I recall the first scam I encountered abroad was in Rome when I  visited my friend Sarah who had lived there for several months.. Along our walking tour a man offered her a rose as a gift, she declined rather poignantly and continued to walk on. I inquired shortly after why she turned down such a nice gesture. She replied that if she took the rose I would then be expected to pay for it. An interesting and simple scam that acts upon a female’s desire for something nice and a male’s inherent ego to be the provider and not wishing to disappoint his partner.(Ah conventional gender roles, is there any area of life you don’t penetrate?)

So how do we define a scam or a con? If a con is pulled off well, it may be that the victim wouldn’t even know it was a scam. Sort of like the tree falling in the woods making that inaudible sound (an oxymoron I suspect, however entirely suitable to the analogy), is it a crime if the victim doesn’t feel victimized?

For example: In Beijing I watched an artist chisel a beautiful image of the Great Wall onto a small piece of marble. I asked the price and was given a response which was well below what I would have been willing to pay for such a unique piece of work. I happily paid and continued on my way. What if the price of this was much lower in reality and he had in fact taken me for a rube? If I was willing to pay more, then really in my mind I got a great deal, all this while the artist was potentially laughing all the way to the bank.

So perhaps the definition of a scam is written by the victim and not the perpetrator. An interesting notion in that this fits my previous discussion on living in the reality that we ourselves create. Not everyone experiences the same scam the same way. Some people truly think the queen is one of the other 2 cards in a three card monte game. I pity those poor bastards.

Then enter movies such as the Die Hards, Clooney’s and originally Sinatra’s Ocean’s <insert numbers here> series. Each of these contain elaborate plans with an end goal of financial gain. Maybe the last sentence could be a definition for a con as well. But we never hear about these plots in real life. If someone attempted to pull of a Nakatomi heist or rip off the Bellagio, it would be on Twitter in real time and on CNN before Bruce Willis got in an elevator shaft.

In India the scams were not sophisticated at all. In general they were mainly just lies like: “No No, this is a gift” or “I am an employee here” or “I don’t want money”. And here in my opinion is the problem with cons: Everything could be a con. Charity donations, the moon landing, (dare I say religion?) etc. In India we met an English couple and discussed this very aspect. Because of the fear-mongering instilled in us by Lonely Planet no matter who spoke to you, there was a little voice somewhere in the back left side of the brain saying “How is this guy conning me?”.

If a tourist guide to the US outlined all the possible measures for “protection against terrorism” you’d do exactly what the American media does to their population already: Put them in a constant state of fear. A recent example is the (rather stupid idea of a) photo shoot of Air Force One in New York at low altitudes. Immediately the thoughts of NY’ers turned to 9/11, their “little voice” immediately turned to what they were programmed to turn to, a connection between low flying planes and terrorism, just as ours minds in India turned to the connection of Lonely Planet warnings and people wanting to scam us.

We are constantly scammed. We pay more money for beer in Skydome than in a pub across the road an economic scam that happens in all wakes of our consumerism (explored in The Undercover Economist, an excellent read). People get screwed on Ebay every day by “mildly used” products and P&G owns several brands of toothpaste so they can charge varying prices for each and skim all the demand it can.

Ever wonder why you can send snail mail to your MP or to the Prime Minister without a stamp? Because the government way back when invented mail as a way of communication for itself. It then decided that the public could use the service, but instead of funding it on generic government revenues, they would tax mail users on a per use basis. The fact that you paid the tax was put on your parcel in the form of a “stamp”. Nowadays we pay tax on top of the price of a stamp. We are paying a tax on a tax! Sounds like a scam to me…

They may not be scams in the traditional definition, but then again if, as I stated above, we define our own sense of scams, and if none of the above is considered a scam by you, you’re never scammed! Or, alternatively the collective human population is the most gullible group ever.