I'm Getting My Madoff

So hey, how about that Madoff dude and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme? Talk about being "too big to fail" -- I guess he was "too small to regulate". Well, yeah, $50B does seem like chump change in this day and age. But gosh, think about it -- the Ponzi scheme is one of the oldest scams in existence. You'd think it would be as easy to detect as... well, as the Social Security scam, for example. What I really suspect is that the SEC and other regulatory agencies, because they don't have the resources or motivation to monitor everyone all the time (but Obama's going to fix that, right?) kind of pick and choose whose neck they're going to breathe down at any given time, and everyone else gets a pass. And what criteria do they apply to this dilemma? I suspect, like with any other government agency, it's a matter of politics and "who knows whom" -- and apparently Madoff basically knew everybody.

But there's another angle here that no one has yet commented on, and that's that the vast bulk of Madoff's victims were Jewish, like himself. Now, this ought to provide a major setback to anyone who thinks the world financial structure is run by "a bunch of rich Jews" for their own benefit. Suddenly it appears that the situation is not so monolithic after all. If Jews can be victims, what does this do to the ethnic solidarity premise that is at the heart of the theory? (Are we going to start seeing "Stop Jew on Jew Crime" bumper stickers -- like those revolting "Stop Black on Black Crime" ones of a few years ago?) Clearly things are often more complex than they seem -- not that conspiracy theories per se are a waste of time (don't tell me that!) but that, as often as not, individual pathologies can carry the day. One can talk about Bolshevism, for example, as a gigantic conspiracy, which it was, but surely Joseph Stalin gave a "flavor" to it that it would not otherwise have had.

But let's look at this from still another angle. Individuals can trump conspiracies at times, but this doesn't mean they can work alone. As I've said before, one classic theory about the way things really work involves a single dominant individual -- a "Dr. Evil" -- and a bunch of mindless, robot-like but nonetheless highly intelligent slaves. But is this the way the world really is? And even if it were possible, how successful would an operation like that be? How many "direct reports" can a Dr. Evil have? Studies of what is called "span of control" indicate that the optimum number is less than ten. So much for an army of robots! What this means is that even if there are Dr. Evils out there, they need competent lieutenants ("willing executioners", if you will) and they, in turn, need a certain number of competent subordinates. Even the most authoritarian and autocratic regimes need a few thinkers in the top layers. This is, in fact, the best argument against the theory that a single, charismatic demagogue -- a Hitler, say -- can mesmerize an entire populace and bend it to his will. No -- the most powerful, dominant tyrant on earth needs plenty of help, not from robots but from people with free (if flawed) will and with plenty of talent. Try to imagine Hitler without Goebbels, or Stalin without Beria. Or Bill without Hillary! No, anything worth doing is worth doing as a team -- in fact, it's virtually impossible to do without one. Jesus Himself needed twelve Apostles... so how can anyone claim that Madoff worked alone?