>"In multilevel marketing companies (MLMs), member-distributors earn income from selling products and recruiting new members. Successful MLMs require a social capital structure where members can access and mobilize both strong and weak social ties. Utah has a disproportionate share of MLM companies located in the state and a disproportionate number of MLM participants. We argue that Utah's dominant religious institutions have led to the emergence of a social capital structure, making MLMs particularly viable. Utah is the most religiously homogeneous state; roughly half its population identifies as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The LDS Church's institutions foster a social capital structure where (almost all) members have access to and can leverage social capital in all its forms. LDS institutions encourage members to make meaningful social connections characterized by trust and reciprocity with other church members in local neighborhoods and across the world."<p>I intuited this interesting relationship when I worked in Utah for an MLM in 2007-2008.<p>But MLM's and LDS -- is not the end-all understanding of that relationship!<p>You see, if you wanted the bigger picture, the larger understanding, you'd compare the above things with Corporate Hierarchies, Government Hierarchies (foreign and domestic), Social Hierarchies, Financial Hierarchies, and even such things as the hierarchies of Ancient Rome (probably the biggest MLM (and later in its history) Ponzi Scheme that ever existed(!), in that the earlier you were a settler, the more you were rewarded (earlier settlers and their descendant families became Rome's Patrician class, at the top of the social hierarchy), while latecomers to that party got increasingly smaller shares of land, property, privilege, etc. ("Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup" -- to quote the Mel Brooks film, "High Anxiety" <g>))<p>Also, you'd clearly define MLM Vs. Ponzi schemes -- they're basically the exact same thing, except that one has an underlying good, service, or something of value which is fairly exchanged, whereas in a Ponzi scheme, the underlying good, service or value either doesn't exist, or exists only in a partial, malformed state. (That is, the value exchange in transactions is asymmetric -- due to fraud of some sort...)<p>But let's kick those understandings up a notch!<p>Let's throw some gasoline on that fire!<p>To this ecclectic mix, to really get an understanding, you'd throw on some Jordan Peterson, specifically what he says about Dominance Hierarchies in society!<p>And then to season it, you'd add to this some Adam Smith, who can probably be said to be not only the guy that codified Capitalism, but could safely be said to have been the ultimate master of games relating to anything having to do with finance, but more broadly, with the broadest definition of capital.<p>Basically what Sun Tsu was to War -- Adam Smith was to Capital, in its broadest definition.<p>So, if you really wanted an understanding, you'd take all of these ecclectic ingredients, mix them all together, season, heat and serve!<p>But this article is a great first step in that direction!