3 ms·
Because then we are implicitly responsible through social services for the idiots who gamble away their life savings with margin trading as an advanced form of
by novok 6y ago
Because then we are implicitly responsible through social services for the idiots who gamble away their life savings with margin trading as an advanced form of gambling addiction. It's not just 24 yo doing it, it's also 55yo doing it with their life savings. I remember my previous landlord complaining about her ex-husband doing it decades after the fact and it's the reason why they split.
Requiring a pilot license level of education for margin trading & gambling past a certain point (like $1k) is making more and more sense as time goes on.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoA local businessman in our area began day trading and options trading. Soon was fudging the books and lying to corporate about inventory. They soon came and locked up the joint, hauled him to jail and his family had to sell out to make up the losses. They'd owned a huge mansion and estate outside town - now its a development. He was in his 60's, been a rock in the community and nth generation in the family business. I'm not in favor of loosening the rules on who can trade risky investment.
- throwaway894345 6y agoI addressed all of this in my post already. This doesn't support the idea that we should prevent companies from selling stock when they're pursuing bankruptcy. It does support the idea that we should prevent people from taking risks that will likely land them on social support (which does not apply to the 23-year-old scenario above or even the 55-year-old scenario provided the couple had enough in retirement to keep them off of social services). Note also that none of this is incompatible with a licensure program.
- collyw 6y agoIs it any worse than someone that never has the discipline to have any savings at all?