Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Is Sympathy for Bernie Madoff's Millionaire Victims Misplaced?
Share:
by MonkeyPundit | March 24, 2009 at 06:20 am
280 views | 6 Recommendations | 8 comments
Originally posted on MonkeyPundit.com
By now, most of us have heard the sad, sob stories of millionaires (and multimillionaires) who have lost there life savings to Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme; life savings in the millions, and in some cases tens of millions. But I can't help wondering if maybe we're being a bit to sympathetic to them.
Ponzi investment schemes, like most other "get rich quick" cons, work because they exploit their victims' careless and overzealous greed. Their victims naively assume that they can shortcut the hard work that honest, successful people undertake to get the equivalent rewards. Such schemes bring out the worst in people; not only as evidenced by the crooks, but by their victims as well.
Take, for example, the case of Nobel Prize Lauriette and Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel.
Now, granted, I deeply respect Mr. Wiesel for his accomplishments and I am in no way diminishing his legacy of hardships. However, Mr. Wiesel blew over 15 million dollars that was supposed to be set aside for his charity, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, on this get rich(er) quick scheme. Due to Mr. Wiesel's apparent shortsightedness and desire to, in his own words "make so much more profit", a fortune which would have otherwise provided aid for thousands of Jewish refugees, has now evaporated into nothing, thus negating his charitable foundation's plans to open a center in Jerusalem.
It is a sad irony that Jewish refugees, who in the last century have survived Nazi monstrosities, are now forced to suffer because of a green-eyed monstrosity.
If such fortunes had been lost to equally foolish enrichment gambles such as horse races or Nigerian inheritance schemes, popular opinion would be against these victims. But because Bernard Madoff is such a hateable crook (and marketable poster-child), we all seem to excuse the victims and absolve them of their responsibility.
If we should cry for victims of financial ruin, why not cry for countless people who have lost their life savings due to health care costs, natural disasters, atrocity, or the economy? Why not cry for the people who, due to live long impoverishment, have never had finances worthy of ruination in the first place?
The true cost of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme is not among those who sought profit, but for those to whom these millions of seemingly expendable dollars could have been given in charity. I sympathize with the people who needmore money, not with the people who want more money.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 07:18 on March 24th, 2009
You presume that these people believed in the impossible or highly improbable.
There are investments with the kind of consistent returns that Madoff had.
I know because I worked for one for many years, and I was jointly responsible for the system that put on the trades and maintained the P&L, and my first hand experience is proof that it's not impossible without being a ponzi scheme.
In fact, the fund was closed to new investors in 1994 so it could not be a ponzi scheme. Granted, that meant it was next to impossible to get into the fund, but a lot of rich people were making 18-20% a year the whole time I was there. We had one down month in the years I worked for them.
at 07:42 on March 24th, 2009
Show us your proof, oh unverified ghost 'nuts.
at 09:45 on March 24th, 2009
12% a year is very, very good and that alone should have been enough to get the SEC to investigate Bernie Madoff.
You can't get that level of returns doing anything reasonable safe and that means you must be taking big risks and you have to fail more often.
But to indict Madoff's victims for "greed", seems inappropriate for me. Foundations want more money so they can help more people, not because they want to buy the rest of the what they don't own.
at 09:59 on March 24th, 2009
If the foundation itself had given Mr. Madoff money, I would feel differently. But from what I understand, Mr. Wiesel took money that was supposed to be set aside for the foundation to invest it in this risky, shady deal. I don't think that the foundation, were it polled, would have made such a risky investment.
at 10:12 on March 24th, 2009
Investing in Madoff's fund was not seen as a "risky, shady" deal. You have no source for that judgment/inference, do you ?
Everyone but a handful of people thought that Madoff was just a genius who knew what he was doing. He was the past president of NASDAQ.
His reputation was impeccable.
at 10:47 on March 24th, 2009
Did he not promise an 12% return in investments, which as you say, should have tipped off the SEC? If you're investing millions in a broker, you ought to be aware of facts and figures that otherwise should tip off people at the Security and Exchange Commission. Yes, the SEC dropped the ball, but good judgment and a nod to PT Barnum would have been advisable.
at 15:24 on March 24th, 2009
Tip of the iceberg? - ‘Ponzimonium’ Coming?
at 07:47 on March 28th, 2009
I've seen some indication that Madoff is running a bluff. that perhaps this is a way to get all his investors their money back. that perhaps he lost billions when the market and his fund crashed. That since this was named a fraud in the courts, with absolutely no proof cuz he 'confessed', that now they will get their money back from the US government's financial fraud protection scheme, get refunds on taxes paid, and doubly get refunds from Lloyds of London.
And who's gonna pay for this refund. taxpayers of course.