Showing posts with label Losing Schemes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Losing Schemes. Show all posts

Monday, December 4, 2017

Republicans Lie to Themselves to Justify Tax Cuts

The only selling point Republicans have left to justify their tax law is their oft-stated belief that it will spur growth and EVERYONE will benefit. Unfortunately, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the overwhelming majority of macro economists do not agree with their hype.

Republicans promised historic tax reform. Actual reform to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes would take time and considered compromises. The Republicans decided they didn’t have time and proved they didn’t care about real simplification. With a 500-page tax bill, I’ll bet the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations will be expanding, not contracting.

Despite the Republican Party platform calling for a balanced budget amendment, they have given up on trimming the annual budget deficit—unless one believes their assurances that the tax cuts will pay for themselves with increased growth. The CBO estimates the Senate version of the bill will increase the deficit by a trillion dollars over ten years. (That’s $1,000,000,000,000.)

Most economists agree the changes will result in some growth because the increased budget deficit provides a stimulus to our economy (which is already generating record corporate profits and nearly full employment). However, virtually all economists maintain the growth will be insufficient to pay the costs of the tax-cut stimulus. 

Three charts to illustrate why the Republicans are mistaken in believing their myths.

To predict the future, we should examine the past. We have reduced both the maximum individual tax rate and nominal corporate tax rates in the past. Did we experience increased growth in real gross domestic product (an inflation adjusted measure of the economy) after those changes? You be the judge. This is what has happened in my lifetime:


In 1950 the top income tax rate was 90% (gray line). The top corporate rate was 42%, which was increased to 52% by 1952 (orange line). The blue line shows annual changes in real GDP (multiplied by ten to show on the same scale). It varies a lot year by year, but during the 1950s averaged 4.06%.

Corporate rates in the 1960s stayed about the same. The maximum personal income tax rate declined from 91% to 70%. Average real GDP averaged 4.43%. Aha! Maximum income tax rates go down and average real GDP increases.

Except with that 70% rate maximum in place throughout the 1970s and a slight decline in the corporate rate, real GDP annual increase averaged only 3.55% that decade. Hmm.

In 1987, maximum tax rates for both individuals and corporations were significantly reduced. The average annual real GDP increase fell to 3.15% for the 1980s.

In 1993, the corporate tax rate reached its current 35% (a slight increase from 34%) and the individual rate maximum increased from 31% to 39.6%. And the average annual real GDP for the 1990s increased ever so slightly to 3.23%

The maximum individual rate dropped for many years to 35%, but the average annual growth in real GDP during the first decade of the 2000s declined to 1.83%, and for the last six years has only increased to 2.09%. This year real GDP looks to grow something over 3%.

If maximum corporate and personal income tax rates were the only or even main driver of real GDP growth, we should go back to the high tax rates of the 1950s!

They’re not of course, but here’s one major problem with trickle-down economics. Give a billionaire an extra $100 and nothing changes for him. Give someone earning $20,000 a year that same $100 and chances are good they will spend every single one of those greenbacks. That spending is what increases GDP.

Lower tax rates are one of the reasons for the increased portion of wealth owned by the richest among us. (A second reason is the increased percentage of every dollar earned going to those who are already wealthy.)



Consider these two graphs showing the portion of income going to the top 1% and the portion of wealth owned by the top 1%.
  
During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s when we had significantly higher corporate and personal income tax rates, and the percentage of before-tax income going to the top 1% declined, real GDP growth averaged 4.01%.






In the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and the 2010s, while the income to and wealth accumulated by the top 1% has increased substantially, the average real GDP growth has been only 2.61%.








The Republican tax proposals will increase, not decrease income and wealth disparity. If one’s primary objective were to increase real GDP growth, one would skew the benefits of tax law change away from the top income-earners and toward lower income-earners.

If one’s objective is to benefit high income and wealthy individuals, the Republican plan should work quite well.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Black Box Concerns

I started out my home computer life an Apple guy. In 1985 I bought an Apple IIe. The “e” meant it was enhanced from the original Apple II. I chose the 128KB of RAM memory instead of the standard 64KB because I was a heavy computational user. My most recent computer, a Dell XPS 8700, has 8GB of RAM (a 62,500 times increase). For a few bucks more I could have had another 8GB of RAM, but I didn’t need it. My first machine handled 8 bits of data at a time; the new one handles 64 bits. Processing speed differences (how quickly data is processed) are just as great.

