5 ms·

If I went for this positive spin, I'd talk about democratising investing, not democratising trading. Democratising trading is not inherently good, similar to d

by yreg 5y ago

If I went for this positive spin, I'd talk about democratising investing, not democratising trading. Democratising trading is not inherently good, similar to democratising gambling.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
If people want to gamble (or do drugs), why should we be nannies and stop them? I get the desire to stop commercial banks from gambling YOUR savings. But why shouldn't you be able to gamble your own savings if you want to?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Huge societal costs that we all bear?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    A few randos going bankrupt is a minor societal cost at worst. The big societal costs are when the big boys get bailed out, usually by deflating all of our currency.
- mym1990 5y ago
  It depends on how much you care for the person doing the gambling or drugs and at which stage its at. Being a nanny to everyone doing something 'bad' would be a 24/7 affair. On a large scale, eventually lots of people will be hurt. Everyone thought they were having lots of fun in 2007, and then people started jumping out of buildings. Those people had family and friends. Many of the young people in the market right now have never seen or gone through that, and if they keep preaching 'stocks only go up' while trading on 40x margin, they will eventually find out that stonks sometimes go down.
- yreg 5y ago
  I'm not saying we should be stopping them. But I also don't consider democratising and enabling gambling or taking drugs heroic. Similarly, I'm all for drinking alcohol yet wouldn't cheer for an innovation that would make people drink more. ---- That being said, I think that RH (and many other platforms) do in fact democratise investing (and that's great).
  - wanderingmind 5y ago
    Do you consider legalising drugs as good for the society? Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised. This is the price to live in a free society. You allow people to make their mistakes and live by its consequences.
    - tonfa 5y ago
      > Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised Many countries ban advertizing for cigarettes. So while it's not banned the cost on society and public health is large enough that it's worth restricting advertizing. I realize that likely seems totally weird for US folks, but that's really not weird at all in Europe. Same as regulating advertizing targeting kids, etc.
      - valleyer 5y ago
        The US has banned tobacco ads on TV and radio for over half a century. It does not seem "totally weird" to us.
        tonfa 5y ago
        Then I understand parents comment even less :)
    - yreg 5y ago
      I don't get how that's relevant? I can consider legalising X good and also consider it bad when more people in the society become addicted to X. That's not an inconsistent view.
      - wanderingmind 5y ago
        Yes ofcourse the view is not inconsistent. The trouble is most people immediately want the government to get involved to regulate it all the activities that they do not like or do not approve of.
- NegativeLatency 5y ago
  There’s a difference between stopping them and stopping exploitative companies who want to profit off of them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by yreg 5y ago

If I went for this positive spin, I'd talk about democratising investing, not democratising trading. Democratising trading is not inherently good, similar to democratising gambling.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

If people want to gamble (or do drugs), why should we be nannies and stop them? I get the desire to stop commercial banks from gambling YOUR savings. But why shouldn't you be able to gamble your own savings if you want to?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Huge societal costs that we all bear?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  A few randos going bankrupt is a minor societal cost at worst. The big societal costs are when the big boys get bailed out, usually by deflating all of our currency.
mym1990 5y ago
It depends on how much you care for the person doing the gambling or drugs and at which stage its at. Being a nanny to everyone doing something 'bad' would be a 24/7 affair. On a large scale, eventually lots of people will be hurt. Everyone thought they were having lots of fun in 2007, and then people started jumping out of buildings. Those people had family and friends. Many of the young people in the market right now have never seen or gone through that, and if they keep preaching 'stocks only go up' while trading on 40x margin, they will eventually find out that stonks sometimes go down.
yreg 5y ago
I'm not saying we should be stopping them. But I also don't consider democratising and enabling gambling or taking drugs heroic. Similarly, I'm all for drinking alcohol yet wouldn't cheer for an innovation that would make people drink more. ---- That being said, I think that RH (and many other platforms) do in fact democratise investing (and that's great).
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  Do you consider legalising drugs as good for the society? Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised. This is the price to live in a free society. You allow people to make their mistakes and live by its consequences.
  - tonfa 5y ago
    > Do you think drugs won't be advertised like how cigarettes and alcohol is being advertised Many countries ban advertizing for cigarettes. So while it's not banned the cost on society and public health is large enough that it's worth restricting advertizing. I realize that likely seems totally weird for US folks, but that's really not weird at all in Europe. Same as regulating advertizing targeting kids, etc.
    - valleyer 5y ago
      The US has banned tobacco ads on TV and radio for over half a century. It does not seem "totally weird" to us.
      - tonfa 5y ago
        Then I understand parents comment even less :)
  - yreg 5y ago
    I don't get how that's relevant? I can consider legalising X good and also consider it bad when more people in the society become addicted to X. That's not an inconsistent view.
    - wanderingmind 5y ago
      Yes ofcourse the view is not inconsistent. The trouble is most people immediately want the government to get involved to regulate it all the activities that they do not like or do not approve of.
NegativeLatency 5y ago
There’s a difference between stopping them and stopping exploitative companies who want to profit off of them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]