4 ms·

> So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that

by ardy42 6y ago

> So I ask again: why prohibit everyone from taking reasonable risks when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)? 1. These risks aren't reasonable. 2. It's practically simpler to ban this kind of weird and sketchy offering entirely than to implement some kind of control to limit the impact of what people can lose on a particular investment.

throwaway894345 6y ago
1. There's nothing unreasonable about someone investing their own money on whatever odds they want, provided the upside is proportional to the risk and if the investment goes badly it's not financially ruinous (where "financially ruinous" means "the person becomes a burden on welfare system" or similar). 2. It's marginally simpler but enormously restrictive. If I want to invest $100 for a potential thousand-fold payout, why can't I? I can legally spend more for worse odds (and a worse payout) on any number of institutions (casinos, lottery, etc). When you say "sketchy and weird" you just mean "a different risk profile".
- ardy42 6y ago
  > There's nothing unreasonable about someone investing their own money on whatever odds they want, provided the upside is proportional to the risk and if the investment goes badly it's not financially ruinous Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk? >> when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)? > It's marginally simpler but enormously restrictive. All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk? To be clear, you think Ponzi schemes are illegal because they are too risky? > All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision. I don’t understand the snark. That’s less involved than getting a permit to remodel your kitchen and the government already has information about your wealth anyway. Anyway, I don’t understand your argument: “it’s too easy to make risky investments and if you make it harder it would be too hard so we should prohibit it altogether”

by ardy42 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

1. There's nothing unreasonable about someone investing their own money on whatever odds they want, provided the upside is proportional to the risk and if the investment goes badly it's not financially ruinous (where "financially ruinous" means "the person becomes a burden on welfare system" or similar). 2. It's marginally simpler but enormously restrictive. If I want to invest $100 for a potential thousand-fold payout, why can't I? I can legally spend more for worse odds (and a worse payout) on any number of institutions (casinos, lottery, etc). When you say "sketchy and weird" you just mean "a different risk profile".

ardy42 6y ago
> There's nothing unreasonable about someone investing their own money on whatever odds they want, provided the upside is proportional to the risk and if the investment goes badly it's not financially ruinous Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk? >> when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)? > It's marginally simpler but enormously restrictive. All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk? To be clear, you think Ponzi schemes are illegal because they are too risky? > All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision. I don’t understand the snark. That’s less involved than getting a permit to remodel your kitchen and the government already has information about your wealth anyway. Anyway, I don’t understand your argument: “it’s too easy to make risky investments and if you make it harder it would be too hard so we should prohibit it altogether”