I opted for two external 5.25” floppy disk drives on my Apple IIe. Each disk held (I think) about 360KB of data. Then came double density disks with 720KB of data. Today I have an internal drive with 1TB of data and external drives with 2TB of data and cloud storage of another 2TB of data. I even have little thumb drives that carry 32GB of data (over 40,000 times as much storage as one of those floppies). Those Apple disk drives were great, though. They could read mud on cardboard. That computer still functioned, as did its disk drives, when I finally gave them to my father (circa 1993) to act as backup for his own Apple IIe system that contained all the backup material for his published textbook.

I cannot tell you how many crashed hard drives and thumb drives I have had to pitch since then because they no longer worked.

But surely, you say, my life is better with this more advanced technology. In my IIe days I had a spreadsheet program (Visicalc) that even in its early versions would still do 99+% of the work I do on spreadsheets today. I had a word processing program (whose name I no longer recall).

The only major word processing improvements in the 30 years since that I would find it difficult to do without are Microsoft Word’s style sheets and review functions. Occasionally in the old days I could get in a typing groove and get ahead of the computer recognizing keyboard strokes. There was a buffer so I didn’t lose the work, but it did force me to slow down every once in a while.

So why do I use Microsoft-based products now instead of Apple? Well, despite writing the first program to determine the cost of post-retirement medical programs for our clients on my little Apple IIe (it took 20 hours to execute with a Fortune 10 company’s data!) my employer moved to the “Wintel” computers (Windows operating system and Intel chips) and it made sense for me to follow suit.

So why, you wonder, this burst of nostalgia? Just the ramblings of an old man who walked ten miles to and from school each day and it was uphill in both directions? A strong desire to return to a circa 1985 squarish green screen and flashing white cursor? Hardly.

No, for the last month I’ve had to deal with Windows 10. Microsoft has reported over 100 million computers now run the Windows 10 operating system. I have two of them and the experience has been anything but satisfactory for me. I won’t belabor all the issues I’ve had; suffice it to say I have spent many hours searching for fixes, finally finding (most of) them, and implementing them. One computer was a brand new desktop that came loaded with Windows 10; the other is a laptop I migrated from Windows 8.1 to Windows 10.

All those hours I spent repairing my Windows 10 installations, a bloated product that includes myriad things I do not want, were hours I did not spend writing, or reading, or watching birds, or photographing nature or any one of the top 1,000 things I would do with my life if I had not tied myself to the computer world. It also got me thinking of the hidden costs of our technology.

My recent frustration and time spent getting Windows running properly is only a small part of the hidden cost of my long-ago choice to use computers. In the Apple IIe days, I could pop the lid and add a printer board to connect to my dot matrix printer or add a second operating system (CP/M) to access a freeware word processing program. There were so few parts, I could fix anything and understand what I was doing.

Now, unscrew the cover of a laptop and you likely invalidate the warranty. And it might not even do much good—one accidental move and you may fry your motherboard. And don’t get me started on the software. Programs were efficient in the dark ages because there was no room for inefficiency. With the early Apple operating system, I could peek and poke and adjust anything (those are actually technical terms). Now almost all software are black boxes.

I give it some input; it gives me some output. I have no idea what happens in between.

That’s life in America. Ask Google or Siri a question and a list of possible answers appears. Your answers will not be the same as the ones I get because one of the software’s algorithms has been paying attention to our preferences. Ask two GPS devices how to go from point A to B and you might get two “best” answers. How am I to know which to choose? Do I have to look at a paper map or do a third search to break the tie? When I was traveling from Savannah to Raleigh to attend Bouchercon, my phone’s GPS knew that I-95 was closed through much of South Carolina because of recent flooding. My Garmin GPS (which has in the past told me of even minor delays along a route) had no clue and kept trying to get me to turn around when I took the detour.

It’s a black box problem.

We confront more of them daily. We provide input; a black box provides output; we have no idea what happened in between. We have to trust the process and even when we know it is broken, we can’t fix it.

We don’t know how Google (or Bing or whoever) determines what articles appear first on search. If we’re authors we need to learn about and worry about and fret about SEO (Search Engine Optimization). For example, when you type in “James M Jackson Author” I want my name to come up first. And when Google decides mobile friendly websites will be favored in their searches, we must rush to comply with their desires to retain our prized search rankings.

