3 ms·
You could argue the opposite. The accredited investor rule excluded a significant portion of the American population from participating in economic growth over
by texasbigdata 4y ago
You could argue the opposite. The accredited investor rule excluded a significant portion of the American population from participating in economic growth over a 20 year period. They are consenting intelligent adults, why does the government need to police their prowess over what asset classes they can participate in?
Note, I’m not arguing for wild Wild West rules, but it goes both ways.
- philosopher1234 4y agoBecause many people do not have anything that could be described as “prowess” when it comes to money. Is it an a priori fact that the government should help? No. Is it practical? Seems like it.
- texasbigdata 4y agoHow is exclusion helping for a largely non binary but on average positive integer? And it gets even harder to defend if you slice thinner: are penny stocks ok for grandma to own or just individual Fortune 500 stocks? Or no stocks at all just indexes? Etc. Further, surely you wouldn’t argue the same for lottery tickets right? That the consumers can’t understand the math and/or can’t calc the probability ex ante therefore the government should preclude them from participating due to low “prowess” (ignore the positive tax base component). I’d be okay with a “drivers license” type regulation than a minimum net worth threshold regulation which just increases inequality in the long run and creates greater divisions in society. Edit: it’s weird I can work at riskyStartupXYZ as a 22 year old but not easily “bet on it” succeeding, even though the later implies much less risk.