> Because they happen all the time, and the government doesn't go after them - damages are civil not criminal, so the lawyers are the ones getting richer. The

> Because they happen all the time, and the government doesn't go after them - damages are civil not criminal, so the lawyers are the ones getting richer. The crucial point from the original proposal is the following: > If an article ever appears in the Wall Street Journal in which you (or your lawyer) are quoted saying that you were just a simple dentist, didn’t understand what you were buying and were swindled by the seller’s flashy sales pitch, then you go to prison. The implication (the WSJ is just a stand-in) being that if lawyers representing you even talk about this investment, let alone try to bring a court case, you go to jail. No law like this exists at the moment and I'm saying such a law would quickly become toothless because it would be nigh impossible for the government to enforce. > As far as "the big problem", people win the lottery every day. It's still not a sound investment strategy (unless you have some sort of edge). Yes and that's precisely why there's still a lot of people who buy lottery tickets. My point is telling people upfront that something is a losing proposition and then taking away the ability to complain if they do it and lose anyway isn't enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing something if they are convinced that they're the lucky ones or that "this is the real deal," a slap in the face at your local SEO office be damned.