We shop online and often an algorithm (not a person) determines what price we see based on other posted online prices, the time of day, day in the week, month of the year, where else our cookies tell them we have looked. Everywhere we examine things closely we find more black boxes.

Some say this is efficient, good for us, definitely progress.

I sense this further disconnect from understanding how things actually work is not a good trend. I can’t prove it, but I sense it.

Or maybe I’ve gotten to be the old man who walked ten miles to school each way and both ways were uphill.
  
~ Jim

Originally published on the Writers Who Kill Blog 10-11-15

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

How to Game Amazon Unlimited

Today’s blog is courtesy of Seamus McCree, who has always had an interest in how people can scam any financial transaction. Since he is a fictional character, take his advice with a pinch (no, make that a saltshaker) of salt. ~ Jim

Mr. Jackson’s recent post demonstrated that Hugh Howey needs a course in remedial math, given the faulty design and interpretation in his Author Earnings Report. I have some good news for Howey on how he can afford to take a little time off for coursework.

If he follows my advice, he will accrue two benefits. He’ll earn substantially greater profits from Amazon Unlimited than he otherwise would. And, because Amazon apparently uses loaned-book data from Amazon Unlimited as part of their bestseller determination, it will have the added benefit of maintaining or improving Howey’s ranking on Amazon’s bestseller lists, which should help drive further sales.

It's FREE!


Howey (or any KDP Select author) needs to rally his fans to take advantage of the 30-day free trial of Amazon Unlimited. Here are the actual Amazon Unlimited Terms of Use, and they don’t appear onerous. Remember to cancel to avoid the $9.99 a month charge.

Gallons of e-ink have been spilled (a decent summary that includes links to other articles is this from CNET) either decrying the difference between the way Amazon pays KDP Select authors and those with standard publishing contracts, promoting what a good deal it is for everyone, sounding the death knell for books as we know them—or something in between. For authors, it comes down to how they are paid, and this is the key to helping Howey (or your favorite KDP Select author or even a legacy published author who has been included in the program to make it look good.). Every time a member of the Amazon Unlimited program reads at least 10% of a book under the program, the author is credited with a sale.

Now, if you happen to be a nonKDP author and your publisher has agreed to have your book included in Kindle Unlimited, when the reader hits the magic 10% mark, your publisher is credited with a sale at whatever price Amazon is charging to the Kindle ebook. The author will get royalties based on the sale. Good deal, huh? Unfortunately there aren’t many traditionally published novels currently available as part of Kindle Unlimited; most of the 600,000 titles are from the self-published folks using KDP Select.

So, back to helping Hugh Howey. When I was writing this article, Howey had 20 books listed in Kindle Unlimited. Here are the steps to give Howey some extra money, whether or not you like his books:

1. Register for your 30-day free trial.
2. “Borrow” Howey books (you can borrow a maximum of ten at a time).
3. Take your favorite print book (or a second e-reader) and start reading. Every time you turn a page, click page turn in your borrowed Howey book until you get to 10%, then close that book and start another. (To be safe, go to 11% or 12 % since there may be some junk in the beginning that Amazon won’t count.) Howey will be credited for a book sale for every book on which you reach the magic 10%. This approach should at least temporarily fool any Amazon algorithms to avoid counting any speed-readers who just flip through books.
4. Once you have “read” the ten books, borrow the next ten. If more have appeared, do it again.
5. With twenty books available on Kindle Unlimited, all you have to do is read two or three print books in your 30 days, follow procedures in item #3 and Howey gets credit.
6. Cancel your subscription before the 30 days are up if you don’t want to continue.

Because Amazon isn’t giving KDP authors the same deal as legacy publishers, it is not clear exactly how much Howey will make with every book your “borrow” and “read.” Anecdotal evidence I’ve seen indicates for books borrowed as part of Amazon Prime, KDP Select authors have been paid around $2. If the same amount holds, you can give Howey $40 of Amazon money just for having your reader open and flicking pages in a method that won’t tip Amazon off that you aren’t actually reading the book.

Oh, and if you are a fan of the Hunger Games or Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, you can do the same thing and make sure Suzanne Collins, or JK Rowlings or the estate of Tolkien (and their publishers) receive some of Amazon’s largess.

