Madoff Sentenced To 150 Years

selven was one of several readers to send in the news that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. "Bernard Madoff's victims gasped and cheered when he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, but they walked away knowing little more about how he carried out the biggest robbery in Wall Street history. In one of the most dramatic courtroom conclusions to a corporate fraud case, the 71-year-old swindler was unemotional as he was berated by distraught investors during the 90-minute proceeding. Many former clients had hoped he would shed more light on his crime and explain why he victimized so many for so long. But he did not. Madoff called his crime 'an error of judgment' and his 'failure,' reiterating previous statements that he alone was responsible for the $65 billion investment fraud. His victims said they did not hear much new from Madoff in his five-minute statement. They also said they did not believe anything he said. As he handed down the maximum penalty allowed, US District Judge Denny Chin... [said], 'I simply do not get the sense that Mr. Madoff has done all that he could or told all that he knows.'"

Comments

Last thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Last post!

-- Madoff

Re:Last thing to do

[ocularDeathRay]

In the words of my hero, Mike Tyson:

"I'll fuck you till you love me! Faggot."

/me considers clicking post anonymously, but I have excellent karma, I am sure I don't deserve that.

Re:Last thing to do

[interkin3tic]

No, don't go last! Everyone knows if you don't get into these "first post" pyramid schemes early, you lose everything!

Re:Last thing to do

[gyrogeerloose]

Hey, he's lucky he didn't get life...

Re:Last thing to do

[gyrogeerloose]

No appeals--he pled guilty. And since he was brought up on federal charges, he's got to serve a minimum of 85% of the sentence. That means he'll be eligible for parol in 2136.

Re:Last thing to do

[Tolkien]

I wonder how his parole hearing will go.

Re:Last thing to do

[Dmala]

Since skeletal remains are unlikely to be a danger to the community, they'll probably let the bastard go.

Re:Good... although

[Shikaku]

The message to would-be scammers is: don't get caught.

Now what about

[al0ha]

all the jackasses at the SEC that ignored data again and again which pointed to fraud and enabled him to get away with this for so many years?

Re:Now what about

[helbent]

Really. The SEC investigated him 3 times over the years and they didn't seem to catch on to the poignant fact that Madoff didn't do a single trade in the past 13 years or so. I wonder what kind of genius you have to be to have those kind of rock-solid blinders on?

Re:Now what about

[moon3]

Because he was a former head of Nasdaq. He was one of the rule makers. You do not expect the head of the major exchange to be a Ponzi schemer. Just like a head of police is very unlikely to be a drug dealer.

Re:Now what about

[Danse]

You do not expect the head of the major exchange to be a Ponzi schemer. Just like a head of police is very unlikely to be a drug dealer.

Sure, but when people keep providing information that suggests that such a thing is true (and really the info did more than just suggest in this case), you should probably really look pretty closely at it.

Re:Now what about

[youngone]

So, the point seems to be that the system's broke, but as the rule makers get to profit, it won't get fixed. I have read no real comment on the fact that a former head of the Nasdaq is a crook, beyond the mere mention of the fact. Remarkable.

Re:Now what about

[Wonko the Sane]

Greenspan, for all the harm he did, actually believed that Ayn Rand crap would work.

It would have worked if he and Congress would have allowed the large banks to actually go bankrupt when they deserved it. Failure is the ultimate regulator, unfortunately the people who fund all the reelection campaigns in this country mysteriously became "too big to fail".

Re:Now what about

[boombaard]

And everyone who had put money in those banks, trusting that the SEC and Fed would make sure those banks couldn't fuck them over should've just be thrown to the wolves?
"Bankruptcy" at this level has nothing whatsoever to do with "taking your responsibility"; if your downfall means you'll be taking 200.000 others with you, your rhetoric about "the market decides what's fair" notwithstanding. 90-95% of Americans have zero control over what others do with their money, so why was it their responsibility to see through fraud schemes that even those with 'training' in the field couldn't (or wouldn't) grasp? That's why you have regulative agencies (and that's why they were neutered through lobbying).
Sure, it would be nice if all CEOs from the 1990s onward would be put in front of a firing squad and shot (either with or without a trial), but that's an entirely different point.

Re:Now what about

[FiloEleven]

That's what FDIC insurance is for. It would have cost less than $750 billion to pay FDIC on all those accounts, and that money would have gone to people who would be more likely to spend it and "kick-start the economy" from the ground up instead of hoarding it like the bankers.

Giving more money to bankers is throwing people to the wolves.

Re:Now what about

[node 3]

Greenspan, for all the harm he did, actually believed that Ayn Rand crap would work.

It would have worked if he and Congress would have allowed the large banks to actually go bankrupt when they deserved it. Failure is the ultimate regulator, unfortunately the people who fund all the reelection campaigns in this country mysteriously became "too big to fail".

Uh, no. The fact that the banks were failing was the failure of the Ayn Rand bullshit.

The fact that your only defense is, "they should have been allowed to fail" demonstrates how bankrupt your philosophy is. Glass-Steagall told the banks that they could take risks, but only up to a point. This, combined with FDIC allowed people a certain level of confidence in their banks. By repealing Glass-Steagall, the banks were now free to take excessive risks. Greenspan thought, as Ayn Rand had taught him, that the self-interest of the bankers would keep them in check, but it didn't. Once one bank took the risks, and saw the immediate profits, the others had to follow suit, or see their value plummet.

So they all took on the risks. And when the house of cards fell (as they tend to do), the banks were set to fail, leaving the taxpayers on the hook from the FDIC, and leaving Washington with a choice. Let them fail entirely, and rebuild anew, or keep them afloat as needed until they can recover.

Were we to follow the insane Ayn Rand choice of "let them fail", we'd be throwing away vast amounts of banking infrastructure which would just have to be rebuilt. It's like throwing out your car because the engine failed instead of just putting in a new engine. Wasteful and unnecessary. In the meantime, that would have caused inordinate hardship on Americans who would have to scramble to find a new bank, but finding a shortage of banks. That shortage would lead to fly-by-night banks of questionable character, and leading most people to go without any bank whatsoever. This might sound well and good from the individualistic idealism of Ayn Rand, but would lead to all sorts of mayhem with regards to things like credit cards, payroll deposits, and automated bill payments. It's just not feasible for our economy to run on people keeping piles of cash under their mattresses, or carrying around bags of gold on their belts.

It's like the railroads in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand thinks that as long as the railroads are free to do as they wish, then naturally the Dagney Taggarts will rise to the top, pushing out the James Taggarts. It's a nice fantasy, but reality shows otherwise. The banking failure wasn't because the Dagney's weren't allowed the freedom to do what they wanted, it failed because they were allowed the freedom to take undue risks that had far reaching consequences. James might have fucked things up quicker, but even Dagney would have made a mistake, bringing the whole thing down on top of the American people.

Re:Now what about

[node 3]

So in order to avoid panic we reward felons with bailouts instead of indictments? How is that more sane than bankrupting the bad actors and selling their assets to the banks that didn't get involved with mortgage fraud?

By Ayn Rand's standards, it wasn't a fraud. The banks chose, willfully, to over leverage their assets.

Re:Now what about

[timeOday]

" Seriously, if he had nothing invested, I wonder why the implosion of Wall Street impacted his ponzi scheme at all?"

