I think one may have to define poverty in this context. The people interiewed on the tv, for example, were neither rich, not dare I say it, on the breadline. They were ordinary people who had incomes. I suspect the majority had entered the scheme because of the social position. They either knew the agent, or entered through social interchange. similar to Tupperware parties for instance. It can be very easy to be 'persuaded' when your peer group are involved. Also as the scheme had been running successfully for many years, there would have appeared to be little risk. I think that is a question that needs to be answered. Why did a Company that had traded happily for many years suddenly?? go bust, especially after collecting the majority of a years supply of money. There were no overheads to speak of.
However, at the end of the day I don't believe it is practical to control money supply in the current world. People who are rejected will always find an alternative, even if that means the mafia. Interest rates are actually one way to restrict demand so to speak. As has been mentioned in this thread there are other ways to save money for a special occasion, and can be more profitable than just giving it to a third party organisation with no return of interest. That is why I suspect it was the social aspect that was the 'glue' in this affair.