There is an added bonus. Amazon is counting any book “read” in Amazon Unlimited as a sale for purposes of their various bestseller lists. This should help keep the KDP readers on top of those comical compilations of cosmic content curation, which will help justify Howey’s claims that independent authors are making more money than those published by Big-5 publishers. Except, that while KDP Select authors may be credited with a couple of bucks for each read, the Big 5 publishers will be paid full ebook list price for any of their books you read.

Buying Your Way to an Amazon bestselling author


We’ve learned how authors and their agents can buy their way onto and even to the top of the major bestseller lists (here and here are two articles). There’s a way KDP Select authors can get in the game with a little help from their friends. Let’s say a new company forms. Call it Bestsellers-Guaranteed (B-G for short). B-G’s plan is to collect a cadre of “readers”—people who are willing to have B-G control their ereader between (say) midnight and six every day.

Aspiring Bestselling Author Ian Desperate hires B-G to propel his sales to the top of the charts. For every book read by one of B-G’s “readers,” Amazon pays Desperate (say) $2.00 for each book “read.” He turns $1.00 over to B-G. They in turn pay their “readers” fifty cents for every book “read.” [Actually, B-G will require upfront payment and guarantee Desperate a certain number of “reads.”] Utilizing the app placed on their cadre of robot ereaders, B-G turns the page at the actual reader’s normal pace. The app reads a book a night, earning about $15 each month for the owner of the ereader and for B-G. Since the monthly subscription costs only $9.99 the ereader owner makes $60/yr. for leaving their reader on and connected to a network overnight. B-G makes $360/yr./device less expenses. The author makes plenty of money they wouldn’t have gotten before, offset by the few sales they would have gotten anyway from this group of people.

Presumably, an author who wants top bestseller status will have to pay extra for Bestseller-Guaranteed’s services, but I’ll leave the contract terms to the fictional enterprise and author to figure out.

CAVEAT


You heard it here first – but you heard it from a fictional character, who can’t be sued or brought to trial for aiding and abetting fraud. My creator, James M. Jackson, disavows this get-rich scheme. He’s not suggesting it as a strategy for any author or for any individual or corporation. You do it, he is not responsible.

Do I think some people will try to game the system? Yes, I do. It is something Amazon will need to combat, because if a fictional character can figure this out, some human will as well. And while I have a decent set of scruples, many humans don't.

Of course, if Howey wants to send me (Seamus, that is) on a fully paid (fictional) holiday for bringing this to his attention, that would be okay.

~ Seamus McCree

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Two Potential Rental Car Rip-Off’s

I had the rental car delivered to the hotel because I was arriving after their office closed and would be leaving before their office opened. As I was driving out of town I noticed the gas tank was at 3/8ths full. I would have called them, except they weren’t yet open. I pulled out my cellphone and took a picture of the dashboard showing mileage and gas tank reading. When I returned the car I made sure to fill it to the same level and informed them I had documentation about the original level of the gas tank.

Rip-off number one foiled.

We all know that between our credit cards and personal auto insurance there is usually no reason to pay for additional insurance. Rental firms have for years made drivers pay excessively if they don’t return the car with a full tank. Now they offer another option: prepay for the tank at a reasonable price per gallon (in this case $3.159) and you don’t have to pay for not filling the tank.

I immediately declined since I would not use a full tank of gas to drive from Birmingham, AL to Savannah, GA.

Oh, the agent said, you’re returning it in Savannah. The cheapest you can get gas is $3.239. You’ll save eight cents a gallon this way.

I declined again. Here’s the math that I chose not to challenge the agent with. Assuming an eighteen-gallon tank, they would charge $56.82. For that same amount I could purchase 17.56 gallons at the Savannah price. I only win if I can return the car with less than .45 gallons.

That’s not going to happen (I had about 2.5 gallons left), which didn’t stop them from selling the same deal to a young couple who followed me to the counter.

If offered this deal and you won’t use a full tank, in almost all instances you should decline. If you will use a full tank, check their price with what you’ll have to pay and make your decision based on that.

~ Jim

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Libor Rate Fixing – What’s the Big Deal?


When the Barclay’s scandal about reporting lower-than-actual costs of borrowing to those who compile the Libor rate (London Interbank Offered Rate) I thought, “Isn’t this old news?” Sure enough, Calculated Risk, a blog I follow, posted a bunch of links that reminded me why I had indeed come to believe Libor was something of a fiction.