OK, I found the answer (cite):

At the same time, hedge funds were facing an unprecedented run on redemptions from their own investors. That meant the hedge funds may have had to quickly extract cash from their Madoff positions to pay their own investors back.

"People didn't stop believing in Madoff. They just needed the money, and that started this spiral," said Stephen Breitstone of the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, which is representing Madoff investors.

Re:Now what about

[Wonko the Sane]

Greenspan thought, as Ayn Rand had taught him, that the self-interest of the bankers would keep them in check, but it didn't. Once one bank took the risks, and saw the immediate profits, the others had to follow suit, or see their value plummet.

You don't think the safety nets affected their decision making? No one does due diligance any more because they know the government will bail them out.

Re:Now what about

[Wonko the Sane]

Letting our banking system collapse and watching Great Depression II start is hardly a good move forward from that point.

Guess what? GD 2.0 will be worse because of the bailouts.

If you think they (both the current president, and the prior one) fixed anything by showering the same criminals who caused the original problem with money then you've got a reality distortion field rivaling Steve Job's.

Our "banking system" was never in danger. About half a dozen large banks are insolvent and should be bankrupt. The thousands of smaller, prudent banks could have picked up the pieces.

Re:Now what about

[timeOday]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gqvXBPfrYOKdzGqoOStYPAH_fEAQ

NEW YORK--Court documents show that Bernard Madoff and his wife Ruth lived a life of high luxury, with exclusive homes, yachts and other assets worth $823 million.

The revelations came in documents filed with the US Court of Appeals, which is due on March 19 to hear Madoff's appeal to be granted bail. He was jailed on Thursday after pleading guilty to a multibillion-dollar investment fraud.

The documents, filed by Madoff's lawyer Friday, show the Wall Street con man and his wife had $22 million worth of real estate at the end of 2008.

This includes the $7-million Manhattan apartment where Madoff lived from his arrest in December to Thurday's court hearing, when he pleaded guilty to 11 counts including fraud, perjury, money laundering and theft.

Lawyers for Madoff, 70, argue that he should be allowed back there on bail while he waits for his June 16 sentencing hearing. He is expected to receive a lengthy prison sentence, with a maximum term of 150 years.

In addition to the $7-million apartment, the Madoffs had a $1-million house in exclusive Cap d'Antibes in France, another in New York state and an $11-million house in Palm Beach, Florida.

$7-M yacht

Aside from the real estate, the disclosure lists nearly $10 million worth of furniture and art and a $7-million yacht named "Bull" in France, complete with its own $1.5-million slip.

The details in the legal documents regarding the couples' wealth follow months of lurid speculation in tabloid newspapers about how Madoff spent his ill-gotten gains.

In a list of monthly expenses, Madoff says he paid out a modest $200 a month in medical fees, with $250 for doctors' visits.

No expenses spared

No more than $70 a month went for entertainment at the New York apartment.

But in other areas, the Madoffs did not spare expenses. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent at their various houses on security and they listed paying $3,448 a month just to maintain the Florida yacht.

The vessel's skipper was paid $5,250--less than the $5,600 paid monthly to the captain of the yacht in France.

Long known for lavish tastes, the Madoffs are revealed to have owned $2.6 million in jewelry, a $39,000-Steinway piano and $65,000 worth of silverware in their New York apartment alone.

The couple's monthly expenses included $100,000 for legal fees, $140,000 for personal security, $2,860 for a housekeeper and $885 for a gardener, the document said. It also detailed more mundane monthly expenditures, such as $700 each for electricity and phones and $370 for cable.

Re:Now what about

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Because, absent any risk of actual failure, the banks have no incentive not to go down the same destructive path next week.

If failure carried serious negative outcomes--like the risk of bankruptcy--banks would have a reason to be far more cautious. A few people are better off in the short term, but all of us are worse off in the long run.

Re:Now what about

[donj]

Sorry, but this post being moderated 5 completely discredits the competence slashdot's user base. I used to work in the financial institutions group (advising banks & insurers) of a major US Investment Bank for the last two years and witnessed the impact of the Lehman Brothers collapse on the financial system and especially other banks first hand. The global financial systems are too interlinked that ANY significant bank would have survived the collapse of even Lehman Brothers without significant government intervention - and no being a prudent bank would NOT have helped! Being prudent only impacts the asset side of the banks balance sheet i.e. a prudent bank will take less losses, however, this really doesn't help in staying solvent. The business model of banks is very simple. They borrow money from - investors - other banks - from customer deposits - central banks (repo'ing assets) add a charge (spread) on top of their funding costs (i.e. what they pay for the above) and lend it to out again. Sure, they can also trade themselves and do advisory business but borrowing and lending is really the core. Quite simply, after the Lehman collapse banks weren't able to borrow money any more: - investors were not willing to buy bank bonds any more - banks stopped lending to each other - customers withdraw money from their bank accounts - Central banks tried to relax requirements to borrow money from them but this doesn't make up for the above (moreover, this already is government intervention) This happens because investors & customers lost faith in the banking system and were afraid of another insolvency. Moreover it's a vicious circle, as soon as people are aware a bank has issues they withdraw their money making it even harder for the bank to survive. As banks have to continuously refinance themselves (as bonds they issued mature etc), not being able to borrow money any more will let a bank that is perfectly fine on the asset side go belly up within days or weeks. I've seen it, post Lehman every other week a new (PRUDENT) bank almost went bankrupt and could only survive with government intervention. You see being a prudent bank helps on the asset side and in the medium term on the liability side but in the short term after a major bank collapsed EVERY bank can go bankrupt within days given that they are extremely vulnerable on the liability side.

DOOOOOOPED!

[7-Vodka]

What is the funniest thing ever to me, is that the people who have been dooped once already into losing their money are getting dooped for a second time with all of this disinfo about madolf being the only guy involved.

There must have been dozens to hundreds of people orchestrating this. But it's ok, we'll pin it all on one guy and see how gullible the public is. This guy is up there with the Lee Harvey Oswalds of patsies.

Re:DOOOOOOPED!

[Red Flayer]

There must have been dozens to hundreds of people orchestrating this. But it's ok, we'll pin it all on one guy and see how gullible the public is. This guy is up there with the Lee Harvey Oswalds of patsies.

I'm not sure you're aware of how the world of high-finance works. There have been hedge funds handling over $10B with FIVE employees. Seriously.

I think it's very likely that there were others in-the-know. But they probably worked out a plea to provide documentation to nail the case against Madoff, which is why they won't be prosecuted. Or Madoff is looking for redemption after perpetrating this fraud, and decided to shoulder the rap for everyone else involved. I think the last option is the most likely, and I think that his sons were who he was protecting.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned. As long as someone gets hanged (or imprisoned forever) we don't care. Hell, look at the swindling by Enron execs... that directly affected the retirement savings of millions of people, and in the end, we didn't really care.

As far as the general public is concerned, it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the wealthy. That's business by another name. And it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the poor -- that's business as usual. All we really care about is when the poor steal from the wealthy, because we always look down on those poorer than us, we like to imagine ourselves as wealthy, and so when the poor steal, it's an affront to our ideals.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit... so I'll just sum up by saying: Yes, others were likely involved. Yes, he took the fall. But no one cares, as long as there's a spectacle.

