Theres not a high demand of aas
You re not in high school here its a forum
If it wasnt high demand would there be countless forums, sources, books, etc about it? There also wouldn't be as many scammers if the demand wasn't as high.
BBs world is a small world and AAS world is again smaller. Theres a lot of scammers not because the demand is high but because nobody cares about its an underground and illegal market and its easy to make money
BBs world is a small world and AAS world is again smaller. Theres a lot of scammers not because the demand is high but because nobody cares about its an underground and illegal market and its easy to make money
BBs world is a small world and AAS world is again smaller. Theres a lot of scammers not because the demand is high but because nobody cares about its an underground and illegal market and its easy to make money
AAS is not limited to the bodybuilding world so where is this going?
Way to be a dickhead
99,99 % of users are BB or sportmen whats the point of using an aas if you dont lift weights or doing sport ?
I'm going to scam people with fake earthenware planters. It's really low demand, so I'm GOING TO BE RICH!!!
Oh wait, that defies every law of economics known to man. D'oh!
I didn't say I had to be counterfeit, I said scammers. Don't know where you're from but come over to NYC or another big city and tell me there aren't ppl scamming for milk and groceries. And it also helps if its an illicit substance.
Ppl find justification in just about anything. And your percentage is off, as halfwit mentioned AAS use among models is extremely high to stay in shape year round without typical bulk and cut cycles, there are self medicated testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) patients, plus you never said sports in your other post, you added that now . Explain to me why someone would spend time scamming something that is in LOW DEMAND. Do you think there would be so many scammers if only 100 people in the entire world used AAS?
I'd argue to say that the product being illicit only improves success temporarily in favor of the scammer. If there wasn't demand, there simply wouldn't be any scammers. People go where the money is, if there isn't any money to be made - why would they waste their time setting up scams?Your post was in the context of suppliers scamming consumers, not the other way around. I demonstrated the statement was ridiculous with an absurdity. Rather than acknowledge your original statement was not quite correct, you attacked an inessential part of my reply and are now "clarifying" what you meant. The illicitness has much more to do with the potential to be scammed than the demand does.
Your post was in the context of suppliers scamming consumers, not the other way around. I demonstrated the statement was ridiculous with an absurdity. Rather than acknowledge your original statement was not quite correct, you attacked an inessential part of my reply and are now "clarifying" what you meant. The illicitness has much more to do with the potential to be scammed than the demand does.
I'd argue to say that the product being illicit only improves success temporarily in favor of the scammer. If there wasn't demand, there simply wouldn't be any scammers. People go where the money is, if there isn't any money to be made - why would they waste their time setting up scams?
Thanks. You're pure magic.Thats pure logic
Hmm. I'm sure there is a correlation with something being in demand and the propensity for malicious intent from scrupulous folks. As demand rises, I'd imagine that there would be a larger pool of money at stake, so it would make sense for there to be more individuals looking to profit. Whether this is a limiting function of demand versus scam potential is possible, but I really haven't got a clue where it would be at or what this function would look like.The poster said "high demand" implying the higher the demand goes the higher the likelihood of a scam, or perhaps that there is a "scam threshold" where, for a sufficiently high demand, the proportion of bad exchanges (theft, bunk product, etc) spikes. You are arguing that a certain demand level must be met for a good to be supplied. This is true, but no one suggested otherwise.