5 ms·

I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Adults should be able to make their own decisions

exogen 9y ago
Predatory companies love people like you. Now people have lost their homes and grandparents are being swindled out of their retirements – good thing the government allowed companies to do whatever they want! Corporations are awesome! It was pretty cool when the banks told people they were qualified for loans, knowing they shouldn't be, then used that to their advantage to steal those people's houses. Fuck the government, am I right???
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Predatory investors love people like you. They get higher returns and much better negotiation power because some people advocate to take down their competition!
  - exogen 9y ago
    Who's losing their life savings or ending up in financial ruin in this scenario? Also I've never even heard of a "predatory investor", I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Even founders cant invest in their own bethren! Think about that. YC startup founders could get together, talk to each other, and NOT be able to invest in each other. Neither could employees that have access to internal financials. You could believe your company is doing great, but you cannot invest. You dont have the chance to compete for the resource with the investors that can. This also means less money goes into investment. Result: - Qualified investors get higher returns - Employees get lower wages because there is less capital invested - Founders get less money - Fewer startups are created In the name of protecting compulsive gamblers?
      - exogen 9y ago
        Yes, that all sounds fine. Protect average people, not startups trying to get rich. Yes. Yes. Yes. Life does not revolve around startups. Yes. Also, the people applying for home loans weren't compulsive gamblers. The banks literally told them they were qualified.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        You are protecting investors from competition. Harming startups, harming founders, employees and consumers.
        exogen 9y ago
        That doesn't sound like a very big deal. Average people are suffering actual material harm at the hands of predatory companies and you're worried about startup founders?! "The poor startup founders, they have slightly less of a chance to make even more money!!!" – said no one, ever. This is the saddest argument for removing financial protections I've ever heard. Again, life does not revolve around startups.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        You have more sympathy for investors than founders and employees? Put it up to a vote and the vast majority will do away with these restrictions. The people don't want it. Some people want it, and some people benefit from it. As its usual in economics, those groups are not the same. "Financial protections" => the government collects a tax to impose a restriction on you, to benefit the richest class.
      - gamblor956 9y ago
        If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Actually, for non-startups (i.e., 99% of new businesses), loans from banks, family, and friends, are the primary form of investment. This method of investing does not require the investor to be accredited. Neither could employees that have access to internal financials. Investors are also not entitled to internal financials. They might have a right to financial statement, but those are very different things. Employees get lower wages because there is less capital invested If the increased capital is coming from employees, then this is just a circular transaction: the money goes from the employee, to the company, back to the employee again = no net financial difference. Founders get less money In the real world, founders borrow money, which forces them to be calculating and spendthrift with their cash. Fewer startups are created Oh no! Juicero would never have existed!...Wait, that's a good thing, and the very existence of Juicero and other wasteful startups suggests that the problem is too much capital, not too little.
banderman 9y ago
The track record of humanity's decision making indicates that your statement is not accurate for a significant portion of the population.
- eternalban 9y ago
  Curious: Does that also apply to "democratic" processes? Should only "accredited citizens" have the right to vote?
  - fooker 9y ago
    Is that truly a bad idea? Having to pass a test to demonstrate you understand the policy choices and how they affect you could be a good idea if done impartially.
    - eternalban 9y ago
      Well, yes, it does have some merit but "done impartially" is the hair in the ointment, isn't it. But to the point, categorical denial of access to a participatory space -- here based on your bank balance -- is akin to denying voting rights based on gender or color.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Where do we draw the limit at limiting adults for their own good?
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    Initiation of force or fraud.
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      How does the above scenario of limiting who can invest fall under these?

Predatory companies love people like you. Now people have lost their homes and grandparents are being swindled out of their retirements – good thing the government allowed companies to do whatever they want! Corporations are awesome! It was pretty cool when the banks told people they were qualified for loans, knowing they shouldn't be, then used that to their advantage to steal those people's houses. Fuck the government, am I right???

conanbatt 9y ago
Predatory investors love people like you. They get higher returns and much better negotiation power because some people advocate to take down their competition!
- exogen 9y ago
  Who's losing their life savings or ending up in financial ruin in this scenario? Also I've never even heard of a "predatory investor", I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Even founders cant invest in their own bethren! Think about that. YC startup founders could get together, talk to each other, and NOT be able to invest in each other. Neither could employees that have access to internal financials. You could believe your company is doing great, but you cannot invest. You dont have the chance to compete for the resource with the investors that can. This also means less money goes into investment. Result: - Qualified investors get higher returns - Employees get lower wages because there is less capital invested - Founders get less money - Fewer startups are created In the name of protecting compulsive gamblers?
    - exogen 9y ago
      Yes, that all sounds fine. Protect average people, not startups trying to get rich. Yes. Yes. Yes. Life does not revolve around startups. Yes. Also, the people applying for home loans weren't compulsive gamblers. The banks literally told them they were qualified.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        You are protecting investors from competition. Harming startups, harming founders, employees and consumers.
        exogen 9y ago
        That doesn't sound like a very big deal. Average people are suffering actual material harm at the hands of predatory companies and you're worried about startup founders?! "The poor startup founders, they have slightly less of a chance to make even more money!!!" – said no one, ever. This is the saddest argument for removing financial protections I've ever heard. Again, life does not revolve around startups.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        You have more sympathy for investors than founders and employees? Put it up to a vote and the vast majority will do away with these restrictions. The people don't want it. Some people want it, and some people benefit from it. As its usual in economics, those groups are not the same. "Financial protections" => the government collects a tax to impose a restriction on you, to benefit the richest class.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      If you are an investor, accreditation rules eliminate 95+% of the population as competition for your investment. That means you will get higher returns and better negotiation terms. Actually, for non-startups (i.e., 99% of new businesses), loans from banks, family, and friends, are the primary form of investment. This method of investing does not require the investor to be accredited. Neither could employees that have access to internal financials. Investors are also not entitled to internal financials. They might have a right to financial statement, but those are very different things. Employees get lower wages because there is less capital invested If the increased capital is coming from employees, then this is just a circular transaction: the money goes from the employee, to the company, back to the employee again = no net financial difference. Founders get less money In the real world, founders borrow money, which forces them to be calculating and spendthrift with their cash. Fewer startups are created Oh no! Juicero would never have existed!...Wait, that's a good thing, and the very existence of Juicero and other wasteful startups suggests that the problem is too much capital, not too little.

banderman 9y ago

The track record of humanity's decision making indicates that your statement is not accurate for a significant portion of the population.

eternalban 9y ago
Curious: Does that also apply to "democratic" processes? Should only "accredited citizens" have the right to vote?
- fooker 9y ago
  Is that truly a bad idea? Having to pass a test to demonstrate you understand the policy choices and how they affect you could be a good idea if done impartially.
  - eternalban 9y ago
    Well, yes, it does have some merit but "done impartially" is the hair in the ointment, isn't it. But to the point, categorical denial of access to a participatory space -- here based on your bank balance -- is akin to denying voting rights based on gender or color.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Where do we draw the limit at limiting adults for their own good?
- mindcrime 9y ago
  Initiation of force or fraud.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    How does the above scenario of limiting who can invest fall under these?