[Lazare]

Your examples seem to support the point you were replying to. Theranos is a perfect example of a scam unravelling because eventually the scammer needs to produce results, and not just self-referential research papers that never quite go anywhere.

[catalogia]

I wonder how many more years it will take for uBeam to give up the ghost. Dave Jones has so thoroughly dismantled that one, it should have been over years ago.

There's a sucker born every minute and a skilled con man can exploit that unfortunate truism to keep a scam for quite a while. Moller's skycar is an example of a flagrant scam that lasted for decades.

[mjfern]

I provided several top of mind examples. It doesn't take long to think of entire industries that are shady, from payday lenders to cigarette companies.

[Lazare]

> In industry you _eventually_ need to show result and earn money

> It doesn't take long to think of entire industries that are shady, from payday lenders

I trust you aren't arguing that payday lenders don't earn money!

There's a huge difference between "I don't like what this industry is doing" and "this industry is fraudulent, can never produce the goods/services claimed, and will never turn a profit for the investors".

[mjfern]

I don't see much of a difference between these companies and the person in the article. Both are taking advantage of a vulnerable population for some personal benefit.

[Aunche]

If you have completely terrible credit and have a minor emergency, a payday loan may be your only option. If you take one, you’re supposed to pay it off with your next paycheck or 2, so the interest isn’t that outrageous. It certainly beats losing your job because you can’t drive to work.

[yipbub]

The original point was that people scamming investors get discovered because the investors are invested enough to follow up on their claims. Less so in academia.

The immorality of Pay Day is very much known, and it is not relevant because Pay Day is scamming their customers, not their investors.

[strken]

Both those examples produce bucketloads of cash for their shareholders. They're not defrauding the people who bankrolled them, they're taking advantage of the vulnerable, which is an entirely different problem.

[kingkawn]

No, both are dependent on cheating people. One cheats people who can fight back, and is thus considered criminal. The other cheats people who cannot fight back, and is profitable.