4 ms·
Most of these ICOs are utter garbage and the only reason people "invest" in a garbage coin is because they think there is some greater fool that will buy it off
by verroq 9y ago
Most of these ICOs are utter garbage and the only reason people "invest" in a garbage coin is because they think there is some greater fool that will buy it off them.
To give them credit people have made many times their money buying and reselling but it would be idiotic to let this madness continue.
- ryanlol 9y ago>it would be idiotic to let this madness continue. Why? Inevitably the fools will just run out of money. This "problem" seems to take care of itself.
- verroq 9y agoBecause these "fools" once they run out of money will be out on streets taking social security. Then it becomes our problem again.
- Zarath 9y agoIsn't moral hazard awesome?
- Nursie 9y agoYup, it is. Without something akin to moral hazard, we'd have a much more risk averse society, much slower economy etc. We'd also have hoards of people starving in the street, as humans are not good at long term planning, or risk assessment. So yeah, I'm all for "moral hazard".
- CryptoPunk 9y agoThen force them to save a certain amount per month. What they do with their disposable income should be left to their discretion.
- Nursie 9y agoSo now you are going to decide what consenting adults can do with their money, by deciding they can't invest in ICOs and other scam^H^H^H^H unregulated schemes until they have put enough away to satisfy you. I'm not sure this is qualitatively different to a ban, really.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoBetter to force them to save a minority of their income than start micromanaging their entire spending with laws banning this or that spending.
- Nursie 9y agoI'm really not sure I see a difference, if you're going to start from the absolutist position that the state needs to butt out. Either way, bans or forcing provision for retirement etc, you're taking the position that someone else does know best, and that they need protecting from their own spending behaviour. After that it's just a matter of degree.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoMy position is that there should be no social safety net provided at the taxpayer's expense. If one is going to argue that we ought to provide a safety net, and ought to limit people's right to decide how to live their own life to prevent this safety net from being unduly burdened, then I would respond that even if one were to accept that assumption, a less disruptive way of meeting this goal would be with a forced saving mandate, rather than trying to prevent them from bankrupting themselves in a roundabout way, through laws that prevent spending on allegedly frivolous/addictive ends. But of course I don't accept their underlying argument at all. Just making the point that even if one did, their solution is not optimal.
- Nursie 9y agoPersonally I don't want to live in a society without a safety net, or the other niceties of a modern civil society. I also don't really consider it a trade-off - regardless of a social safety net, we ought to be restricting borderline scams. A lot of people aren't very smart, or are only smart in very specific directions. And they don't know they're not that smart. They can be taken in, scammed and fleeced, and this creates a problem not just for them but for lots of others too. This is why we restrict things like pyramid schemes.