5 ms·

How are you supposed to stop being small time if you can't take any amount of risk to get into the big time? Investing isn't "guaranteed free money", it's a cal

How are you supposed to stop being small time if you can't take any amount of risk to get into the big time? Investing isn't "guaranteed free money", it's a calculated risk. Should only the rich be allowed to take risks with their own money?

tryptophan 8y ago
Yes. When the rich fail they probably still have enough to live on. When the poor fail, they go on welfare and require money from others. Either we get rid of welfare, or ban people from partaking in risky investments. Which do you think is better?
- magila 8y ago
  So you think only the rich should be allowed to start their own company too? Quitting a job without having another one lined up is also pretty risky. This argument taken to its logical conclusion leads to serfdom. You might even say it's The Road to Serfdom.
  - tryptophan 8y ago
    Starting a company requires lots of money up-front, which poor people don't have anyways. Investing in a high risk startup could theoretically be done for like $100 to buy .0001% if regulations encouraged this sort of thing. It's the ease of access to things people don't understand and could lose all their money on that these regulations are meant to combat. I feel like your argument is very "assume spherical cow", but I take a more pragmatic "this is what would probably happen 99% of the time" approach to this.
    - magila 8y ago
      Starting a company doesn't necessarily require a large amount of capital. Think self-employed people creating LLCs. Such single member companies are not at all uncommon and, just like with any type of business, most of them fail. So if your argument is that non-rich people should not be allowed to engage in financially risky behavior, surely self-employment is off the table too.
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      > I feel like your argument is very "assume spherical cow" And "either end welfare, or ban risky investments" is a nuanced study of the spectrum?
- PostOnce 8y ago
  Oh, I forgot, if you take $100 from the government for food, you're a no-good leech, but if you take $100,000,000 from the government, you're a job creator and a pillar of the economy. The rich don't get handouts when they fail, they get handouts the entire time they're succeeding. They pay 15% on capital gains while the rest of us pay 30% on income. They'll pass a special tax cut for your one specific company. You can pay your workers the min wage, but not the living wage, and let everyone else (in the form of benefits) pick up the slack. You can even get a handout for promising to create jobs or do stuff, and then never actually do it, or if you do 20% of it, blame the failure to deliver the complete promise on something hand-wavy. But yeah the poor are the problem.
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  Thanks for a great illustration of false dichotomy.
cheriot 8y ago
Our society is so bad at policing white collar crime that there's not a better option available. Unsophisticated "investors" will loose their shirts, their homes, and their retirement.
closeparen 8y ago
You should only be allowed to take huge risks with money you an afford to lose. Yes, absolutely.

tryptophan 8y ago

Yes. When the rich fail they probably still have enough to live on. When the poor fail, they go on welfare and require money from others. Either we get rid of welfare, or ban people from partaking in risky investments. Which do you think is better?

magila 8y ago
So you think only the rich should be allowed to start their own company too? Quitting a job without having another one lined up is also pretty risky. This argument taken to its logical conclusion leads to serfdom. You might even say it's The Road to Serfdom.
- tryptophan 8y ago
  Starting a company requires lots of money up-front, which poor people don't have anyways. Investing in a high risk startup could theoretically be done for like $100 to buy .0001% if regulations encouraged this sort of thing. It's the ease of access to things people don't understand and could lose all their money on that these regulations are meant to combat. I feel like your argument is very "assume spherical cow", but I take a more pragmatic "this is what would probably happen 99% of the time" approach to this.
  - magila 8y ago
    Starting a company doesn't necessarily require a large amount of capital. Think self-employed people creating LLCs. Such single member companies are not at all uncommon and, just like with any type of business, most of them fail. So if your argument is that non-rich people should not be allowed to engage in financially risky behavior, surely self-employment is off the table too.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    > I feel like your argument is very "assume spherical cow" And "either end welfare, or ban risky investments" is a nuanced study of the spectrum?
PostOnce 8y ago
Oh, I forgot, if you take $100 from the government for food, you're a no-good leech, but if you take $100,000,000 from the government, you're a job creator and a pillar of the economy. The rich don't get handouts when they fail, they get handouts the entire time they're succeeding. They pay 15% on capital gains while the rest of us pay 30% on income. They'll pass a special tax cut for your one specific company. You can pay your workers the min wage, but not the living wage, and let everyone else (in the form of benefits) pick up the slack. You can even get a handout for promising to create jobs or do stuff, and then never actually do it, or if you do 20% of it, blame the failure to deliver the complete promise on something hand-wavy. But yeah the poor are the problem.
ridgeguy 8y ago
Thanks for a great illustration of false dichotomy.

cheriot 8y ago

Our society is so bad at policing white collar crime that there's not a better option available. Unsophisticated "investors" will loose their shirts, their homes, and their retirement.

closeparen 8y ago

You should only be allowed to take huge risks with money you an afford to lose. Yes, absolutely.