Bernie Madoff: Evil or Evol

[Space Patroller]

For some reaso, the arrested Bernie Madoff. What's the big deal here?

Well there's the matter of a $G50 Ponzi scheme. Yeah; but did he put a gun to anyone's head? No. By these staneards, what should happen to Congress which has been forcing persons into a $T50 Ponzi scheme for half a century? How about execution by military firing squad (after first being led around DC as Miss Galaxy in grass skirts, tinfoil tiaras and on leashers and videotaped and YouTuabe'd forever)? I wonder if we shouldn't releas Al Qaeda and send Congress to Club Gitmo for some Q&A sessions (waterboarding gives new meaning to "wet operation"), they seem far more dangerous.

Actually Social Security at it's inception was not a Ponzi scheme. It kicked in at age 65 when Life Expectancy was 60 and it was an insurence polich, not a pension, then a welfare scheme that it later became, to fill in the gaps that pensions of the time had in them. Over the years, congress used it to bribe the electorate. And we thought bribery was illegal: Silly us!

Bernie Madoff made off with persons' life savings. First, these were not poor people, you had to be worth a million bucks to start out with so this wasn't money taken out of Granny's cookie jar. Now what is the first rule of investment (If I have to tell you this then it's time for your diaper change and ba-ba)? So why didn't these well-off idiots follow that first rule? So maybe Bernie should be considered an evolutionary force: You know, survival of the fittest and extinction of the unfit. aka never give a sucker an even break.

Most of the persons who invested charities' money with Madoff were professionals. See above+WTF???!!

All of this proves the old adage "who the #^$@'s minding the store? Alfred E. Neuman?". Should P. T. Barnum be considered the Charles Darwin of Finance?

Also it shows what a brilliant policy Regulationism is. For 14 years this scam was known to the SEC. Well, you don't have to be Ayn Rand to figure this one out. Mly oldest brother worked for a major motel chain. His job was to deal with "tax adjusteers" and get good deals for his company. So if Taxman can be boozed, schmoozed and floozed, wlhly can't Regulatorman? Come to think of it. Madoff showed us the value of the gold standard and letting that regulate the financial world.

when persons tell me that the founder of EST was not a shrink but a salesman. I say "Hey. he did in the real world what every shrink wishes he could do". So maybe instead of putting Madoff in the slammer, some business school should hire him as a prof or the government should put him on the payroll as a consultant or even send him to do a deal with those horrible AIG execs and con them out of their bonuses. With a track record like his, what's the downside? He certainly gave the know-it-alls the lessons they so richly deserved about beng a bunch of dumb schmucks. So we at least have a cautionary tale to not learn from.

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put a Bernie in your bank?

Edited March 27, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Space Patroller]

If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put a Bernie in your bank?

Looking at the ethical status of the Obama administration, a string of tax cheats, ethical failurs and the wholesale granting of ethical waivers by the CONgress, I am reminded of the admonition "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" and another "The political jokes you tell today mingt just be elected tomorrow". It seems that this is just what they are doing: at lightspeed.

This is why I wanted the Democats in power: So that people could get a good look at them and they could blow their load prematurely i.e. before their "ideas" could take hold with Americans (the election of the 'crats had little to do with ideas. The drivers here were fed-up-edness with Bush and the fact that Obama is very articulate and has star quality). Now if the GOP was smart.... Well I did say "IF" not "when" or "Now that", right? One would think that Obama was a Republican plant to permanently discredit the Democrats but for that to be true, the GOP would need to have a sound grasp of how principles work and then grow a pair.

Another cute reversal. The Democrats, the home of Feminism are behaving like Testosterone-poison thugs and the Republcans are acting like perfect young ladies.

[Zach Beale]

The issue I have with the vilification of BM is that it's completely one-sided. Those that invested with Madoff are as much at fault as Madoff himself. The whistle-blower in the Madoff issue found it very simple to discover that Madoff was a scammer. Why is it that some of these investors were foolish enough not to look behind the curtain as well? As an investor, it's your responsibility to do your research.

These people obviously refused to do this, and after being 'screwed over' by Madoff, they expect to be babied, and the media indulges them. They make them look like helpless victims, whereas in reality they are only the victims of foolishness. I have no sympathy for his investors.

[TheEgoist]

Have no sympathy for people who mistakenly walk down back alleys and get raped and/or mugged?

[softwareNerd]

The guy who exposed Madoff did not do so in a way that a typical investor can be expected to argue. He offered a technical explanation as to why the scheme that Madoff described could not have been producing the returns Madoff claimed. In fact, the whistle-blower could not say for certain that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme. His main claim was that Madoff's stated returns were not coming from Madoff's stated procedure. Other that it being a ponzi scheme, the other suspicion was that Madoff was "front-running", effectively taking profits that ought to be part of his other business, and moving it his investment clients.

Many of Madoff's clients must take some blame. However, it is far less than you suggest, and most certainly not "equal" to Madoff.