Victor Lustig, the man who sold the Eiffel Tower twice, had to have been, during his time and for much of the 20th century, one of the greatest practitioner of the criminal art defined by the expression, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is". He also had to have been the most innovative and daring of all con-men who ever lived. He did successfully "sell" the Eiffel Tower once, and tried to do it again when the first victim was too embarrassed to go to the police. The second "sale" almost succeeded and when he was found out he fled Europe and came to the U.S. where he continued to make money the only way he knew how. His daring was so boundless that he conned the most ruthless criminal mind of that era - Al Capone. Ironically, his many scams finally caught up with him and was sentenced to a 15 year imprisonment in Alcatraz - the very same institution that hosted Al Capone later, for a tax evasion conviction. But Lustig died of pneumonia in a Springfield, MO federal prison before he could begin his sentence in Alcatraz. Lustig's life story was legendary and worth reading about, notably in, "Handsome Devil" by Jeff Maysh.
Of course, the con game is one of the oldest criminal tricks man invented and perpetuated against his fellow man. Although, the very first account of "too good to be true" had to have been the one found in Genesis 3 verse 4 of the Old Testament on the temptation of Eve on eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge:
Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (KJV)
By the way, the fruit was not an apple, and the devil did not manifest as a snake. Just to be clear, because we ought to realize that a snake, without any prehensile hands, would have been totally helpless in handling an almost round-shape fruit, let alone plucking one from the tree or even vocalize anything above a hiss. {The serpent, word used in the Bible, was likely to describe a deceptive creature or trickster}. The devil would have been better off impersonating a Capuchin monkey.
The expression, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is" originated from early 16th century. Perhaps now considered almost a cliche by some or still an intuitive adage by others, it gets handed down from one generation to the next, often interpreted with subtle variations. It had a lot of truth back then and, common expression or not, it continues to be true today.
Of course, the con game is one of the oldest criminal tricks man invented and perpetuated against his fellow man. Although, the very first account of "too good to be true" had to have been the one found in Genesis 3 verse 4 of the Old Testament on the temptation of Eve on eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge:
Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (KJV)
By the way, the fruit was not an apple, and the devil did not manifest as a snake. Just to be clear, because we ought to realize that a snake, without any prehensile hands, would have been totally helpless in handling an almost round-shape fruit, let alone plucking one from the tree or even vocalize anything above a hiss. {The serpent, word used in the Bible, was likely to describe a deceptive creature or trickster}. The devil would have been better off impersonating a Capuchin monkey.
The expression, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is" originated from early 16th century. Perhaps now considered almost a cliche by some or still an intuitive adage by others, it gets handed down from one generation to the next, often interpreted with subtle variations. It had a lot of truth back then and, common expression or not, it continues to be true today.
The expression has had several iterations in over centuries of usage from different English speaking regions. One example is Mark Twain's, "It's too good for true, honey, it's too good for true" (Huckleberry Finn, 1884)..."
But what exactly is the correct way of phrasing it?
But what exactly is the correct way of phrasing it?
One argument says that it should be, "If it is too good to be true, it probably is not". Grammarians come in and the debate raged on for awhile. I think either one can be correct. The adjective phrase at the end of the sentence either describes only the "too good" part and rightfully claims that it "probably is not", or on the other hand, if it describes the phrase "too good to be true" then it is also correct to say that "it probably is" too good, for it to be true. Got that? Anyway, I digressed.
We regularly get warnings from various consumer protection agencies about fraud, scams, get rich quick schemes, etc. We are made aware constantly because these universal scourge is always evolving. It is able to adapt with changing technology. And there is always a new generation of people to take advantage of and an ever growing batch of the aging population to victimize. The latter is the saddest part because the older the folks get, the more vulnerable they become. And less likely they are able to cope with or adapt to technology's fast moving pace.
Too good to be true scams remain singularly-themed but come in so many flavors that authorities are overwhelmed to keep up. Here is a classic example - one variation of many - that had been going around for years. We either received one of these directly or indirectly know about it from friends and co-workers who got it from an email inbox:
"I'm an Nigerian Prince and I am facing exile, but I have a fortune of $50,000,000.00 that I need to get out of the country. Please give me your bank account number and I will transfer the money to you. Thank you kind person! "
It can be as simple and blunt as the one above while others were woven with such care and intricacy of a John le Carre novel. But many more were so grammatically challenged that people would forward them for their entertainment value.
Then there are the telemarketers and the pressure selling that are forced upon those who attend innocuous-sounding presentations that promise free stuff or show tickets or sweet selling by con-artists, etc. It may not seem that way but TV commercials, internet ads and pop-ups can be subtle messages of stuff "too good to be true" as well. So much money is spent on all of these enticements but they may pale in comparison with how much is spent within a short period of time on political campaigns in this country.
It is estimated that 6.4 billion dollars were spent in the 2016 election (presidential and congressional contests combined). Of the 187 countries in the world ranked by annual GDP (gross domestic products) the bottom 31 countries produced goods at below 7 billion dollars in 2018. The U.S. spent that amount in just a few months of a presidential election year.
In other words, U.S. elections are, if it were a cottage industry - which could be exactly that - is enough to sustain one of 31 countries for a year, or fund several nobler programs for those in dire need in this country.
Elections, everywhere we look or seriously listen to, is almost always a cacophony of promises that can be regarded mostly as belonging to the category of "too good to be true". And both sides are guilty.
We'll refrain from expounding on the subject more than had already been said here. Suffice it to say, too good to be true in politics is a repeating theme, not worthy of more than one refrain in the chorus line we've already seen and heard multiple times.
