4 ms·
The provision seems like common sense. If you are going to have a minimum amount needed to be an "investor", why would that amount not be pegged to inflation (
by bobbyi 17y ago
The provision seems like common sense.
If you are going to have a minimum amount needed to be an "investor", why would that amount not be pegged to inflation (which is what the provision does)? What is the rational argument for having the (real money) amount needed to invest fluctuate based on inflation as it works today?
There may be an argument for removing the minimum or changing the structure, but just having it stay at "one million dollars" for decades seems absurd.
- hga 17y agoNow that's a very good point ... so why aren't they pegging it to inflation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it they're just making a one time upwards adjustment, plus throwing in a 120 day delay and making a strong push to devolve this to the states. When looked at as a package, your point isn't sufficiently explanatory.
- gridspy 17y agoI think that there is a different sort of "inflation" for starting a business. As time goes on technology gets cheaper and more available. Manufacturing becomes more automated, Just in Time stocking reduces capital requirements. Just because 1m buys less food than it did 20 years ago doesn't mean it can't finance a similar sized business. You can do more with less - there is much more leverage available with computers, SaaS, outsourced manufacturing and online sales than was available in the past. I don't see any reason why starting a business won't be even easier in 20 more years.