<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When bloggers uncover Ponzis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tim</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/comment-page-1/#comment-4009</link>
		<dc:creator>tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/#comment-4009</guid>
		<description>great news for ponzi artists. no one is interested if its under a certain dollar amount. feds get involved only 1,000,000 plus. smaller attorney&#039;s are too weak to do anything with fake names and bank accounts. your best bet on getting your money back is torture,since these individuals are laughing at the judicial system as they count your money...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>great news for ponzi artists. no one is interested if its under a certain dollar amount. feds get involved only 1,000,000 plus. smaller attorney&#8217;s are too weak to do anything with fake names and bank accounts. your best bet on getting your money back is torture,since these individuals are laughing at the judicial system as they count your money&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nic Fulton</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/comment-page-1/#comment-1116</link>
		<dc:creator>Nic Fulton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 22:19:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/#comment-1116</guid>
		<description>The trouble with allowing advertising is that many of these investments are so damned complex you could make almost any claim and it&#039;d be almost impossible to prove it false (advertising should be &#039;provably true&#039;). So when &quot;Joe Punter&quot; sees the advert reading &quot;invest in Fool&#039;s Gold Securities with 30% returns and no tax burden&quot; they&#039;ll demand that the SEC allows them to invest too, even if the advert doesn&#039;t add &quot;with a 31% chance we&#039;ll lose your principle&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trouble with allowing advertising is that many of these investments are so damned complex you could make almost any claim and it&#8217;d be almost impossible to prove it false (advertising should be &#8216;provably true&#8217;). So when &#8220;Joe Punter&#8221; sees the advert reading &#8220;invest in Fool&#8217;s Gold Securities with 30% returns and no tax burden&#8221; they&#8217;ll demand that the SEC allows them to invest too, even if the advert doesn&#8217;t add &#8220;with a 31% chance we&#8217;ll lose your principle&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Consilvio</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/comment-page-1/#comment-1095</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Consilvio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 18:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/#comment-1095</guid>
		<description>Perhaps you should define a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is the promise to return more money than what was given. It accomplishes this by taking money from somebody else. Insurance is a ponzi scheme. Interest is a ponzi scheme. Taxes are a ponzi scheme.  Even profit can be thought os as a ponzi scheme, since it is similarly based on &#039;buy low-sell high.&#039;
The result of all these ponzi schemes is inflation. Once people/organizations cannot keep up their overhead, they collapse. Their collapse then ripples to the next person/organization, and so the dominos fall. Buy low-sell high becomes Buy high-sell low. The former creates the later in an endless vicious circle.
These people who claim to be &#039;managing&#039; money are delusional. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps you should define a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is the promise to return more money than what was given. It accomplishes this by taking money from somebody else. Insurance is a ponzi scheme. Interest is a ponzi scheme. Taxes are a ponzi scheme.  Even profit can be thought os as a ponzi scheme, since it is similarly based on &#8216;buy low-sell high.&#8217;<br />
The result of all these ponzi schemes is inflation. Once people/organizations cannot keep up their overhead, they collapse. Their collapse then ripples to the next person/organization, and so the dominos fall. Buy low-sell high becomes Buy high-sell low. The former creates the later in an endless vicious circle.<br />
These people who claim to be &#8216;managing&#8217; money are delusional. :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: minderbender</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/comment-page-1/#comment-1035</link>
		<dc:creator>minderbender</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/30/when-bloggers-uncover-ponzis/#comment-1035</guid>
		<description>1.  &quot;(always mistrust people who can’t spell their own name)&quot;

Uncharacteristically snooty - you don&#039;t choose your name, you know.

2.  &quot;when I was in New York&quot;

Have you left?

3.  I think the anti-spam word is broken, it seems to be ikea every time now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1.  &#8220;(always mistrust people who can’t spell their own name)&#8221;</p>
<p>Uncharacteristically snooty &#8211; you don&#8217;t choose your name, you know.</p>
<p>2.  &#8220;when I was in New York&#8221;</p>
<p>Have you left?</p>
<p>3.  I think the anti-spam word is broken, it seems to be ikea every time now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
