Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There's nothing unreasonable about someone investing their own money on whatever odds they want, provided the upside is proportional to the risk and if the investment goes badly it's not financially ruinous

Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk?

>> when it's perfectly feasible to prohibit only high risk investments (i.e., those risks that would be financially ruinous i.e. put the investor on social support)?

> It's marginally simpler but enormously restrictive.

All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision.



> Why stop there? Why not let Ponzi schemes operate unimpeded? After all, if you pull your money out of the scheme early enough, you could profit handsomely. Why not let people take that risk?

To be clear, you think Ponzi schemes are illegal because they are too risky?

> All right: please submit a notarized accounting of your income and assets, so that the bureaucracy can evaluate it and decide if it's acceptable for you make this investment. We'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the decision.

I don’t understand the snark. That’s less involved than getting a permit to remodel your kitchen and the government already has information about your wealth anyway.

Anyway, I don’t understand your argument: “it’s too easy to make risky investments and if you make it harder it would be too hard so we should prohibit it altogether”




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: