4 ms·
Very paternalistic to assume that people are gambling away their grocery money and should be stopped now that the short squeeze has become much, much more likel
by llampx 6y ago
Very paternalistic to assume that people are gambling away their grocery money and should be stopped now that the short squeeze has become much, much more likely. Meanwhile ANY other security also has the chance to go to 0, but RH doesn't stop you from buying.
- duxup 6y agoI don't think he's arguing FOR stopping the trades. I think he's worried about the folks participating financial well being. We worry about that (people's retirement savings and so on) anytime we see market corrections, a given company go under, and etc... it's not an unusual concern.
- llampx 6y agoIt seems like concern trolling tbh.
- duxup 6y agoI'm not entirely sure what you mean but I guess that would men that regulations are 'concern trolling'? When I see 'concern trolling' I usually think of it as just a term slapped on something to hand wave and ignore it.
- mancerayder 6y agoThat's elitism. Which is fine, it's a legitimate position, to believe that you have knowledge that others don't, and others should be protected from themselves. And the Law can step in to enforce this protection. You can apply that to stocks, "gambling", drugs, sex, porn, hate speech, misinformation, and everything else. And there are a number of countries that have that philosophy in legal form. I'm glad to have a choice NOT to live in those countries and I suspect most on HN are similar.
- duxup 6y agoWe have laws about scams and etc, is that elitism, or just that the population doesn't want scams?
- ghaff 6y agoI don't care if Robinhood bans trading or not. Don't have an account with them and likely never will. Aside from some fairly obvious things (states generally shouldn't advertise their lotteries for example), people should be able to do whatever they want with their money. And it's probably pretty fruitless to try to stop them from doing so in general.