I'm OK with these sorts of "in defense of us all" regulation, but I think the wealth test in particular is a bit perverse. I think this "anti-classism" critique is better than the libertarian critique.
We didn't have rules, then something extremely bad happened to make people say, "that should be illegal." So it's made illegal. A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10.
Investments that require you to be accredited are often pretty bad ones. All the great opportunities get cherry-picked by those with the right networks. What most people will be investing in are the scraps that all the smart investors passed on. That's how accredited investors get burned and go back to boring old index funds.
If you open these markets up to average Joes, it's going to be a bloodbath. Fox News will switch from running ads to invest in gold to ones for scam companies with fraudulent books. Elderly women will get hounded by phone salesman. We'll go back to the way it was in the 80s.
The problem with caveat emptor is society as a whole gets screwed as well. We all get to live with the economic collapse brought on by the situation.
> A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10.
See the concept of "Chesterton's fence":
> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
First determine and be able to explain why something was put in place. If you cannot explain why, you have no right to tear it down. If you can explain the original reason, you may then be able to explain why it may no longer be needed.
My preferred solution is UBI + no gambling with the UBI rule. Similar effect in this area (ignoring all the other wonderful benefits a UBI has) but without the nastiness of a net worth rule.
Yeah it's all gambling. I'm doing a 180 and saying net worth floor bad, can't spend UBI on it good. The "it" in both cases is supposed to be held constant.
