3 ms·
I don't recall any good explanations, maybe you could recount the best ones? It can't be because the rule provides strong protection of non-millionaire savings
by gojomo 13y ago
I don't recall any good explanations, maybe you could recount the best ones?
It can't be because the rule provides strong protection of non-millionaire savings, because there are already endless ways for the gullible to lose all their money. It can't be millionaires are especially immune to common scams, because there's no evidence of that – and in fact quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Why not make these government policies wealth-oblivious, the same way they're race-, gender-, or religion- oblivious?
Why not base any necessary protections on objective tests of knowledge and ability, as with driver or occupational licensing?
- makomk 13y agoThe problem with small-scale investing is that the smaller your investment, the less you can afford to spend doing research and due diligence on what you're giving money to. Also, companies don't generally want to deal with a bunch of tiny investors if they don't have to, so even if it were legal most of the good investment opportunities still wouldn't be available to people who don't have enough money to count as qualified investors. This is apparently especially true of Silicon Valley VC, where everyone wants investors with good contacts. Basically, it'd open up individuals to being scammed a lot more and the non-scams would still not be open to them.
- alandarev 13y agoIf it was legal, there would be a kickstarter-like middle-man who would deal with this hassle, leaving everyone happy.