U.S. Politics

Page 799 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
VeloCity said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
"Something that might interest you, Alpe"

Not only him I guess.

I thought nothing can shock me anymore about the "land of the free". But it still can... And what does MSM & politicans do? Fighting about meanings of flags. Another shadow war to hide from real issues.
Alpe posted something similar about the concentration of political power a while back.

There has never been a "free market" in the US.
But I guess it was never as bad as it is now. And the rich (going-hand-in-hand with govt > confer to Naomi Klein) cement their power more and more in each and every aspect of life (that includes the law with what I wanted to say with my now infamous "FEMA-EOs-posts"). Their greed knows no borders. And there is no way out of it to change to a better. The Gini coefficient is higher In the USA than for example in Russia :eek: Who would have thought?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/us-is-now-the-most-unequa_b_4408647.html
Well almost, but Russia is still ahead by a nose at the last time check. :rolleyes:
The broadest mathematical measure of wealth-inequality is called "Gini," and the higher it is, the more extreme the nation's wealth-inequality is. The Gini for the U.S. is 85.1. Other extremely unequal countries are (pages 98-101 of this report) Chile 81.4, India 81.3, Indonesia 82.8, and South Africa 83.6. However, some nations are even more-extreme than the U.S.: Kazakhstan 86.7, Russia 93.1, and Ukraine 90.0. But Honduras and Guatemala are such rabid kleptocracies that their governments don't even provide sufficiently reliable data for an estimate to be able to be made; and, so, some countries might be even higher than nations like Russia.
Geez. Again I was going with the "wrong" link. Have my numbers from german wiki.

Income distripution Gini coefficient:
Russia; 41
USA; 46.6
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_L%C3%A4nder_nach_Einkommensverteilung

Distribution of wealth Gini coefficient:
Russia; 69.9
USA; 80.1 - 84
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_L%C3%A4nder_nach_Verm%C3%B6gensverteilung
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Hugh Januss said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
VeloCity said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
"Something that might interest you, Alpe"

Not only him I guess.

I thought nothing can shock me anymore about the "land of the free". But it still can... And what does MSM & politicans do? Fighting about meanings of flags. Another shadow war to hide from real issues.
Alpe posted something similar about the concentration of political power a while back.

There has never been a "free market" in the US.
But I guess it was never as bad as it is now. And the rich (going-hand-in-hand with govt > confer to Naomi Klein) cement their power more and more in each and every aspect of life (that includes the law with what I wanted to say with my now infamous "FEMA-EOs-posts"). Their greed knows no borders. And there is no way out of it to change to a better. The Gini coefficient is higher In the USA than for example in Russia :eek: Who would have thought?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/us-is-now-the-most-unequa_b_4408647.html
Well almost, but Russia is still ahead by a nose at the last time check. :rolleyes:
The broadest mathematical measure of wealth-inequality is called "Gini," and the higher it is, the more extreme the nation's wealth-inequality is. The Gini for the U.S. is 85.1. Other extremely unequal countries are (pages 98-101 of this report) Chile 81.4, India 81.3, Indonesia 82.8, and South Africa 83.6. However, some nations are even more-extreme than the U.S.: Kazakhstan 86.7, Russia 93.1, and Ukraine 90.0. But Honduras and Guatemala are such rabid kleptocracies that their governments don't even provide sufficiently reliable data for an estimate to be able to be made; and, so, some countries might be even higher than nations like Russia.
Geez. Again I was going with the "wrong" link. Have my numbers from german wiki.

Income distripution Gini coefficient:
Russia; 41
USA; 46.6
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_L%C3%A4nder_nach_Einkommensverteilung

Distribution of wealth Gini coefficient:
Russia; 69.9
USA; 80.1 - 84
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_L%C3%A4nder_nach_Verm%C3%B6gensverteilung
My German is not good, but I think yours is from 2011 and mine from 2013. Either way the great American middle class is ***.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
"My German is not good, but I think yours is from 2011 and mine from 2013. Either way the great American middle class is ****."

Fully agree. Imagine... And Germany always follows 10-15 years later... Truly sad.
 
VeloCity said:
This does not surprise me in the slightest, though I was unaware of the law until now.

As to when the US was "worse", that's hard to say. I would have to say during the Great Depression, things were worse for the majority of people, and not just the working poor. Though times were not good politically. Warren Harding was a crook before the Depression, but he'd be a patsy today. Even Hoover who who was too insular in his decisions (sound familiar?), also made attempts to compromise and build consensus for the good of the country, though many of his decisions were poor in retrospect, he wasn't as corrupted as today's lot, no.

Even if you go back to reconstruction, when a flood of incompetent or corrupted politicians were in power, there was still growth and opportunity for many, and the system wasn't as completely rigged against upward mobility and opportunity. In a true sense, anti-capitalism. There were open markets, and opportunities, mostly in the growing West, during the obvious tough times.

