some people do what's right, because that's what they believe. Some others however, are motivated EXTRINSICALLY.
They're motivated through fear of punishment or failure and greed for reward or compensation.
Again, by placing more regulations and limitations on the consumer and the business, all you're doing is making it MORE difficult for those that are already following the rules. The crook is always one step ahead of the regulator.
the way you prevent the majority of this type of fraud and criminal activity is to hammer **** those that abuse the system and make an example of them to others. THAT way, they seek other places to exact their criminal enterprise.
Making everyone take a breathalyzer through a car ignition system would be stupid....instead, if you wanted to clean up the roadways and prevent the majority of people from drinking and driving, you'd do like Australia does...you'd make the penalties soooooo incredibly stiff, that people think VERY hard about it before they choose to do it.
The following user says Thank You to RM99 for this post:
Your logic is cyclical and further illustrates my point. Who would dole out these cruel and unusual punishments? You are advocating power through fear which is anti-capitalistic. Furthermore, how exactly would you ensure there is no corruption in the field responsible for protecting against corruption? They would become the new 'Government' with extreme power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You cannot say that you will regulate the group responsible for executing the law because you have already 'proven' how unsuccessful regulation is.
If the crook is always ahead of the regulator, the only alternative to constant regulation is to have all encompassing laws that allow no room for interpretation or gray areas. So those who make errors would be just as guilty as those who purposefully deceive. For example, if I were to follow your reasoning, there would be no room for accidental deaths, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. There is murder and a punishment for murder, regardless of the facts. No shades of gray, nothing. So you rule heavy handedly and control the masses through fear. Sounds mighty totalitarian to me...
It's ironic because initially your stance was to avoid suffering for the innocent, but now the stance you are taking must inadvertently destroy innocent mistakes. As a result, instead of few innocent people convicted and sizable amounts of fraud, you have sizable amounts of innocent people convicted and few instances of fraud.
Anyways, I comprehend the rest of your argument and could analyze and show you all of the inconsistencies in it, but you have already resorted to name calling so it would be pointless to continue. I suggest you read some Game Theory to show how things are not so black and white as you assume
I'm not sure if you're a liberal or not, but you're acting like one.
Don't make it more complicated than it has to be. We have laws. We don't even prosecute violations to the fullest extent.
Martha Stewart was a perfect example. The woman basically "stole" money via insider trading and to make matters worse, she lied to investigors and tried to obstruct justice. and what did she get? A couple of years in a cushy jail. Big deal.
Now, if they'd have sentenced her to 15 years in a REAL prison....THAT would have made headlines...
Everyone in America would have went..."holy crap, note to self, no matter how tempting it may be....remind me to never try to trade via insider trading and if the law comes knocking, tell the truth."
We have a liberal system where not only are our prisons no longer daunting or scary, but we rarely even see someone who serves the entirety of their sentence.
Why? Several reasons......liberal sentiment, overcrowding (because we don't execute anyone), etc. etc.
We could also modify the laws such that we place MINIMUM jail time per count (which should be PER PERSON).....
So if you're some scam/con artist and you get convicted and you con'd 100 people, it would be a minimum of x years in jail for every person you defrauded.
Instead, you get these crooks and scam artists that make $MILLIONS and they end up with a few years in jail.
I'd gladly spend 5 years in modern prison in exchange for $20M waiting when I get out.
If you rob a liquor store, you get 10-20 years in prison. If you rob another businessman out of $2M you get a promotion.
All the regulation in the world won't stop it, it will only frustrate the hell out of everyone who already obeys the law and the rules.
The best way to modify behavior of extrinsically motivated people is through fear and greed.
Criminals who break the law should be punished harshly, to serve as a warning and a deterrent to others who are considering it. As it stands now....it's a joke.
Platform: "I trade, therefore, I AM!"; Theme Song: "Atomic Dog!"
Favorite Futures: EMD, 6J, ZB
Posts: 798 since Oct 2009
Thanks: 216 given,
Utah, you say, hmmmmm
seems the capital for those packages and methods that those infomercials centers around that area.
seems that area has the most expertise and ready made dupes, camera ready for any commercial too
there was a maxim, those who can't do, teach, those who don't succeed preach....
listen, there's something called dumb luck, which simply means that there are those who enter into a profession and find success, whether because of the turn of events, circumstances are more favorable or just the combination that seems to work.
during the NASD bubble, they said, people would buy a 4 letter stock, and almost always sell it later that day for +27 points higher. There were those that amassed millions, only to stay in trading through more rational months and downturn months and lose it all back and then some.
not everything and not always, are things of malicious concern, but isn't it surprising how it certainly seems that way?