For the record, let’s back up a bit and describe what Libor is—and it’s not one thing; it’s actually 150 things: Libor rates are set for fifteen maturities and ten currencies. Every day around 11:00 a.m. major London banks report the rates they “expect” to pay to borrow for various lengths of time. The compiler ignores the top and bottom 25% of reported rates and averages the middle 50% to determine the Libor rates, which are released to the public at 11:30. Banks, insurance companies, credit card companies (and maybe even loan sharks for all I know) use these rates to determine the interest rates they charge on loan balances. If you check your loan agreement you may find that it calls for something like the 3-month Libor rate plus 2.75%.

The first thing to note is that if only one bank was misstating their rates by substantially over- or under-reporting their borrowing costs, it would make little or no difference to the Libor rate since the high and low outliers are excluded from the calculation. To make a difference to the reported rate requires malfeasance on the part of a significant portion of the reporting banks.

From documents reported so far, it appears that especially in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis many banks understated their reported Libor rates. People began to use the Libor rate as a proxy for understanding each bank’s health, which explains why a bank might report a lower rate than their real borrowing cost. No CEO wants others to view their bank as vulnerable. If no one will lend to a given financial institution, it will soon have to shut down. (See Lehman Brothers for example.)

As a consumer, this chicanery might actually be good news. If your loan agreement ties your interest rate to an understated Libor rate, you aren’t charged as much as you should be. You win; your lender loses. That is a zero-sum game. Holy financial boondoggle, Batman, the banks screwed themselves? Well, for sure they screwed those brethren not able to offset the losses from preternaturally lowered Libor rates. However, some banks have trading arms that take financial positions on (among other things) the movement of Libor rates. If you knew the rates weren’t going to move as much as the economics of the time suggested, perhaps you’d be a wee bit tempted to place a bet given your inside knowledge.

Perish the thought anyone in the financial industry might use inside information. The fools who took the other side of the Libor bets thought they knew better—but what does that say about them when someone like me, a simple retiree with a bit of time on his hands, was convinced the banks were not reporting accurate figures.

As individuals we need to keep in mind that we should never invest in something we don’t understand. That includes not investing money with someone who buys and sells financial instruments you don’t understand—it’s just as likely they don’t understand those financial instruments either. As further proof, just look at the hedging operation that has already cost JP Morgan Chase billions and they haven’t completely unwound their position.

As usual, the lawyers will make out the best since they represent both sides of all suits (and they have already started over the Libor mess) and always figure a way to be paid.

Oh, and if you want a way to fix the problem of the phantom reporting, here’s my solution. Forget about publishing an expected rate. Have the banker boys tell us the highest rate they actually paid during the last 12-hours. There might be a bit of a lag in the data, but we can audit the results and put behind bars those who lie. Which would you prefer, fresh lies no more than 30-minutes old or half-day-old truths? I’ll take the truth, thank you.

~ Jim

Monday, January 3, 2011

How to Get Rich in Less than One Hour a Day

Happy New Year, Readers.

My skepticism was roused by the headline in a full-page ad in Smart Money magazine: Make Up To $500 In The First 59-Minutes of Every Trading Day.

Heck, anyone can make up to $500 in the first hour of trading. (Conversely, you can lose up to all your money if you did everything wrong.) What I found intriguing about this ad was the sophisticated use of psychological triggers to hook the buyer. There is no over-promise: up to $500 doesn’t sound unreasonable, does it? And the use of the first 59-minutes of the day rather than an hour. That specificity tends to lead credibility to the claim.

It gets better as you read the ad. Turns out the promoter – Manny Backus by name – is a smart dude with an IQ of 157. And he plays chess – only brilliant people play chess, right? The ad features a picture of a clean-cut male dressed in a suit and tie about to move the black queen on a chessboard.

Oh, and act quickly because there are a limited number of seats available in his exclusive club – 575 to be exact. When I went to the website listed, the specific number of slots available (23 when I showed up – a nice prime number, implying 552 people have gotten there before you and the pressure is on – don’t let 23 people get this great deal while you dither about pulling the trigger.)

Finally, there’s a thirty-day free trial. What can it hurt, eh?

