You're saying that the answer to the problem of inherent advantages in the game of wealth creation -- which boils down to existing wealth generating much more much faster than far less wealth -- is to 'join a VC'? It's difficult to tell if you're being moralizing or humorous. The question we're chewing over is, does accreditation requirements help or hurt the ability for individuals to ascend economically. It obviously hurts them and the other side of the coin is that it reduces a wider fallout should things go wrong.

Which part is controversial?

> which boils down to existing wealth generating much more much faster than far less wealth

No, generating wealth from wealth is proportional to your wealth. A middle class persons wealth in the sp 500 generates the same percentage returns as that of a billionaires does.

> join a VC

If you really think you can beat the market, then you should join the VCs and you can make a bunch of money IF YOU ACTUALLY CAN ACTUALLY BEAT THE MARKET. However, I HIGHLY doubt you actually can because most people do not and yet there are tons of people like you that think they can especially the most uneducated which is why they are the most susceptible to scams and why we have laws to try and product them because having an economy based on scams has lots of negative externalities.

> does accreditation requirements help or hurt the ability for individuals to ascend economically. It obviously hurts them

Explain?

I'm ignoring you after the 'people like me' comment as it's irrelevant to the discussion (and also actually false). You also completely ignored the point, but inserted your own arbitrary standard that claims to prove billionaires and average-Joe's create wealth equally, proportionally, because of 'the s&p 500'. That level of depth speaks for itself.