Steven,
Good for you. If only I could.
The point was not intended as a personal one rather as an example of a greater underlying malaise, specifically the systemic indoctrinated blurring of the consequential differences between want and need.
Consider “Judge Judy” and et al ‘Reality’ (sic) shows. I find that it is incomprehensible that any thinking person would willingly appear on TV to air their incompetences in such a manner. I therefore doubt that these people would be affected by public disgracing except to become further embittered.

After years in crisis management in both the personal and business sense I've learnt to accept that people are incredibly variable in what you or I would call “common sense” and focus on other solutions. (You can't make a silk purse from a sow’s ear)

stevenlmeyer: "I believe passionately that the best defence against [fraud] ... is an educated public."

Steven, the people conned in the Madoff fraud were almost certainly among the best educated in the land. Madoff conn'ed in excess of $1 billion off the 3rd largest bank on the planet for pete's sake.

A well executed con by-passes education. It tricks our "trust evaluation systems", for want of a better word. This is more of a left brain function:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200811/how-run-a-con

rstuart,

I am well aware that Madoff ripped off some of the brightest and best. Some of the allegedly brightest people on the planet believed he could deliver super returns year after year.

One of the victims is Steven Spielberg's charitable foundation.

Now imagine the following scenario. Spielberg is made to be a laughing stock. Comedians crack jokes about him on national TV. Among the TV audience enjoying the fun is Bernard Madoff, now living in comfortable retirement in Florida.

I'll wager that the next wannabe Madoff is not going to find the next celebrity charitable foundation such an easy target. Do you think (say) Bill Gates would look kindly at the prospect of being made the butt of jokes?

stevenlmeyer: "Do you think (say) Bill Gates would look kindly at the prospect of being made the butt of jokes?"

No I don't. But then neither would the Santander bank, which is the one Madoff ripped off to the tune of $1 billion. It will hurt them far more than a little ridicule. Still it happened. And they have far more "education" in the matter than our government will ever be able to impart to its citizens. In fact I'd say the very news headline that gave rise to this topic imparts a better education than anything suggested here.

It would appear that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a tip off about Madoff's Ponzi scheme back in 1999. The SEC inspected Madoff in 2005 and 2007 and apparently uncovered no fraud.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121502971.html?hpid=topnews

This raises an interesting question. Was the SEC merely incompetent or was it corrupt? With that much money in play Madoff could have bought off a few SEC inspectors as easily as narcotics dealers buy off police forces.

Could investors sue the SEC?

Stevenlmeyer “The SEC inspected Madoff in 2005 and 2007 and apparently uncovered no fraud . . .

This raises an interesting question. Was the SEC merely incompetent or was it corrupt? With that much money in play Madoff could have bought off a few SEC inspectors as easily as narcotics dealers buy off police forces.”

One also asks the question what sort of alternative regulation would have helped, particularly if the view is the regulators were corrupt?

Imho, in that instance, the best option for investors, be they big, small, commercial or private is to save the money expensed on government or industry-funded regulators and replace a false sense of wellbeing with a real sense of skepticism.

Skepticism, it is cheaper and improves with use,

rather than becoming jaded and cynical like many over-opinionated and over-powered regulators.