5 ms·

Same with hedge funds. Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds (and get richer). I love how the g

by lend000 10y ago

Same with hedge funds. Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds (and get richer). I love how the government asserts that it knows what's best for me and protects me from myself. Such a free nation we live in.

8ytecoder 10y ago
What bothers me more is the restriction on investing in IPOs.
- vostok 10y ago
  Isn't the restriction on investing in IPOs imposed by banks and not the government? You're just not going to get an allocation if you're not a "good customer".
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    Yeah, that is 100% the result of the private financial system (investment banks). Remember when Google did the open dutch auction format and what a big deal that was for cutting them out?
bsder 10y ago
> Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds Having dealt with this situation recently, I'm a little more sympathetic to the government's position. Most investors are dumb. Really dumb. No, dumber than that. It's really easy for a con man to set up shop. It takes forever to get him shut down, and the scammed will fight you. Scammed investors will defend the scammer even when you present them with incontrovertible proof. You can stand in court and have a judge hand down rulings of the level of "worst case I have seen" and they will STILL defend him. Preventing these kinds of "investors" from even getting into the game is really the only way to keep it under control. Trump being elected was hardly a surprise to me given my recent experiences with dumb investors.
- daodedickinson 10y ago
  Imagine if we were forced to live in a system where we had to choose between two people like that!
- lend000 10y ago
  Sounds like a problem with a different part of the system (too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.). In general, I've never heard a compelling argument that the government should pass laws that limit people's freedoms, solely for the purpose of potentially defending people from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves.
  - JabavuAdams 10y ago
    > from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.
    - lend000 10y ago
      > Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it. > but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim.
      - sanderjd 10y ago
        > So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. That really isn't what they said...
      - JabavuAdams 10y ago

by lend000 10y ago

8ytecoder 10y ago

What bothers me more is the restriction on investing in IPOs.

vostok 10y ago
Isn't the restriction on investing in IPOs imposed by banks and not the government? You're just not going to get an allocation if you're not a "good customer".
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Yeah, that is 100% the result of the private financial system (investment banks). Remember when Google did the open dutch auction format and what a big deal that was for cutting them out?

bsder 10y ago

> Government 'protects' the average investor by only letting qualified rich people invest in hedge funds Having dealt with this situation recently, I'm a little more sympathetic to the government's position. Most investors are dumb. Really dumb. No, dumber than that. It's really easy for a con man to set up shop. It takes forever to get him shut down, and the scammed will fight you. Scammed investors will defend the scammer even when you present them with incontrovertible proof. You can stand in court and have a judge hand down rulings of the level of "worst case I have seen" and they will STILL defend him. Preventing these kinds of "investors" from even getting into the game is really the only way to keep it under control. Trump being elected was hardly a surprise to me given my recent experiences with dumb investors.

daodedickinson 10y ago
Imagine if we were forced to live in a system where we had to choose between two people like that!
lend000 10y ago
Sounds like a problem with a different part of the system (too many legal protections to effectively shut down ponzi schemes/cons/etc.). In general, I've never heard a compelling argument that the government should pass laws that limit people's freedoms, solely for the purpose of potentially defending people from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves.
- JabavuAdams 10y ago
  > from their own willful decisions that affect only themselves Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. No one person wants to be constrained, but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society. Especially when they are well-known cognitive exploits that work on people despite their own stated preferences.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > Handing your savings to a con man affects more than just yourself. It destroys your family, which increases crime, etc. So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. Let's punish victims. Seems pretty backwards to me, even though your goal is to be proactive. Might as well outlaw suicide while we're at it. > but en masse these kinds of things can destroy a society An example might be good here to back up a pretty questionable claim.
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      > So by your logic, it should be illegal to get conned. That really isn't what they said...
    - JabavuAdams 10y ago