Re:DOOOOOOPED!

[FooAtWFU]

But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned.

Sure. The extremely wealthy. And, also, charities. What do you think of stealing $15 million from The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity? Maybe $24 mill from New York University or $3 million from Bard College bothers you? I wonder what United Association Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 267 in Syracuse thinks about your blanket characterization which indicates that their loss (still under calculation) doesn't matter.

(For reference, the victim list.)

Re:DOOOOOOPED!

[Red Flayer]

I know how he supposedly worked.

I've also consulted for a legitimate hedge fund.

If you go to a legitimate investor, they're not operating out of their fucking house. Those 5 guys overseeing the fund are 5 guys that work for a huge megabank.

No. Hedge funds are not run by huge megabanks. That's the whole point -- they escape regulation by NOT operating as a large investment house or bank.

The fund I consulted for controlled at least 2.2 Bn when I consulted there, and there were five employees. The principal, a research director, two traders, and an office manager ("VP of Operations"). That's it. Of those five, only two would need to know the whole picture -- the research director and the principal. The traders might have an inkling (probably would).

If you go to a hedge fund, it shouldn't be surprising if they operate out of their house if their in Manhattan (short lag time to the markets) or in a small sublet office.

Re:DOOOOOOPED!

[Chris Burke]

He was talking about it not mattering from the perspective of the general public's reaction and outrage. He was explaining why we let a patsy like Madoff take the rap and that's it. And he's right. Yes people get mad, and the people directly affected by it stay mad, but the rest of the country just kinda shrugs and moves on. Same with Enron. There just aren't the same kinds of reactions to this white-collar crime, even if it ends up being more devastating than other kinds of crime.

Self delusion is a powerful force

[SuperKendall]

I'm not sure he really did know how bad things were, except for perhaps at the very end... for a long time I'm not sure he thought himself he was defrauding anyone.

I'm not sure even he himself can tell us exactly how this happened, beyond the fact it just did...

Sad how many people grew to be hurt by one mans illusions.

Re:Self delusion is a powerful force

[jamstar7]

I'm not sure he really did know how bad things were, except for perhaps at the very end... for a long time I'm not sure he thought himself he was defrauding anyone.

He ran NASDAQ for fuck's sake. That takes some serious economic knowledge as well as some heavy connections. That kind of background, he knew what he was doing. Ponzi schemes are not hard to spot if you know what to look for. He knew. He knew the bottom would drop out someday, and just bet that it would happen after he croaked. He lost.

Madoff is content

[Red Flayer]

I've thought this since news of the scandal broke:

You know why Bernie Madoff seems to be very complacent about the whole thing? Because his sons got off scot-free. Madoff is quite fine with sacrificing his freedom for the rest of his life... there are few things more [noble? gratifying?] than sacrificing yourself for your children.

I still believe it very unlikely that Bernie's sons didn't knowingly participate in this... or at least were aware of it. The whole way that the story broke... Madoff confessed to his son when he caught him trying to cover it up or something... then the sons convincing him to turn himself in...

I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.

Re:Madoff is content

[whoever57]

I still believe it very unlikely that Bernie's sons didn't knowingly participate in this... or at least were aware of it

Since Madoff's fund did not make a single trade for 20 years (or was it for the fund's existance?), I find it impossible to believe they did not know, unless they collected their huge salary checks for doing precisely nothing.

I wonder how that defence will fly when the son's are sued: "Your honor, members of the jury, my clients should not have to repay the millions of dollars that they received in salary, because they did nothing whatsoever to earn it."

But let's not forget the accountant who enabled this -- he should go away for 150 years also. That's probably more important from a deterrent perspective than Madoff going away for the rest of his life.

Re:Madoff is content

[Marcika]

I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.

It is very very obvious that the sons knew. The 5+ million dollar loans that each of them received from daddy just before the arrest (never to be repaid, obviously), the sham divorce proceedings that son Andrew and is wife went through right after daddy's arrest (only to be seen splurging on shopping together just days after), the mailing-out of jewellery and other untraceable assets to the sons and the families... That all is very obvious. (Less provable is of course the origin of the rest of their wealth... Tens of millions in real estate in Manhattan and Greenwich each, etc etc)

Re:Madoff is content

[Miseph]

Ok, I have mod points assigned, and I was going to spend them, but I just have to respond.

FCI Loretto. I've been there, I've seen it. It may not be Camp Mead, but it's still pretty swanky for a prison. The deer living in that valley will actually eat from your hand, they're so used to people walking around not hurting them. Many of the inmates are bankers, lawyers, politicians or businessmen who got caught committing low violence high dollar crimes (like investment fraud), although there are also some high profile Mafia types.

Maybe no golf course, but it's hardly hell on Earth.

Tricky

[Anonymous Coward]

Often court judgments have more advertising value than real value. "Madoff Sentenced To 150 Years" should be "A 71-year-old man was sentenced to about 15 years, his normal lifetime".

Re:Tricky

[Vectronic]

Indeed, he's already bought and played with all the toys he wanted, been everywhere he wanted to go, etc... he's past the normal age of retirement, and will likely end up in some minimum security old folks home, living out his days telling stories about the Great Swindle of '96 or whatever, and writing his biography.

Re:Tricky

[AVee]

Better yet, when he retired from his career as a fraud he managed to secure himself of free breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of his life.

Re:Tricky

[mcgrew]

Indeed, he's already bought and played with all the toys he wanted

The old canard "he who dies with the most toys, wins" is backwards, and my grandmother obviously realized this. By the time she died at age 99, she'd given all her belongings away. No probate for her!

The more you have, the more you have to lose, and poets and songwriters know this. "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free" (Kristofferson, Bobby McGee). "When he lost his life, that's all he had to lose" (Skynard, Curtis Lowe).

He who dies with the FEWEST toys wins! Because there's another old canard, "you can't take it with you."

Oh great!

[countertrolling]

He gets room and board on our dime. They should put a zapper-collar on him and cut him loose. Then garnish every dollar he makes. Let him stay at the Y and work for Mickey Ds. Then again we deserve this for not watching over and voting out the corrupt politicos. It's the voters' fault as much as anybody's. I don't care why he did it. We all know why. A lot of people are tempted to do the same thing if they think they won't get caught. And it's we who let them get away with an awful lot every election cycle. Maybe because many of us would like to get away with this ourselves if we thought we had a chance. He represents a pretty broad spectrum. So fuck him, and fuck all those who reelect the crooks who make all this possible.

Sentance

[LaminatorX]

With time off for good behavior, he could be out in 127.5 years.

They need to find the money now

[Trailer Trash]

Seriously, it's impossible to get rid of $65 Billion without having something valuable to show for it. So far they've gathered the low 9 figures of $ from him, less than 1% of the money.

Re:They need to find the money now

[jonbryce]

Most of the $65bn never existed in the first place. The rest would have been handed out to customers who had withdrawn money in the past.

The $65bn is what his clients thought they had in their accounts with him, but a lot of that can be attributed to fictitious gains that he reported on their accounts.

Re:They need to find the money now

[Red Flayer]

He never really had $65 Bn.

On paper he did, but that's just because he had overstated clients' gains from the get-go.