Now I don’t know Manny Backus from a hole-in-the-wall, but here’s how I figure the system works for him and how it would work for you if you were to follow it after the free month. He chooses one or two stocks each morning that because of perceived order imbalances will be overbid or oversold at the stock market’s opening or soon thereafter and therefore are likely to either slip back or bounce up from the opening price. He sells short (borrows the stock and sells it) the overbid stocks and buys the oversold stocks. He uses limit orders for protection. He has a target price to close out the position (buy back sold stock, sell bought stock). The idea is to avoid being too greedy, just make a little on each trade.) If he has erred in his judgment he has a predetermined price at which to close out the position.

You and up to 574 other members of the exclusive club are in a chat room where Manny gives you the information and tells you when and what he has bought or sold. There is no proof that he is making these trades, but I suspect he is in order to avoid legal entanglements. Let’s say he trades a round lot (100 shares) for $1 trading cost each way. Four trades a day (two stocks round trip buy and sell) that will cost him roughly $1,000 a year—as we’ll see that’s chump change.

Once your trial period is over, membership costs $297. (Not a round $300 – we humans feel we’re getting a bargain anytime a price ends in seven.) If he has a full book of 575 active members that earns him $170,775 per month. That’s over $2 million a year. Even if he can only keep 100 members active at any given time that’s still $350,000 a year.

Manny has a really nice business going based on the memberships alone.

Now let’s assume Manny takes more than a nominal position in the trades he presents. He asks people to have at least $25,000 in their trading account. Let’s just assume Manny trades with that much himself to show he’s doing exactly what he suggests others do. Because he makes his trades and tells everyone else, he gets to front-ride his members. While some of his stock picks are highly liquid, I’d guess others have a thin market, which means Manny’s followers will move the market by their trades. Let’s see how this could work.

Let’s say Manny proposes to short the YTREWQ stock. (My intention is to make up that stock symbol.) He says he hopes to do it at say $25.00. He’s hoping for at least a 1% gain and so his initial target buyback would be about $24.75. The stock doesn’t quite reach $25.00 and Manny ends up shorting at $24.90 and tells his followers that’s what he did. They all hit their trading keys to sell shares and with a bunch of people selling at the same time, those folks buying don’t need to pay as high a price. The stock price quickly drops as his followers make their sales and levels out at (say) $24.55 where Manny buys the stock back.

Manny’s made a bit less than his target 1% on this transaction but can proclaim it as a successful trade since he made a bunch of bucks in a few minutes time. For a 1,000 share trade using his entire $25,000 trading account, he would have made a quick $200 less commissions.

Now what about the followers? Those in their free-trial month who are shadow-trading (i.e. making the trades on paper and not with real funds to see if the system works) will buy and sell at the same time and price as Manny does and credit their paper account with $200. If Manny wins, they will win and more often than not Manny will win. What about those who are trading in real accounts?

Those most nimble may have been able to sell their shares close to $24.75, but in a thinly traded stock the price will decline quickly and many will only be able to sell at (say) $24.60 or lower. Once Manny’s troops are done selling, the artificial sales pressure to keep the stock price down disappears. Manny puts in his repurchase order and announces the action. Now Manny’s followers begin to buy and the share price springs up. Again the most nimble will be able to get out at a price close to Manny’s. Others will be lucky to get out at the same $24.60 for a wash. The slowest will have a loss on the deal.

Manny’s results will be much better than his followers because they are following his trades and by following, helping assure Manny’s trades (and those who are shadow-trading) work. Because his followers reinforce his choices in the market, they act like a little insurance policy that his picks will work out.

Over the long run, I anticipate that many if not most of Manny’s paying followers will be disappointed to find that not only are they not earning 1% a day (which he does not promise, but suggests by having a calculator on his website which he has you use to determine how much money you can make a year if you earn 1% a day), they are losing money—particularly when the $297 monthly fee is included in costs. Newbies who are shadow trading are making money—and enough of them will fill the ranks of the paying who drop out to assure Manny his stable monthly income.

From time-to-time Manny will hit a big winner. When that happens he’ll have a cadre of loyal proponents until he makes a really bad trade and washes a bunch of people out. Psychologists know the strongest behavior modification technique involves random positive reinforcement. That is exactly what Manny’s product will do since there will be periodic winners and losers with an occasional big gain. The ones who early on experience a big gain are the people who will write true accounts of their success under Manny’s tutelage that Manny will use on his website as testimonials.

In short, assuming Manny is doing everything legally, he’s invented a great way to make consistent money off human rabbits.

Rabbits get fleeced. Don’t be one of them.

~ Jim