5 ms·

I disagree. For me, being barred by the government from making an investment is a bug, not a feature. Although it isn't obvious, I would hold that this is true

by javert 7y ago

I disagree. For me, being barred by the government from making an investment is a bug, not a feature. Although it isn't obvious, I would hold that this is true for any rational investor. In reality, these sorts of regulations only exist to keep reckless people from losing money that they already treat as disposable. That is not a valid reason to block the freedom of genuine investors.

arcticbull 7y ago
> This is true for any rational investor. > These sorts of regulations only exist to keep reckless people from losing money. No. It's not. You're barred from investing in fly-by-night scams unless you have more than enough money to do so comfortably. If a poor person, who is naturally desperate to make money, is conned by a snake oil salesman, you know who pays? Literally everyone. They end up on the social safety net collecting on our taxes. As such the public has an interest in making sure, to a reasonable extent, that only those capable of taking huge financial risks do so. Now if your company is established enough to provide the required quarterly disclosures by SEC regulations, sweet. Anyone can invest their last penny. Seems like a fair place to draw the line. > That is not a valid reason to block the freedom of genuine investors. I agree, if you mean a "genuine investor" has over $1M in assets excluding their primary residence or a previous years income in excess of $200K and an expectation they will have the same in the coming year. Accredited investor rules weren't brought in because too many poors were hitting it big and all those new yachts were clogging up Boston Harbor. Literally because not having them caused the great depression. And they didn't call it that because it was just a pretty good depression, ya know.
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  The cryptocurrency boom has been people painfully re-learning why we have these regulations in the first place.
  - mmilgauss 7y ago
    >"We don't need no government regulators!" Gets frauded >"Where were theeeyyyy to save us?!"
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Literally though. > Regulations are bad! gets defrauded > HELP POLICE! SEC! FTC! DOJ! How was this permitted in the first place?! Where was the government when we needed them! Privatized gains, socialized losses.
      - mmilgauss 7y ago
        Turns out the government does actually protect people in first-world countries in ways we simply take for granted... Huh who woulda thought!
      - javert 7y ago
        You can make this joke, and there are hypocrites of this particular type, but that isn't actually an argument for more regulation.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Indeed, speedrunning the history of finance from prehistoric times to present.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  FYI: The house has unanimously passed a bill to update the definition of accredited investor to include professionals in the given industry. For whatever reason, the Senate didn't take any action. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1585 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1585
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Sounds pretty rational to me.
- javert 7y ago
  I don't think providing welfare should outweigh a citizen's freedom to exercise his or her own judgement. If it's between those two, don't give welfare. You may disagree, but this is a valid point of view. > you know who pays? Literally everyone. They end up on the social safety net collecting on our taxes. That is an imaginary scenario, not a real societal problem. I don't know of anyone collecting welfare because they lost their money in a crypto scheme, or a ponzi scheme, or bad investments. But I know of lots of people on welfare for other reasons. > Seems like a fair place to draw the line. This kind of language is just fluff to make your argument seem more appealing. I don't think it's a fair place to draw the line. > Now if your company is established enough to provide the required quarterly disclosures by SEC regulations, sweet. Anyone can invest their last penny. That is not accurate, the SEC blocks tons of legitimate stuff even from accredited investors, such as bitcoin ETFs. > Literally because not having them caused the great depression. As far as I am aware, this claim is 100% unsubstantiated. There are some good and bad theories about the great depression, but this isn't one I've heard before.
cortesoft 7y ago
Wait, so the government shouldn't shut down fraudulent investment schemes because it is your right to invest in scams?
- javert 7y ago
  The government doesn't know what is and isn't a fraudulent investment scheme. Sometimes they err in either direction: claiming something is fraud when it isn't, or claiming it isn't fraud when it is.

by javert 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

> This is true for any rational investor. > These sorts of regulations only exist to keep reckless people from losing money. No. It's not. You're barred from investing in fly-by-night scams unless you have more than enough money to do so comfortably. If a poor person, who is naturally desperate to make money, is conned by a snake oil salesman, you know who pays? Literally everyone. They end up on the social safety net collecting on our taxes. As such the public has an interest in making sure, to a reasonable extent, that only those capable of taking huge financial risks do so. Now if your company is established enough to provide the required quarterly disclosures by SEC regulations, sweet. Anyone can invest their last penny. Seems like a fair place to draw the line. > That is not a valid reason to block the freedom of genuine investors. I agree, if you mean a "genuine investor" has over $1M in assets excluding their primary residence or a previous years income in excess of $200K and an expectation they will have the same in the coming year. Accredited investor rules weren't brought in because too many poors were hitting it big and all those new yachts were clogging up Boston Harbor. Literally because not having them caused the great depression. And they didn't call it that because it was just a pretty good depression, ya know.

LiquidSky 7y ago
The cryptocurrency boom has been people painfully re-learning why we have these regulations in the first place.
- mmilgauss 7y ago
  >"We don't need no government regulators!" Gets frauded >"Where were theeeyyyy to save us?!"
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Literally though. > Regulations are bad! gets defrauded > HELP POLICE! SEC! FTC! DOJ! How was this permitted in the first place?! Where was the government when we needed them! Privatized gains, socialized losses.
    - mmilgauss 7y ago
      Turns out the government does actually protect people in first-world countries in ways we simply take for granted... Huh who woulda thought!
    - javert 7y ago
      You can make this joke, and there are hypocrites of this particular type, but that isn't actually an argument for more regulation.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Indeed, speedrunning the history of finance from prehistoric times to present.
Nuzzerino 7y ago
FYI: The house has unanimously passed a bill to update the definition of accredited investor to include professionals in the given industry. For whatever reason, the Senate didn't take any action. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1585 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1585
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Sounds pretty rational to me.
javert 7y ago
I don't think providing welfare should outweigh a citizen's freedom to exercise his or her own judgement. If it's between those two, don't give welfare. You may disagree, but this is a valid point of view. > you know who pays? Literally everyone. They end up on the social safety net collecting on our taxes. That is an imaginary scenario, not a real societal problem. I don't know of anyone collecting welfare because they lost their money in a crypto scheme, or a ponzi scheme, or bad investments. But I know of lots of people on welfare for other reasons. > Seems like a fair place to draw the line. This kind of language is just fluff to make your argument seem more appealing. I don't think it's a fair place to draw the line. > Now if your company is established enough to provide the required quarterly disclosures by SEC regulations, sweet. Anyone can invest their last penny. That is not accurate, the SEC blocks tons of legitimate stuff even from accredited investors, such as bitcoin ETFs. > Literally because not having them caused the great depression. As far as I am aware, this claim is 100% unsubstantiated. There are some good and bad theories about the great depression, but this isn't one I've heard before.

cortesoft 7y ago

Wait, so the government shouldn't shut down fraudulent investment schemes because it is your right to invest in scams?

javert 7y ago
The government doesn't know what is and isn't a fraudulent investment scheme. Sometimes they err in either direction: claiming something is fraud when it isn't, or claiming it isn't fraud when it is.