What exactly is the upside of the scenario you're envisioning? Right now it just sounds like you wish the accredited investor rule didn't exist because it makes it harder to scam poor people.
I would use "scam" in the sense of offering unregistered securities. Not in the sense of willful fraud. In that sense yes I think the poors should have as much right to buy into a scam as the accredited investor.
Again, what’s the upside here? The end result of that scenario is that money gets redistributed from poor people to people offering unregistered securities. Why is society better off if we allow this to happen?
Why is society better off when I'm allowed to drop bands on the truck stop stripper instead of buying toys for my kid?
The individual should not be forced at all steps to selflessly act in the benefit of society. There are a non-zero number of scenarios where unregistered securities have paid off to investors. Individuals should not be forced at every step to prove their acts benefit collectively society.
Because society has a demonstrated track record of "actively letting people get scammed en masse" resulting in widespread misery and an enormously disproportionate number of resources needing to be committed to enforcement, and the current status quo—while inarguably suboptimal—is clearly an improvement?
The libertarian ideal is akin to assuming that people are frictionless spheres operating in a vacuum instead of recognizing that a significant amount of laws and regulation are written in metaphorical blood, and simply striking them from the books just invites a return to the conditions that necessitated them in the first place.
> Because society has a demonstrated track record of "actively letting people get scammed en masse" resulting in widespread misery and an enormously disproportionate number of resources needing to be committed to enforcement
Hell, people getting scammed en masse caused a civil war in Albania in 1997. Not even 30 years ago!
What are the conditions that "necessitated" that someone with a $1B value mansion as their primary residence and $999,000 in the bank isn't qualified to invest in these securities while someone with $1,000,001 in the bank is?
Picking nits like this not only fails to advance the discussion, but in my opinion makes it worse.
You can do the same thing with literally any rule. Why does one have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, an addictive product that will kill you if you use it long enough? Does something magically happen at age 17.9999 plus epsilon? Of course not.
Regulations often draw arbitrary lines because that's a relatively easy way to improve a situation without getting bogged down in some sort of much more complicated test. E.g., we could mandate each person who wanted to buy cigarettes undergo a deep psychological evaluation looking at their personal history and testing their ability to make truly adult decisions. But that would immediately be seen as unduly burdensome (and nitpicked exactly as you're doing now).
And in any case, you have missed or are ignoring that one can now pass a test to become an accredited investor, no capital requirements at all. So in addition to being tiresome, your point is also out of date.
Presuming drawing arbitrary lines must improve a situation is probably the worst argument I've heard on HN and that's saying something. Also astonishing to call the difference between ~$1B in total wealth and ~$1M in wealth a "nit." I went out of my way to make sure the difference was far from a nit to show the absurdity so hey instead somebody just lied to make it sound practically the same, I love it.
>You can do the same thing with literally any...
I could marry any unwed woman or man who agrees, I could take any job who would have me. I could walk to any forest. I could.... Yes the fact that I could do it with any does not mean I shouldn't question the one I'm examining.
> you have missed or are ignoring that one can now pass a test to become an accredited investor, no capital requirements at all
If I want to be as cheeky as you I could characterize the cost of the licensure and/or exam as a capital requirement. Of course the $150 or whatever for the test, well in your mind the difference between ~$1B and ~$1M of wealth is jus a nit so hey they difference between $150 and $1M is just a nit and practically the same. I really dislike this kind of logic but hey it's the one you're playing so fair is fair.
>your point is also out of date.
.... we were talking about the accredited investors who were originally created in the Securities Act of you guessed it: 1933. Pardon me for doing exactly what they asked and looking at the "metaphorical blood" they insisted regulations were written in, you know the whole reason why "necessitated" was in the past tense because we were looking at history. You know this and this is a simple low effort tiresome deflection.
>can now pass a test
As an aside, not too keen in living in a society where if you have X amount of wealth defined in some way that you get to bypass following the law the same way as the poors who instead take a test to make sure they're worthy.
>"Regulations often draw arbitrary lines because that's a relatively easy way to improve a situation..."
--wpietri
I gotta frame that on my office, it's so bad. I would tap out too to save face after that one. And I absolutely fucking love the example was the literal think of the children meme. Have a good day and thanks for the great laughs.
If you are that determined to misunderstand the point, I am happy to leave you to it. Godspeed, tendentious month-old account. Maybe I'll catch you on your next go-around.