Here's what happens:

Investor A gives you $5 Bn.
Investor B gives you $10 Bn.
After 3 years, investor A pulls out -- you pay him $10 Bn in earnings & principal.
So now you have $0, but you owe Investor B $10 Bn plus earnings.
So what do you have left?

Madoff overstated earnings for a long time. This meant for every $1 Bn invested, he had to pay out some n*$1 Bn when that investor called. Eventually he had no money left to pay the investors.

In other words, that $65 Bn isn't squirreled away somewhere (well, I'm sure some of it is) -- it was used to pay off other investors who withdrew their earnings.

The money's not in the Swiss bank accounts. It's in Bob's yacht, and Bill's mansion in the hills. It's in Mary's diamond necklaces, and in Elizabeth's matching Ferraris.

Re:Now here's an inconvenient truth:

[Abreu]

There are several sites I no longer bother opening links for:

digg

facebook

televisa

foxnews

Re:Good... although

[powerslave12r]

It sounds almost like omerta where he is trying to prevent the system from being fixed from loopholes so that fellow scammers (and perhaps accomplices?) keep making money.

Re:Good... although

[node 3]

I'm sure Madoff operated with that understanding (hey, he can't be stupid), yet still got caught in spite of that. I don't really think this sends any message anyone wasn't already aware of.

The message before today was, "and if you get caught, you get 3-10 years, then you're back out and you'll be rich."

A lot of people take these sorts of risks under the impression that, worst case, they spend a few years in jail, and they're fine with the prospect of trading a few years of their life in exchange for wealth far beyond their natural means.

Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."

Madoff is not the only one with greed

[microbee]

How about all the clients who did everything they could to have the privilege of being Madoff's clients? I mean heck what were they thinking while they saw their accounts having unbelievable returns? They might as well take some responsibilities.

No, but maybe...

[istartedi]

...it will send a message to investors.

Message? Entrusting all your money to one guy is a bad idea. It's the same message they should have received when people lost all their retirement at Enron. Yes, there were people who tried to diversify towards the end and got unfairly shut out; but they should have been diversifying all along.

The Madoff lesson is that you don't just diversify your investments, you diversify your managers. In other words, one manager who says the portfolio is diversified is not enough. You should be employing more than one manager. One of them should be YOU. You may find out that they aren't any better than you. In that case, perhaps you should simply cut them out entirely; although I'm not convinced there aren't at least some managers who are worth their fees. It's just that I've never actually met one. It's become a truism over the years that a basket of stocks meeting certain criteria will beat most managers. That's why index funds have become so popular.

Of course, this falls under the category of "good problems to have" since many in the US now have a negative or very small net worth.

Re:No, but maybe...

[AuMatar]

Or more likely, buy low was a few months ago when it was below 7K. Now is the remain flat for a decade or so that Japan has been in for more than 10 years. The stock market is still overinflated, there is no way that it should be 10x its value in 1982 when it had barely grown a factor of 10 in the 60 years preceding that.

As long as people continue to pump money like mad into the market and continue to invest for "growth" in anything other than IPOs the stock market will continue to be a giant Ponzi scheme. You can get rich with it if you cash out at the right time, but the money is all smoke and mirrors.

Re:No, but maybe...

[lennier]

"You should be employing more than one manager. One of them should be YOU. "

And if you've read/watched "A Scanner Darkly", you should know that even YOU might not be fully trustworthy, and you should consider diversifying into multiple personalities to keep an eye on that sneaky...

Paranoia. It's the sign of a healthy, prosperous society!

Re:No, but maybe...

[Firethorn]

Actually even the why its inflated is pretty easy to answer- 401Ks. In the 80s 401Ks came into being, causing a lot of small time investors to put their money in the market, where previously it would go into CDs and other small investments. More money going into the market chasing the same shares causes price inflation by simple supply and demand.

Good point. The money would act much like the easing of credit/loans for housing. More potential buyers, driving the price up.

Another problem I see is that rather than having relatively few investors, all intensely interested in the running of the company - you get a smaller cadre of proxy voters on the behalf of all those investors buying mutual funds consisting of dozens, hundreds of stocks.

Those proxy voters might be better educated, but they're also part of a clique, might not have the best interest of the actual owner of the stock in mind.

Oh, and I remember reading a month ago comparing executive pay to sports coach pay.

Basically, paying CEOs with Stock Options is like paying sports coaches based on the odds the bookies are placing - Stock prices are anticipatory, much like gambling odds.

He advocated paying CEOs on actual performance - net profit, health of the company(IE capital asset level), rather than paying them based on stock price level - it's too easy for a CEO to generate at least a short boost in stock prices, then when it crashes and burns, take the golden parachute and leave for the next company.

Re:DOOOOOOPED! You Are So Wrong...

[Nom du Keyboard]

But it doesn't really matter, does it? These were the extremely wealthy who were conned.
As far as the general public is concerned, it's not a big deal when the wealthy steal from the wealthy.

Excuse me, but...

I lost my job over this when my employer tanked because of Madoff's scam, and I never had a dime invested with him. This has affected all kinds of people!

Tag "republicans"

[mathx314]

Can I ask why this article is tagged "republicans"? Bernard Madoff isn't one, since he gave 88% of his political spending to the Democratic party (source). Nor is Judge Denny Chin a definite Republican (his affiliation is unknown). Alright, so some of the victims were, and probably some of the conspirators, but there's no reason this should be tagged the way it is.

Re:Tag "republicans"

[hedwards]

It's tagged Republicans because they were the ones that deregulated the markets, filled the SEC with people that they believed would look the other way and were by and large the loudest voices decrying efforts to keep tabs of what they're doing.

Of course he gave most of his money to the Democrats for God's sake, you don't give a lot of money to the people that are on your side regardless. You give money to people who you want to sway in your direction.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[MarkvW]

Madoff's going to spend his time in medium security or worse because of the length of his sentence. Madoff is not going to like prison one bit.

Re:Good... although

[Red Flayer]

Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."

But if you're old, and you've lived a full life, you can rest assured that your kids and your wife will still get to live a life of luxury, while you live a life of leisure in a state-run old age home. And you'll have plenty of influence to ensure you get a comfy life inside prison, since you can pay off anyone you need.

Re:Good... although

[dr_dank]

The message to would-be scammers is: don't get caught.

Or as a corollary, don't lose money. Nobody, including the SEC, cared until he started losing money and couldn't keep paying out those astronomical returns.

Re:Good... although

[FooAtWFU]

Speaking of his wife, there's this little piece on how Ruth Madoff Faces Living Off a Scant $2.5 Million.

Her $2.5 million settlement should give her an annual income of maybe $125,000 a year [...] That's a pretty good income. It's a lot more than many of her husband's ruined victims will have. But it will hardly support her past lifestyle. [...] The irony, of course, is that Mrs Madoff really needs right now a financial adviser she can trust to handle her money.

Re:Good... although

[jamstar7]

Thing is, if you try to make money off of crime and you're convicted, the government seizes everything in sight unless you can prove 100% that you had it before the crime was committed. They call it 'proceeds of crime', and put it in place to 'get' drug 'kingpins'. Even hiding the cash offshore isn't good enough, as even the Swiss have bent over backwards to open the books on those numbered accounts. Moving 65 billion dollars is a big feat, and will leave a big-assed papertrail.

