4 ms·
I would imagine most of the laws and regulations are anti-fraud in nature. Outside of that, limiting the risk exposure of banks that carry FDIC insurance, or s
by pyoung 12y ago
I would imagine most of the laws and regulations are anti-fraud in nature. Outside of that, limiting the risk exposure of banks that carry FDIC insurance, or some other government backing, is in the interest in of all taxpayers. From my laymen's understanding, if you want to start a hedge fund, take some rich people's money, and gamble it all away, nothing is really stopping you. In fact people do it all the time.
- eric_bullington 12y ago>take some rich people's money And there lies the rub. So the wealthy man can take advantage of start-up investing, but the government in its infinite wisdom, forbids the middle-class man from doing the same under penalty of imprisonment for the person offering the security.
- smacktoward 12y agoYes, it is truly a moral imperative that we allow people who can't afford to be ripped off access to the same "investment opportunities" as people who can. Freeeeeeeedom!
- wyager 12y agoYou know how people always complain about the rich getting richer? That frequently happens because they're given exclusive access to those "rip-offs" you're claiming average people should be excluded from.
- wlphoenix 12y agoI'd argue that those sort of investments would be better gated by knowledge than available finances. There's no reason a early employ that made <$1m in a buyout shouldn't be allowed to invest 10k in another startup. He absolutely knows what he's investing in, and it's his choice if he's willing to take that risk.
- seanflyon 12y agoWe let them get payday loans and credit card debt, but when it comes to something that is generally in their best interest, we must step in and save them from themselves?