THE BIZOP NEWS

Image via Wikipedia

I am critical of regulators who blame victims of fraud, by cautioning them that "if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

This "advice" makes the victim of a con criminal feel that there was some simple check by which they could have avoided the con criminal.

I believe this to be false.

But, now I have logical proof of the regulator fallacy.

Recently, I was invited an amazing island, in the Raymond Smullyan archipelago.

On this Island, there are two types of people: Rogues and Saints.

Both the Rogues and Saints talk about earnings projections of franchises, business opportunities, and distributorships.

Now Rogues, unremarkably, always say things that are too good to be true. So if a Rogue says that vending opportunity B will make $3,000 a month, then it is too good to be true and so it is false that vending opportunity B will make $3,000 a month.

But the Saints, god bless their souls, never say anything that is too good to be true and therefore generally have less to say than the Rogues.

Just before I arrived, the Saints had grown tired of the Rogues and the devastation they had caused on the Island.

The Saints, knowing of my reputation as a fraud fighter, asked me to help design their due diligence scheme.

They had two proposals.

First, they wanted me to catch every Rogue and force them to wear a sign saying "I am too good to be true.", a project I called "the belling of the Rogues."

If this was impractical, they wanted to set up a Really Rogue Registery, RRR, and force every Rogue to register with. Upon demand a card, a registered rogue would have to procude a card which said, "If I am registered with the RRR, then what I say is too good to be true."

What advice do you think I gave them?

Well, upon reviewing Raymond Smullyan logical puzzle books, I realized two things.

First, a Saint could never say "I am too good to be true."

And neither could a Rogue, since Rogues only say false things. So the Rogues could not be belled, without the logic of the Island collapsing.

Second, if a Saint said "If am registered with the RRR, then what I say is too good to be true", then since the latter clause is false, and since Saints tell the truth, then the Saint is not registered with the RRR.  

This seemed an odd result: truth tellers would not be registered.  I didn't like the sound of this.

But can a Rogue be registered?  He would said "If I am registered with the RR, then what I say is too good to be true."? No, since Rogues always lie and if both the clauses are true, the whole implication is true.

But surely, the Saints exclaimed, at least if we form the RR, the Rogues will be mercifully more silent. I thought this was too good to be true.

Upon reflection, I pointed out that the Rogues would simply say "If what I say is too good to be true,  check with the RRR."

A Rogue not registered with the RRR can say this because it is false -what he says is too good to be true and he is not registered with the RRR.

The establishment of the RR would cause Rogues to adopt aliases to avoid registering, and would use the authority of the RR to establish that they were not too good to be true.

The Saints were not amused, declined further consultations.  

But, I heard that as a result of my findings, that at least one prominent law professor called for the abolition of the RRR on the grounds that it could not prevent fraud.