3 ms·
If you read the articles, last month he was arguing that RH should be better regulated if not banned because it's exploiting poor unknowing victims who don't un
by Clewza313 6y ago
If you read the articles, last month he was arguing that RH should be better regulated if not banned because it's exploiting poor unknowing victims who don't understand what they're getting into, and now he's arguing that it's just "ordinary people acting — out of self-interest, but also out of sheer enthusiasm for one of the best reasons to do just about anything, because you can". Which one is it?
- 317070 6y agoIt looks like he changed his mind. I don't know the guy, but I like him even better for it.
- hef19898 6y agoIt can be both. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And if you still do, and someone enables you, well you can again be a "a poor unknowing victim". RH's business model of "selling" clueless retail investors to the big funds worked. Untill there were to many of those retail investors and RH risked running out of cash.
- Ygg2 6y agoThat's a false dichotomy. Some of the people might want greater regulation, some might want less regulation. RH is still very weird thing and it being able to basically hold your stocks hostage and sell them on their own terms, should be regulated. Imagine if you bank basically freezes your assets and sells them off, without your input. You'd want your bank regulated, no?