9 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 32.4 ms ] thread
I realize what he did was bad but how is it any different than the United States's current social security system? We pay old members of the scheme with the dues of the new members who are forced by law to pay the old members all the while being promised that their payments will be paid by the new members when they're born and eventually earn an income themselves. It would be nice if the law was confined to protecting property rights and not infringing on them as a matter of course.
By that logic, any insurance would be a pyramid scheme.
As would be any interest bearing account.
The differences between social security and savings accounts and a ponzi scheme are:

Truth - we all know how social security works and what bank runs are.

Rate of return - low interest on savings accounts and not much from social security.

Ponzi schemes tend to promise well above average returns and almost never explain how those returns are generated. That was certainly the case here, the returns were phenomenal and thought to be from brilliant trading strategies.

I buy insurance knowing that I probably won't need it and hope I won't need it.
Right, insurance isn't a scam. You buy it hoping that you'll have lost money on it. And for most people, that's the case.
At least the social security system is not a secret, and it doesn't lure people into the system by promising unbelievably high profits.
True but the system is based on the lie that young people today will ever get paid or paid in dollars that aren't inflated into existence.
Why believe a liar that protests he "doesn't give a ____ about his sons"?

Methinks Bernie Maddoff protests too much. I expect to see more attempts to place this idea where it might be picked up and repeated as fact and thereby deflect attention from those of Madoff's children that were in business with him.