Re:Here's a moral question for you.

[jamstar7]

If you could think of a way to do it. Is it OK to steal a little bit of money from everyone?

They call that government.

He said a little bit of money, not billions.

Re:Not a Bad Trade

[demachina]

"read and relax where he is safe"

They haven't decided where he is serving his sentence yet. If its a minimum security country club prison your assessment might be correct. If it a real federal penitentiary with violent criminals it might not be so safe or easy. There are also more than a few people who might wish him harm and people can be harmed in prison for a price.

All in all I really don't feel any sympathy for his victims. To me it was a greedy crook fleecing greedy people who were borderline themselves. It is more than a little unrealistic to expect 10-12% annual returns year after year with no risk. You can make a LOT of money compounding at that rate. Getting that kind of annual return pretty much always entails high risk. There is an old saying you should be very afraid when you are making a lot of money because its usually too good to be true and wont last, and you can make a lot of money when everyone else is afraid.

His victims were in a lot of ways just as greedy as he was. His feeder funds and victims must have suspected it was fishy, but went along as long as they got theirs out of it. They mostly seem to have thought they were special and privileged and deserved to get returns ordinary people couldn't. I feel no sympathy for people like that. They gambled in the casino Wall Street has turned in to and lost. Tough luck, nothing to see here and time to move on. Stop crying. Your own fault you put all your money in to an investment that was too good to be true.

About the only good thing that could come out of it is to compel meaningful reform and regulation of Wall Steet and and all indications are that isn't going to happen. Wall Street is rapidly going back to business as usual. Wall Street cost people like 14 trillion in wealth in the last collapse and most of it was due to criminal fraud and Ponzi schemes just as bad as Madoff and very few of those fat cats are going to jail. Obama and Geitner's proposed reforms are toothless.

I saw in passing a week or so some British lord and financial type was testifying in front of an EU commission. His take was the big banks and hedge funds were threatening regulators with blackmail. If the EU and the US go too far with regulation, they would move to Switzerland or the Caribbean and take their money with them. His take was the fat cats were racing to get back to were they were in 2006, demanding ridiculously high compensation, resuming the high risk investments, undermining reforms and he fully expects another bubble and collapse in 10 or 15 years. The tax payers and ordinary Joe's will be screwed again and the rich will just keep getting richer. It seems almost inevitable because the banks conned all their governments in to bailing them out. The essential concept of moral hazard has been completely undermined. The fat cats now know they can gamble and take all the winnings and when they lose taxpayers will take all the losses. If the banks were "too big to fail" before its even worse now because due to the forced mergers of the last year America three biggest banks are now bigger than ever. JP Morgan, B of A and Citibank are now the three largest banks in the world based on tier 1 capital due to mergers.

Re:DOOOOOOPED! You Are So Wrong...

[carlzum]

You can find a list of investors at the WSJ's site. There are a lot of schools, pension plans, and non-profits on the list that were significantly harmed, it's not a simple case of the wealthy stealing from the wealthy.

On a lighter note, Madoff has an impressive Bacon Factor of 1. The actor wouldn't confirm how much he gave Madoff, but let's hope it was way less than the $10 million Zsa Zsa Gabor claims to have lost. I shudder at the thought of the horrible movies a financially desperate Kevin Bacon would churn out.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Darkness404]

Which honestly is pointless. Should Madoff be banned from operating a company? Sure. Should he have to return his stolen goods and pay back the people he scammed? Yes. Should he be forced to liquefy most of his assets to help pay back? Yes. Should he be in prison not just scamming people once but effectively scamming the taxpayers. No. Prison should be reserved for only dangerous people who committed violent crimes and need to be put away for a while so they don't go back into crime and when they get out of prison they for the most part should be rehabilitated and able to live a normal life (with perhaps a few restrictions such as banning the sale/possession of firearms form violent criminals). Madoff is not a danger to society. And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice. No matter how much he scammed, he does not belong in jail. He should be working the rest of his life making small payments to pay for those he scammed. Prison is not the place for non-violent criminals, those should be placed on house arrest, have fines, restrictions or be placed on probation. Why should my tax dollars pay to lock away someone who wouldn't threaten anyone's lives, property, etc if he was out on the streets (with again restrictions on what he can and can't do economically).

Re:Good... although

[computerman413]

But if you didn't lose money, it wouldn't be a scam.

Where do I sign up?

[Maxwell]

Fifty years of the most luxurious lifestyle imaginable, every financial dream at your dospaoals, walthy than the ealthiest kings - without all the hassle.

Followed by 2-5 years in prison and a quiet death?

I'll take it. Where do I sign up?

Real punishment would be making him work to pay something - ANYTHING- back. Not to the people he fleeced, who were almost as greedy, but to soceity as whole. Now taxpayers have to pay to house and feed this guy! Make him work as a waiter, or cold call salesman or some other crap drop until he drops dead. Every penny gets invested into a trust fund for children's education or some other noble cause.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Mprx]

In a country without socialized healthcare, fraud *is* a violent crime.

Re:Good... although

[mgblst]

No, he hung around, kept on making money. Made loads, but never left. He could have left at anytime, disappeared, with billions. But he though he would never be caught, or didn't care. He could have his own secret island, never to be touched again. But he got greedy...

Re:Good... although

[gyrogeerloose]

I agree with your post completely but I don't think Madoff stashed most of that $65 billion in a Swiss bank account or anything else that might leave a paper trail. Since he was running a pyramid scheme, most of it probably when to pay off other investors.

Of course, he undoubtedly skimmed off a tidy sum for use by he and his spouse.

Ridiculous

[Morosoph]

5 years hell. Now come all the appeals. Is he out on bail?

This is money we're talking about. That makes for a looong sentence.

Now if he'd killed someone, you'd be right.

Re:Ridiculous

[digitalunity]

What madoff did was 100x times worse than your average 7-11 robber.

Yeah, I said it. It's worse than even a violent crime. 7-11 is insured and gets their money back, the crime is far from victimless but there is typically just 1-2 victims and they recover.

Because of madoff, thousands will suffer through the last years of their lives living from social security check to check, will not have access to the medications they need or the mobility required to live a healthy senior life.

I have no pity for the man. 150 years wasn't enough. Sadly, he will die of old age before any possible recompense can be served.

Re:Ridiculous

[Opportunist]

That's basically what bugs me about it. What's the worth of a life sentence for someone who is 77?

Given the chance, would you not do what he did? Live in luxury for 30ish years of your life, then spend the last 2-3 in prison?

What bugs me even more is that he is now found guilty, we're happy about it, and that's the last we'll hear about it. Provisions to keep this from repeating? Oversight of financial markets? Bah, what for, we got the bad guy...

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Evil Shabazz]

I think that the sentence indicates an argument that he is a danger to society. One could argue that he has been more of a danger to society than most violent criminals already incarcerated. Who's to say he won't go out and conduct more scams? Just because he seems sorry now that he's in trouble? How can you bar a person from being a con-artist? The man ruined more lives than most other criminals ever have...

