Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

If there is one thing I have learned about Charles Ponzi, it is that the man had more tenacity and ambition than I ever would have thought. Ponzi was undeterred even after years of business failure, job hopping, and time in prison. 

While I now know the story behind the infamous Ponzi Scheme, I wanted to touch on the elements I found the most shocking/interesting:

1. Contrary to my initial belief, Charles Ponzi didn't actually invent this specific scheme. Other people throughout history had run similar operations to Ponzi's, his however, was just so huge and hurt so many people that his name became attached to it in history.

2. Ponzi's original scheme wasn't illegitimate or illegal, at first. Most of the schemes we have touched on involve complete misinformation and/or are the total creation of the fraudster. However, buying IRCs overseas for cheap and turning them into U.S. stamps at a profit was legitimate, the scale at which he promised though, was not. 

3. Ponzi promised a 50% return in 45 days. This is an unbelievable promise, but for the financially illiterate that he chose to target it was so appealing for getting rich fast. With this appeal, he ended up raking in over $15 million in 1920!

4. Ponzi struck a deal so get his 86 counts of mail fraud down to only 1 and ended up only serving time for the Ponzi Scheme for 5 years! After all the lives he ruined and banks he shut down, the fact that he managed to negotiate down to 5 years served blows my mind.

I have a bridge to sell you, would you be willing to buy it?

This week I have been thinking a lot about gullibility, specifically, do the gullible deserve to be swindled? With each deception, swindler, and scam I learn about I, unfortunately, am quick to roll my eyes or feel for an instant a sense of superiority for surely not I would fall for such a thing. From 10,000 feet I see so many "red flags" and I think to myself How could anyone possibly believe that? 

Taking time to reflect, I think that I somehow believe my intelligence or my heightened sense of caution either makes me better than those who fall for deception or makes me immune to deception all together. So, with my logic, does a having a moment of ignorance make someone unintelligent? Are all those deemed unintelligent deserving of deception? Does that ignorance equal guilt? Do they deserve it?

To be deceived you first have to put your trust in someone or something, because deception is a manipulation of some form of trust. So how can someone deserve something if deception is not a fair exchange. Those who are out to deceive others are in the business of exploiting the emotions. They are not out to prey on stupidity but to mimic credibility, and even the most well educated can fall for an expertly crafted lie.  

When I think about it, those that are the most susceptible to deception just might be the best of us; the most open-minded and open-hearted. So how can I put the blame on a person like that. Society often glorifies the smooth-talkers and the hustlers (and sometimes I do too), but if I believe that deception is bad, than the blame needs to fall on the deceiver each and every time. 

All in all, I think I have started to see that no one deserves to be tricked, swindled, or deceived. Being gullible is a part of being human and instead of my mind jumping to feeling superior, it should start by feeling empathy and then maybe a little anger on behalf of my fellow humans who still hold fast to their open-hearted nature. 

Snapple's ties to the Klan?

What is Believed 

The main belief held about this conspiracy theory is that Snapple, the juice and tea company, is owned or somehow financially linked to the Ku Klux Klan. Their label depicts a subtle letter "K" that supposedly stands for "KKK" and the ship shown on older Snapple labels is allegedly a slave ship. It is also believed that the company supports controversial or extremist groups. 

How It Evolved 

These rumors first surfaced in the 1990s as Snapple began to grow rapidly as a company and popularity spread through predominantly Black communities and cities. When individuals first began to notice the "K" and ship depicted, rumors began to spread about hidden racist agendas in the corporation. In 1993, Snapple ran an expensive ad campaign clarifying that the "K" stood for Kosher and the ship was a depiction of the Boston Tea Party, however, by then the rumors had already gained traction.   

Who Believes It

At that time, the rumors circulated greatly among Black and minority communities within U.S. cities as well as through some religious groups. Because of the nature of this conspiracy theory, those with a tendency to distrust corporate motives or general brand skeptics were also quick to spread rumors regarding Snapple. Finally, teenagers and younger consumers were susceptible to the spread of Snapples alleged affiliation because of the shock value and racial tension it created.   

How It Spread 

These rumors spread primarily through word of mouth via churches, schools, and neighborhood hangout spots and later spread through message boards and email. The visual "evidence" of the "K" and the ship displayed on the bottles made the rumors easier to repeat. In terms of Snapple's counter-campaign response, some say that it may have reinforced awareness of the rumor by bringing it to greater public attention and extending the rumor's life.