4 ms·
> If somebody genuinely to risk their money as an investor, it's not in their self-interest for us to forbid them to do so. That is what they want to do. And it
by drone 13y ago
> If somebody genuinely to risk their money as an investor, it's not in their self-interest for us to forbid them to do so. That is what they want to do. And it's also not in anyone else's self-interest to forbid them from doing it. Investment and entrepreneurship is what drives the economy.
So, you're saying Ponzi schemes should be legal?
- gojomo 13y agoIf schemes don't lie about what they are, aren't they similar in their payouts - some win, some lose - to legally-sanctioned (and in some case, state-run) gambling? The potential crime would be fraud - pretending a ponzi is a non-ponzi. With accurate disclosure, it's just an odd form of gambling where some late-entrants are still paying in, when there's no more chance to win.
- drone 13y agoFraud assumes false disclosure, accurate disclosure assumes complete disclosure, but neither cover intentional omission.
- javert 13y agoLike the other guy said, I am against fraud. If there is no fraud (intentional deception), a Ponzi scheme should be legal, but 99.9% of times, a Ponzi scheme involves fraud. When you engage in trade with someone, you are implicitly or explicitly authorizing them to come after you with the force of the law if you have intentionally deceived them. Note that the government isn't, anyway, necessarily capable of policing Ponzi schemes, because it's not omniscient. Madoff was regulated by the SEC, which gave some of his investors false confidence.