Easy to get out of it

[tie_guy_matt]

He just needs to find a couple of inmates that are willing to do a couple more years of his jail time in order to be part of his plan. Those inmates need to find more people willing to do a couple more years of the jail time of all the people who got into the scheme before them, and those inmates need to get even more inmates willing to do more jail time. Soon Madoff will have enough sucker... I mean inmates to cover his time. Of course the last person in will need to do like 10000 years of jail time but then it will be up to the government to figure out how to keep the last inmate alive for that long.

Re:Good... although

[Doug52392]

The message to would-be scammers is: don't get caught.

Correction: The message to would-be scammers is: Don't get caught until your an old geezer with ~5 years left.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[timmarhy]

monitoring his finances to the level that you propose would probably cost as much as locking him up. i think in this case, life in prison is the only fitting outcome for this scumbag.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[ObiWanKenblowme]

So your alternative to locking him up at taxpayer expense is to hire round-the-clock surveillance at taxpayer expense?

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[plover]

There were at least two people who took their own lives directly because of their losses from his theft:

• Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet
• William Foxton

These men are equally as dead as any two other murder victims, and were apparently in no trouble or danger prior to Madoff's criminal activity.

And just in case you want to blame the victims, consider the phrase "danger to society" doesn't necessarily mean "physical danger". Compare what he did to a mugger pointing a gun at you, but not shooting you: you might lose $200 bucks from your wallet, you might have crapped your pants, but you're still alive, and still have a job. Causing the collapse of hundreds of businesses, the unemployment of thousands, the destruction of retirement funds of tens of thousands of people -- I'd say he ranks right up there with any weapon of mass destruction in terms of the damage done to our society. "Danger to society" isn't exclusively the province of the barrel of a gun.

Prison is exactly the right place for him to spend the next 150 years. My only complaint is that he didn't start serving it when he began his fraud, which federal investigators place about 1975. He got to live too many good years outside of the gray bars.

Much was paid in taxes on the BS cap gains.

[HornWumpus]

Now the suckers want that money back from the IRS.

12% compounded, cap gains are 27% (not sure).

Assume the Ponzi scheme had a 'cap gains tax leak' (redemptions to cover taxes) of 3% per year.

To get to 65 billion in fictitious value at 12% compounded over 20 years would require an initial investment of about 6.5 billion. I know it didn't happen this way, actual principle was much higher as most investors came in late. Still an interesting number.

3% of 65 billion is about 2 billion in cap gains per year.

Where is the money?

The IRS got it from the suckers as they thought they were raking in great earnings.

Now the suckers will get into a legal brawl among themselves and with the IRS over the remaining money (they want to amend 20 year old tax returns).

Lawyers and forensic accountants will get most of it.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[hedwards]

OK, then explain the part where getting caught is bad. Because if you're under house arrest, even if it is a modest dwelling, there's no punishment there. You've had your toys and then you're banished to the middle class.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that house arrest, even a strict house arrest, is any sort of actual punishment for this sort of thing.

Welcome to society good sir.

[coryking]

Which honestly is pointless.

Guess what, most criminals* are a drain on society. That is why they are criminals. They do things that harm all of us for their own benifit. No matter what we do with them, they are a drain on taxpayer money--not to mention the damage they do to the victims.

Madoff is a pointless drain on society. You should be pissed he exists and we have to spend our taxpayer money to lock the son of a bitch up. It isn't the government or societies fault he is costing us a bagillion dollars. It is his own selfish nature.

The only reason we don't burn these people at the stake is this thing we call civilization. The fact we get a fair trial and *dont* get burnt at the stake on the whims of random people costs a lot of money. Personally, I'll pay my taxes and avoid being burnt at the stake and having a fair trial. Wouldn't you agree?

* Obviously there are exceptions... are dudes busted for smoking a joint really a drain on society? I'd argue not.

Re:Now here's an inconvenient truth:

[Anonymous Coward]

There a world of difference between distorting the fact and opinions..

I've seen cnn, msnbc and the like a bit biased , but actually backing their opinions on facts.
NEVER 'massage' the fact to fit the opinion.

Almost 99% (to leave space for surprise) of the times I've heard Fox reporting something that sounded outrageous, I found out after going to the original source, the complete video when they just showed a snippet, that they completly distorded the meaning, Its so systematics that you cant dismiss it as incompetency ! Or blow out of proportion a banality, or take a public survey of morons and pass it at the general 'democratic' base.

There might exist, but didnt encounter it yet, point to me any cnn, msnbc 'distorded' news and im certain that the facts are quit real, you just dont agree with the interpretration/opinions .. check any controversial FOX reporting, lookup different source of their 'fact' .. and conclude that they are not news, just propaganda machine for the rep/murdoch.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[m.ducharme]

There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.

Bullshit.

with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do

Also bullshit. In Ontario, doctors get paid per treatment/visit, more or less depending on what kind of treatment they do. No different than in the US.

and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.

I'm not even sure what the hell this has to do with anything.

If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason, with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.

Again, bullshit. If I need antibiotics for something, my doctor writes me a prescription for antibiotics, and I go get it filled. Of course, if I don't actually need antibiotics, my doctor doesn't have an incentive to feed me medication that I don't actually need. If you want to talk intelligently about universal or public health care, go learn something about the subject instead of repeating the lies you've been told. Here's an interesting fact for you. Of the top 40 or so countries in the world, the US has the most inefficient health care system. It's twice as inefficient as the next most inefficient health care system.

Universal public healthcare systems are operating right now, that are at least twice as efficient as the health care system in the US. Stop and think about that. This isn't theorizing about what a public health system might do, this is real actual performance in the real world. Of course, there are also many nations with fully private health care that are at least twice as efficient as your own system, which should be ringing bells in your head right about now. The problem isn't about public/private, the problem lies elsewhere. Many Americans will say that the discrepancy is caused by the "cheeseburger nation", but here in Canada we're just as obese as you are, and we do much better than you in terms of health care efficiency.

So what is the real problem? Why is it that in the US, you have absurdly high numbers of people with no coverage at all, and yet you spend more per person on health care than any other country? Follow the money....

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[modecx]

punishment
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 : a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an
offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process

He's not going to prison because he's currently a danger to anyone. He's going to prison because The People decided he should be punished for his misdeeds. The People have decided that probation is just not enough punishment for destroying the pensions of thousands--maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of victims. Maybe he didn't physically assault these people--but he didn't just rob them of money, he robbed many of these people of YEARS of their hard work... Remember, some people have to get along by trading their, blood, sweat and tears; ultimately trading time for currency. When you annihilate someone's retirement account, I think an argument could be made that you're literally stealing time from their lives. Isn't that what murderers do, if more suddenly or brutally?

And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice.

The way I see it, prisons have two primary services to society: Deterrence before the act, and reformation after sentencing. You're welcome to argue their effectiveness in either of these roles (rather dismal, IMO)--but that's not the point. The point is, laws are useless unless they're backed by a set of mean and nasty, pointy teeth when it's appropriate. So what if it is "setting an example"? Maybe the prior examples just weren't harsh enough to dissuade ol' Bernie? Perhaps this might deter the next douche who starts on the path of stealing 65-70 billion, and contributing in no small part to a globally upset economy?

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Falconhell]

And how exactly do you know what you wrote about socialized care is true?

