|
|
|
|
|
|
by Veelox
2951 days ago
|
|
|
I think you are being uncharitable to the point they made. Since there are accredited investors, if a bad guy tries to talk an un-accredited investor into buying into a dressed up Ponzi scheme it is a federal crime and thus can be investigated and treated as such. The goal of this is to keep main street investors safe. Yes, it does put some limits on individual freedom but I think this is one area where the trade-offs has been chosen decently well. |
|
|
>>Yes, it does put some limits on individual freedom but I think this is one area where the trade-offs has been chosen decently well.
This is Big Brother ideology. No one in a free society should have their freedom restricted.
The practical results of this paternalism have been disastrous too, so it can't be justified on consequentialist grounds. Practically all small businesses are denied direct access to public capital markets atm.
That's probably trillions in lost economic gains and potentially a massive contributor to income inequality.
When you create gatekeepers, and prohibit anyone from transacting without their intermediation, you create a concentrated power structure that inhibits economic development and exacerbates income inequality.
The new crowdfunding rules are a tiny step in reversing this dire situation, but the real solution is to stop treating the adult population like children that need to be protected from their own bad judgment.