Does Big Franchising at least legitimize The Big Con?

I have been reading a neat book called The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Man by a dead American linguistics professor called David Warren Maurer.

This is what Wikipedia has to say that is catching my eye:

Maurer spent his career recording the argot of moonshiners and pickpockets, but The Big Con is his masterwork. …The Big Con reeks of 10,000 conversations in poolrooms and Pullman cars; its sentences ring with the raffish patois of ’20s and ’30s Americans on the move. “I’d sooner be a lamster any day than be tied up to a lop-eared mark,” grouses one sharpie stuck with simpleminded prey.

While working on his magnum opus, Maurer won the trust of hundreds of swindlers, who let him in on not simply their language, but their folk-ways and the astonishing complex and elaborate schemes whereby unsuspecting marks, hooked by their own greed and dishonesty, were “taken off” – i.e. cheated – of thousands upon thousands of dollars. The products of amazing ingenuity, crack timing, and attention to every last detail, these “big cons” richly deserve Maurer’s description as “the most effective swindling device which man has ever invented.”. The Big Con is a treasure trove of American lingo (the write, the rag, the payoff, ropers, shills, the cold poke, the convincer, to put on the send) and indelible characters (Yellow Kid Weil, Barney the Patch, the Seldom Seen Kid, Limehouse Chappie, Larry the Lug). It served as the source for the Oscar-winning film The Sting and will delight fans of such writers as David Mamet, Jim Thompson, Elmore Leonard, and William Burroughs for its droll, utterly authoritative look at the timeless pursuit of relieving one’s fellow man on his surplus cash.

And an except of a book review from the Mad Professor:

If you’ve seen The Sting, then you have the basic idea of how a big con works. It’s basically a theatrical production with elaborate sets and costumed actors for an audience of one. But the audience member thinks the production is real, and ends up losing his life savings by the time the curtain closes. The two most surprising things I learned from reading this book: one, the con men, who work so hard to set up a con and take the mark’s money, usually blow their cut immediately by gambling it away, and two, the victims of cons often return to the con men to get fleeced again, even when they know they were conned the first time.

To me, the second point is crucial: Maurer says the swindlers tell him that over 50% of victims get taken at least 2 times. Many get taken several times…by the same play [versions of the big con].

Another review which ends with the following question:

…where is the big con today?

Fueled with SBA or other easy credit, almost anyone can be roped into the next half-assed, unproven franchise scheme. They don’t just take your current dough and leave you with a warm feeling for the inside man, they take your future life savings, labour and often your health. And your spouse’s too.

  • You end up broke, gagged, shamed and most dangerous of all, unaware of how to learn from these experiences.

Big Franchising acts [alone or as a tag team: see Australia lawmaking] to protect their legitimate business interests which is fair in a market-driven democracy. But by doing so, they create a legal  and political influence umbrella that nourishes a commercial cancer called mom and pop franchise opportunism.

Economics classifies this out-of-control negative growth (cancer) an externality,

3 Responses to Does Big Franchising at least legitimize The Big Con?

  1. Carol Cross says:

    Amen! When “confidence men” are licensed by the government to sell their “snake oil” in a bottle on the premise that this is “good for business” — guess who gets “the business.”

    If you look into the complaints of a retired police officer on Franchise Pick Unhappy Franchisees who bought a L&W Law Franchise, and really understand what happened to him, you understand how law and process is a gun in the hands of those who get to shape the public policy that promulgates the rule of law that subsidizes their profits. It is these confidence men who should be “restrained” by the courts and the rule of law and not 23 -year -veteran police officers who respect the law and KNOW fraud when they see it.

    At least, after L&W got his $70,000 and then another $11,000.00 when the court granted a restraining order and his “termination” they couldn’t steal his due process rights and silence him. I admire his courage and guts in using his lst Amendment Rights out on the Internet.

    I’m sure that the powers that be are thinking even today about how they can shut down free speech against corporate excesses on the Internet. They own the Press and Media and they will figure out how to own the Internet,

    I hope all of your Australian and Canadian and UK and American readers will Google Up his story on Franchise Pick under Unhappy Franchises, L&W Franchise.


  2. Les, for a better perspective of the modern confidence game read Joseph Weil’s biography, aka the Yellow Kid.

    I have got a few posts over at which you will find interesting.

    Maurer is good, but basically too sympathetic to the romantic version of the con criminal.

    Weil is downright scary.


  3. franchisefool says:

    Thanks, Michael, I have The Yellow Kid and How to be a Professional Con Artist on my reading list. Until then, I’ll just go over and take a look at your work to date!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: