Re:Woman earning $750 a week gambles $3.7M
by ryandrake on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @08:36PM
(#26719142)
I’m largely convinced that the accredited investor rules are there to gatekeep the best / most lucrative investments and limit them to the already rich club. No other explanation makes sense when you also consider that casinos exist.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Woman earning $750 a week gambles $3.7M
by tjs8rj on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @02:24AM
(#26721135)
I'd agree with this. Although in the US there was recently added another exemption to become an accredited investor: passing a knowledge test.
What interested me was: republicans are in support of removing accredited investor status making your same argument that it bars the masses from lucrative investments, while democrats fought allowing a test to qualify investors for accredited status, arguing that the masses would expose themselves to too much risk.
Is this a personal liberty vs authoritarian take? Is this a personal liberty vs empathetic (though paternalistic) take? Is this a quiet "let's exploit investors" vs "prevent investor exploitation" take?
For some reason their positions have me stumped.