[tathougies]

They may be lucrative but since the same people were denied access to the more lucrative investments it should come as no surprise that the growth of their capital is less than the growth of capital of the rich.

This is not rocket science. Piketty says that when r > g, that is, when return on investment is greater than rate of economic growth, the rich get richer. It is not much of an extrapolation to conclude that if R > r, that is, when the rate of growth of capital of the rich people investments is greater than the rate of growth of capital of regular joe investments, that the rich also get richer

I am well aware of the reason the rules are in place. But in the same way the government cannot ban poor people from starting their own businesses, neither do they have the right to restrict investment by rhe poor. The governmebt simply has to put up with the lawsuits or declare by statute that certain behaviors cannot make someone civilly liable.

Im sure youve done well in stocks. I have too. However, given my time working in management consulting, i can assure you that you could be doing a lot better if you were allowed to invest like the rich do.

[skookumchuck]

> They may be lucrative but since the same people were denied access to the more lucrative investments

Do you realize how much MSFT and AMZN went up since their IPO?

> neither do they have the right to restrict investment by rhe poor.

We can agree on that point, at least. Ironically, the government encourages the poor to invest in lottery tickets, which are not even investments, but straight up gambling.

[tathougies]

> Do you realize how much MSFT and AMZN went up since their IPO?

Yes. But this is irrelevant! The point is that there were other, better-performing investments that the poor could have chosen. That doesn't even address the ethical question of whether it's right to restrict the already disadvantaged from the very mechanisms of wealth creation open to the rich.