So, the larger question is why we, who populate the top rung of the evolutionary ladder, with intelligence so far and above the ceiling which our nearest animal relative can never break, is prone to the siren song of the flimflam man or woman. It is obvious men do it more than women, so the conman is the appropriate job description. (Let's not even talk political correctness here, usually from the same group that protests to remove man from every word in the English language). But that is enough we can manage to say about that as well.
Gullibility and skepticism, trustful and incredulously leery are two traits we naturally have but why do so many succumb to the lure. And often, the victim can be almost complicit in the completion of the crime. I'm sure the most rewarding part for the conman, pardon the pun, is that the victim has a lot to do with closing the criminal deal as the perpetrator. Remember, in the con game that is of the category we are discussing, the victims are never coerced with the barrel of a gun or any weapon for that matter. The victims and their money were parted with such accord that that businessman in France, a wise and seasoned entrepreneur, was too embarrassed to report his gullibility to the police.
Why, indeed, do so many fall for the world's oldest criminal manipulation? Is it that often we try to reflect our goodness in the personality of the person doing the con? Or, is the lure often the shortest distance to the reward with very little effort or investment from the victim? In other words, the victim is deluded into believing something to the exclusion of even a modicum of disbelief or incredulity? Or, simply put, is greed so empowering as to be unencumbered by a simple thought process or suspicion? It could be one or all of the above.
Take the example of the mouse and the cheese on the mouse trap. The poor creature is not equipped to question that there must be a catch to the free cheese. And caught it is. However, the next mouse that comes upon the trap with its fellow creature caught in it, studies have shown, will not be lured by the same trap later, unless the trap is thoroughly washed clean of the scent of a dead mouse, or a new one is employed.
Humans, on the other hand, based on our history, never seem to learn the lesson of the free cheese. In fact, the more free something is, regardless of how incredulous the lure is, the more the message is received. We hope not, but the siren song of free stuff is used by both politicians and con men because it does continue to work. Why do you think this country has so much free entitlement in its socioeconomic system now, that were absent just decades ago? The pioneering spirit that used to be propelled purely by hard work and optimism that built this country is now overwhelmed by so much free cheese that politicians are so willing to promise free stuff over and over. That is because it works. Soon when it is too late, when the population is gripped by the realization that all those free cheeses were not free after all, is a lesson learned in futility.
So, remember that when it is too good to be true, it probably is.
Then there are the telemarketers and the pressure selling that are forced upon those who attend innocuous-sounding presentations that promise free stuff or show tickets or sweet selling by con-artists, etc. It may not seem that way but TV commercials, internet ads and pop-ups can be subtle messages of stuff "too good to be true" as well. So much money is spent on all of these enticements but they may pale in comparison with how much is spent within a short period of time on political campaigns in this country.
It is estimated that 6.4 billion dollars were spent in the 2016 election (presidential and congressional contests combined). Of the 187 countries in the world ranked by annual GDP (gross domestic products) the bottom 31 countries produced goods at below 7 billion dollars in 2018. The U.S. spent that amount in just a few months of a presidential election year.
In other words, U.S. elections are, if it were a cottage industry - which could be exactly that - is enough to sustain one of 31 countries for a year, or fund several nobler programs for those in dire need in this country.
Elections, everywhere we look or seriously listen to, is almost always a cacophony of promises that can be regarded mostly as belonging to the category of "too good to be true". And both sides are guilty.
We'll refrain from expounding on the subject more than had already been said here. Suffice it to say, too good to be true in politics is a repeating theme, not worthy of more than one refrain in the chorus line we've already seen and heard multiple times.
So, the larger question is why we, who populate the top rung of the evolutionary ladder, with intelligence so far and above the ceiling which our nearest animal relative can never break, is prone to the siren song of the flimflam man or woman. It is obvious men do it more than women, so the conman is the appropriate job description. (Let's not even talk political correctness here, usually from the same group that protests to remove man from every word in the English language). But that is enough we can manage to say about that as well.
Gullibility and skepticism, trustful and incredulously leery are two traits we naturally have but why do so many succumb to the lure. And often, the victim can be almost complicit in the completion of the crime. I'm sure the most rewarding part for the conman, pardon the pun, is that the victim has a lot to do with closing the criminal deal as the perpetrator. Remember, in the con game that is of the category we are discussing, the victims are never coerced with the barrel of a gun or any weapon for that matter. The victims and their money were parted with such accord that that businessman in France, a wise and seasoned entrepreneur, was too embarrassed to report his gullibility to the police.
Why, indeed, do so many fall for the world's oldest criminal manipulation? Is it that often we try to reflect our goodness in the personality of the person doing the con? Or, is the lure often the shortest distance to the reward with very little effort or investment from the victim? In other words, the victim is deluded into believing something to the exclusion of even a modicum of disbelief or incredulity? Or, simply put, is greed so empowering as to be unencumbered by a simple thought process or suspicion? It could be one or all of the above.
Take the example of the mouse and the cheese on the mouse trap. The poor creature is not equipped to question that there must be a catch to the free cheese. And caught it is. However, the next mouse that comes upon the trap with its fellow creature caught in it, studies have shown, will not be lured by the same trap later, unless the trap is thoroughly washed clean of the scent of a dead mouse, or a new one is employed.
Humans, on the other hand, based on our history, never seem to learn the lesson of the free cheese. In fact, the more free something is, regardless of how incredulous the lure is, the more the message is received. We hope not, but the siren song of free stuff is used by both politicians and con men because it does continue to work. Why do you think this country has so much free entitlement in its socioeconomic system now, that were absent just decades ago? The pioneering spirit that used to be propelled purely by hard work and optimism that built this country is now overwhelmed by so much free cheese that politicians are so willing to promise free stuff over and over. That is because it works. Soon when it is too late, when the population is gripped by the realization that all those free cheeses were not free after all, is a lesson learned in futility.
So, remember that when it is too good to be true, it probably is.
No comments:
Post a Comment