As it happens, feldman’s accidental study provides a window onto a form of cheating that has long stymied academics: white-collar crime. (yes, shorting the bagel man is white-collar crime, writ however small.) it might seem ludicrous to address as large and intractable a problem as white-collar crime through the life of a bagel man. but often a small and simple question can chisel away at the biggest problems. despite all the attention paid to rogue companies like enron, academics know very little about the practicalities of white-collar crime. the reason? there are no good data. a key fact of white-collar crime is that we hear about only the very slim fraction of people who are caught cheating. most embezzlers lead quiet and theoretically happy lives; employees who steal company property are rarely detected. what purpose does the “bagel man” serve in this argument?