I am a disability pensioner in a country that has socialized medicine. Not only can my Doctor prescribe any drug on the list at any time,
he can specify virtually any treatment. There is no
input form anyone other than my own doctor in my treatment.

If you must make sweeping generalizations, try for a modicum of accuracy please.

The one good thing about this...

[Cormophyte]

...is that prison will be able to provide true justice in this case. There comes a time where you have to cut your losses. There's no way to make things right, so we have to try to make him truly understand what he's done and to feel remorse for what he's done to people who had just as much of a right to be happy as he did, and from whom he stole that possibility.

What better path to that realization than buttsecks? Lots and lots of sweaty buttsecks.

Try again

[Anonymous Coward]

That thief has forced people much older than he is to go back to work when they thought they had their retirement covered. Can you imagine being an 80 year old frail granny and finding out you are now penniless? It wasn't just other rich fatcats he ripped off, he ripped off all sorts of normal regular working folks whose other financial "advisors" got them hooked up with his fraud. Now they have to go commute twice a day with reduced reflexes, bad eyes and arthritis, or go out on the street penniless. Let alone the physical and psychological stress.

And by not locking him up, you are saying to other white collar megathieves at high levels, go ahead, do your worst, the new plan is to give you a government job and credit card if you get caught?

WHAT freeking deranged planet do you live on? That sort of "justice" would stop those thieves from being thieves? That's not even CLOSE to being a deterrent. Incarceration is both, it is supposed to be a deterrent to others, plus a punishment for the convicted. This asshole has probably caused any number of heart attacks and strokes now just from the stress a lot of his victims got put through. And a lot of them won't get a penny back because of the way the laws work, in fact, the ones who REALLY need some of their money back are the ones most likely to not get any. Those victims need to know he AT LEAST will suffer as much as they are now going to suffer. Wait until you get older, see how it feels to know you'll never be able to relax or have a day off no matter how tired and frail you get.

Nope, he needs jail, along with a slew of other wall street financial snakeoil conmen, they can start with the entire goldman sachs organization, biggest damn leeches and parasites on the planet. The damn revolving door between their offices and official government positions is *obscene*. They are the prime movers behind this economic coup d' etat we are all going to suffer for years under. They need to BAN most paper financial "products" and "services", because they are all mostly SCAMS and even some in the industry recognize this now. The whole wallstreet congame needs to be called and regulated like what it is, a CASINO. They need to be BANNED from calling what they do as "investing", it is so far away from the classical definition it ain't funny, and this case PROVES there has been no credible oversight by all the agencies who get fat checks and pensions to supposedly "regulate" it.. Madoff, goldman-sachs, all of those bloated ticks hanging off of society, including the almost completely useless government regulators, jail is almost too good for them. The government had just a few actually honest and righteous investigators who called foul years ago on madoff and some other crooks, the result, wall street influence got them told to sit down and shut up. Do you get it yet? Madoff is just a symptom of the rot and is an easy target for them to throw away as a MISDIRECTION. This is a political stunt, but he still needs jail. Just don't stop with just him.

    Madoff is a public sacrifice they are throwing to the mobs just to see if people will forget about all the other scam-foolery that has been and is still going on with this whole economic "system" designed and run for wall street fatcats. He is SMALL POTATOES and still freaking bad. Lock him up, and then start on locking up a few thousand more and we can call it a decent first day effort, then get serious about it. Throw a freekin blockade around manhattan and start running some serious checks on what has been going on there for the last several decades, they have STOLEN most of the wealth produced in the US through lies, buying off congress, economic manipulation, insider trading, insider trading through foreknowledge of what the Fed does, and etc. A damn nest of thieves, rotten and corrupt to the core.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[ravrazor]

You're an idiot making inflammatory arguments.
Prison is a punishment - removing the freedom to live your life. Whether someone is dangerous or not has no relevance...There's a reason why poor, homeless people don't commit murder in order to get "free room and board" at the local penitentiary: Being incarcerated is a real punishment and on top of that, a _deterrent_ to other people who may be tempted to commit the same crime.
Since you're a nerd arguing on Slashdot, if a criminal burned down your house, destroyed your computer and any backups you have, would you be satisfied with them replacing the monetary value of the house and computer? If so, I wish I (like many people) had a extra few hundred thousand dollars. Then I could track you down, burn down your house, destroy all your property and cut you a cheque, for the damage and continue on with my life. Hopefully it would take less than this to illustrate the sheer idiocy of allowing people to commit non-violent crime and avoid punishment simply by reimbursing the victims in cash, i.e. a different system of justice for rich and non-rich people.
I bet you're American.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[nbauman]

From your post, I'm pretty sure you've never had to get health care in the U.S. for someone who didn't have any money. Correct?

There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.

Name one.

In the U.K., under the NICE system, they set a price limit on every condition. If they can save a year of life for about $50,000, they will do it. If it costs more than that, NICE recommends against it, but if people complain about it, the government usually gives in and pays for it anyway. They try to avoid giving out $100,000 drugs that have minimal effectiveness, but they treat long-term conditions better than we do in the U.S.

The U.K. is the cheapest, stingiest system in Europe. Sweden probably has the best care in the world.

But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need.

I just spent several days on the phone over the last few months trying to help a friend of mine who lost his job and health insurance get on Medicaid, so I know something about what actually happens. The city welfare agency just delayed his application for months. He had one condition that required lifetime medication to save his life, so it was a serious business. I made half a dozen calls to those non-profits and got nowhere.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that demonstrates how you can die in the U.S. if you can't afford health care. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm The WSJ had a whole series like that. (This is for people who don't believe Michael Moore.)

Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments

As the WSJ story shows, that's not true.

but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.

So how come the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are on salary and get paid the same whatever they do, has some of the best outcomes in the country?

If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason,

That's supposed to be a benefit? If you take antibiotics when you don't need them, you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could kill you later.

with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.

Ridiculous. I just read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which French doctors described how they were treating cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome in their socialist system. Is that non-common enough for you? They were using canakinumab, which will probably cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Re:Good... although

[Antique Geekmeister]

And that's why he's still playing innocent. If he coughs up the rest of the money, his wife, his family, and his lawyers suddenly have to scrounge for a living like honest people.

He needs his family to keep the money out of the hands of the cops, and his lawyers to keep he family clear of the cops as well. Both of those groups need Bernie to keep his mouth closed abou the remaining money. There is no surprise that they're all keeping quiet about the rest of the money.

Re:Good... although

[evilviper]

He could have left at anytime, disappeared, with billions.

"When you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you."

Re:Good... although

[Sir_Lewk]

On the contrary, I was under the impression that by the nature of his ponzi scheme he had to keep it going because the moment he stopped everyone would realize what happened. I'm not sure how you just "walk away" from thousands of investors without giving them their money (and he couldn't, their money didn't really exist, hence the scam) and not raise any alarms.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[bnenning]

Bullshit.

Not bullshit. There is not an unlimited supply of health care in either public or private systems. Rationing *always* happens in one form or another.

Of course, there are also many nations with fully private health care that are at least twice as efficient as your own system, which should be ringing bells in your head right about now. The problem isn't about public/private, the problem lies elsewhere.

Absolutely correct. The US healthcare manages to combine the worst of both worlds: the lack of guaranteed coverage, and the lack of competition and pricing signals. I primarily blame the ridiculous concept we have that our employers should pay for our health insurance. This makes no sense whatsoever; it eliminates direct competition and routes people into one-size-fits-all plans, and it means if you lose your job you're doubly screwed. It makes no more sense for my employer to pay for my health insurance than it does for them to pay for my house or car.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[m.ducharme]

Not bullshit. There is not an unlimited supply of health care in either public or private systems. Rationing *always* happens in one form or another.

That's not what the GGP was arguing. He implied that rationing is peculiar to socialized health care. That is bullshit.

I primarily blame the ridiculous concept we have that our employers should pay for our health insurance. This makes no sense whatsoever; it eliminates direct competition and routes people into one-size-fits-all plans, and it means if you lose your job you're doubly screwed. It makes no more sense for my employer to pay for my health insurance than it does for them to pay for my house or car.

Is that really it? I think it might be more complicated. I get really suspicious of the fact that insurance companies have so much control over what they cover, and get to deny coverage for strictly financial reasons. In the private health care transaction, the one who controls access to the treatment (insurance companies) has all the power. The health care consumer is stuck. They need the treatment, they have no choice. They either pay, or go without and get sicker or die. Any transaction with that much power imbalance between two of the parties is ripe for exploitation. You're certainly on the right track though, I think.

Madoff's full statement

[Rick Bentley]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/30bernietext.html

Following is a transcript of Bernard L. Madoffâ(TM)s statement to the court during his sentencing, as provided by the court:

Jine Lee/Bloomberg News " Your Honor, I cannot offer you an excuse for my behavior. How do you excuse betraying thousands of investors who entrusted me with their life savings? How do you excuse deceiving 200 employees who have spent most of their working life working for me? How do you excuse lying to your brother and two sons who spent their whole adult life helping to build a successful and respectful business? How do you excuse lying and deceiving a wife who stood by you for 50 years, and still stands by you? And how do you excuse deceiving an industry that you spent a better part of your life trying to improve?

There is no excuse for that, and I donâ(TM)t ask any forgiveness.

Although I may not have intended any harm, I did a great deal of harm. I believed when I started this problem, this crime, that it would be something I would be able to work my way out of, but that became impossible. As hard as I tried, the deeper I dug myself into a hole. I made a terrible mistake, but it wasnâ(TM)t the kind of mistake that I had made time and time again, which is a trading mistake. In my business, when you make a trading error, youâ(TM)re expected to make a trading error, itâ(TM)s accepted. My error was much more serious. I made an error of judgment. I refused to accept the fact, could not accept the fact, that for once in my life I failed. I couldnâ(TM)t admit that failure and that was a tragic mistake.

I am responsible for a great deal of suffering and pain. I understand that. I live in a tormented state now knowing of all the pain and suffering that I have created. I have left a legacy of shame, as some of my victims have pointed out, to my family and my grandchildren. Thatâ(TM)s something I will live with for the rest of my life. People have accused me of being silent and not being sympathetic. That is not true. They have accused my wife of being silent and not being sympathetic. Nothing could be further from the truth. She cries herself to sleep every night knowing of all the pain and suffering I have caused, and I am tormented by that as well. She was advised not to speak publicly until after my sentencing by our attorneys, and she complied with that. Today she will make a statement about how she feels about my crimes. I ask you to listen to that. She is sincere and all I ask you is to listen to her.

Apologizing and saying I am sorry, thatâ(TM)s not enough. Nothing I can say will correct the things I have done. I feel terrible that an industry I spent my life trying to improve is being criticized terribly now, that regulators who I helped work with over the years are being criticized by what I have done. That is a horrible guilt to live with. There is nothing I can do that will make anyone feel better for the pain and suffering I caused them, but I will live with this pain, with this torment for the rest of my life. I apologize to my victims. I will turn and face you. I am sorry. I know that doesnâ(TM)t help you. Your Honor, thank you for listening to me. â

Re:Good... although

[ralphdaugherty]

      I'm saying the government can't find or account for most of the recent money, so they're saying look, look what a lavish life style he lived to divert attention from what they don't want to admit.

      It couldn't have been a Ponzi scheme because he didn't pay it out. The math isn't there to account for it. But Ponzi scheme is the easiest thing to call it so that's what they're doing. And of course Madoff himself is caling it that. That he self describes something that no one understands and explains nothing about it should be clue one for everyone. But people prefer the spectacle to hearing that no one understands where the money is.

  rd

No, he's not out on bail.

[Animats]

No. He's been in jail for months.

In the words of the New Yorker, on his bail hearing a few months back: "As soon as Sorkin finished asking that Madoff's bail be continued, Chin said curtly, "I don't need to hear from the government. It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff." Immediate applause, quickly tamped down by the Judge. Moments later, two court officers approached Madoff, who stood silently and still, and then he moved his arms a little so that his hands were behind his back. And then there was a click."

That was Madoff's last moment of freedom for the rest of his life. Madoff is Federal inmate #61727-054 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York City, NY. That's a maximum security facility. Here is Madoff's cell.

MCC isn't a long-term facility, so the Bureau of Prisons will probably move him after a while.

Re:Good... although

[jimicus]

It certainly was.

The whole point of a Ponzi scheme is Peter gives you $1000, Paul gives you $2000. You tell peter his $1000 is now worth $2000, you tell Paul his $2000 is worth $4000. Peter takes his money and you're left with $1000.

You now hope to Christ that Paul doesn't ask for his money before you can find someone else to give you at least $3000. Seeing as Paul has just seen his savings double in some absurdly small amount of time, then provided Paul has no reason to need the money quickly then you should be OK. As long as you've got more people joining your scheme than you have leaving, you're in business.

Re:Bullshit

[Spy Handler]

My opinion: He needs his fucking legs cheese gratered off and his face given a date with a belt sander. That wouldn't be cruel or unusual

Yes it is cruel and unusual. We as a society don't do that to serial killers who torture and cut up young women. You think we should do that to a guy who stole people's money? Good thing your opinion counts for nothing.

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden probably has the best care in the world.

As a Swede, I find it amusing how my country is used by people of shall we say socialist sympathies as the example of heaven on earth. Granted, not all things are bad here, but healthcare certainly is. Let me put it this way: if you are seriously ill, you go to Germany. Not only are there endless queues in Sweden for any more complicated treatment but the survival rates are among Europe's lowest. The statistics has improved somewhat in the last years since the state monopoly on running hospitals has been removed.

The idea that we have "free healthcare" is nonsense as well. First it's free as in "free lunch". You pay, just not to the people who provide the healthcare but to the state which then distributes it as it sees fit. Second, you actually do pay directly. There is a top cap that is applied to certain treatments and certain medicine - far from all.

Thankfully, these remnants of the "Swedish model" from the '70s (borrow and tax) are dying out. Things are getting better. In some respects we are far less socialist than the US. We have less regulation of financial markets. We have no estate tax or gift tax etc..

Madoff'll be 221 when he gets out

[rs232]

Does that mean he'll be 221 when he gets out ?

Re:Tricky -- NOT

[Reservoir Penguin]

However homeless FREQUENTLY commit small crimes exactly because it gets them freem room&board for a few month, maybe up to a year. It is a common and well-known strategy among them homeless.