Even the gilded age, when bribery was virtually legal, and many robber barons held staunch monopolies and abused many workers, especially immigrants, things were not as pervasive as now I think. Even then, some workers, specifically skilled workers, again in the growing west, and industrial north, did make good money. This was also a time of growing unions, and even growing philanthropy from some of the same wealthy elite robber barons. Also, there was still not the revolving door in politics then that there is now, where special interest groups, lobbying firms, and politicians all move through a insulated zone paid for by an extremely thin elite group of plutocrats. In fact, I'd have to say if that's a key, I can't think of another time worse than today in this regard.

So I'd need to really think about it, but I can't imagine a time when the political system was more polluted as it is today.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Edit: this article from those who wet their pants at the idea of partially privatizing Social Security... you know, possibly losing money on Wall St. I can only hear and see the howls and crocodile tears if your uncle Benny lost his life savings on some IPO gone south (not to mention the lawsuits). You guys really are a terribly conflicted bunch.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Certainly good points, but keep also in mind the bolded...

"The reason the US Securities and Exchange Commission originally implemented such restrictive investor rules is because they feared the majority of the population would be unsophisticated in their investments, sinking their savings into untested companies and losing money. (The SEC does not restrict investment in publicly-traded companies.)

But this justification does not hold up when you realize that even certified public accountants, people with very high levels of proven competence and training, could not qualify today as an accredited investor without satisfying the minimum net worth requirement."
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Certainly good points, but keep also in mind the bolded...

"The reason the US Securities and Exchange Commission originally implemented such restrictive investor rules is because they feared the majority of the population would be unsophisticated in their investments, sinking their savings into untested companies and losing money. (The SEC does not restrict investment in publicly-traded companies.)

But this justification does not hold up when you realize that even certified public accountants, people with very high levels of proven competence and training, could not qualify today as an accredited investor without satisfying the minimum net worth requirement."
Foxy, this article is propaganda. CPAs as well as Medical Doctors are commonly known as some of the dumbest investors going. Investing is a very inexact science and you'd be floored at the ding-dongs that defy all advice and buy high then sell low.... It's almost always those with money and no expertise in the investment world but lots of education elsewhere. A trained CPA is just that... a CPA.

Again, this is nothing but more bashing of the .01%ers.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Certainly good points, but keep also in mind the bolded...

"The reason the US Securities and Exchange Commission originally implemented such restrictive investor rules is because they feared the majority of the population would be unsophisticated in their investments, sinking their savings into untested companies and losing money. (The SEC does not restrict investment in publicly-traded companies.)

But this justification does not hold up when you realize that even certified public accountants, people with very high levels of proven competence and training, could not qualify today as an accredited investor without satisfying the minimum net worth requirement."
Foxy, this article is propaganda. CPAs as well as Medical Doctors are commonly known as some of the dumbest investors going. Investing is a very inexact science and you'd be floored at the ding-dongs that defy all advice and buy high then sell low.... It's almost always those with money and no expertise in the investment world but lots of education elsewhere. A trained CPA is just that... a CPA.

Again, this is nothing but more bashing of the .01%ers.
OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Certainly good points, but keep also in mind the bolded...

"The reason the US Securities and Exchange Commission originally implemented such restrictive investor rules is because they feared the majority of the population would be unsophisticated in their investments, sinking their savings into untested companies and losing money. (The SEC does not restrict investment in publicly-traded companies.)

But this justification does not hold up when you realize that even certified public accountants, people with very high levels of proven competence and training, could not qualify today as an accredited investor without satisfying the minimum net worth requirement."
Foxy, this article is propaganda. CPAs as well as Medical Doctors are commonly known as some of the dumbest investors going. Investing is a very inexact science and you'd be floored at the ding-dongs that defy all advice and buy high then sell low.... It's almost always those with money and no expertise in the investment world but lots of education elsewhere. A trained CPA is just that... a CPA.

Again, this is nothing but more bashing of the .01%ers.
OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
I think much of the regulatory environment could and should be structured to allow equal access to market instruments. Right now, it's not.

There are plenty of firms that cater to the average Joe with zero sales charges. But average Joe can't buy an IPO because regulators won't allow it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Oh no, poor 1%ers why is everybody always picking on them. :(
Do a re-read. The wealthy are killing it because you guys have set it up that way. In trying to protect the average Joe you have created that which Velo is whining about.

The next obvious step for the Progressives is to outlaw IPO's. It's just not fair.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re: Re:

OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
"I think much of the regulatory environment could and should be structured to allow equal access to market instruments. Right now, it's not.

There are plenty of firms that cater to the average Joe with zero sales charges. But average Joe can't buy an IPO because regulators won't allow it."


So that means 97% of people are not given the chance to get mega rich in case hitting the right (start-up) "jackpot". While those who are already mega rich have every chance to get more. Am I missing something?

What is a IPO?
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,169
0
0
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
"I think much of the regulatory environment could and should be structured to allow equal access to market instruments. Right now, it's not.

There are plenty of firms that cater to the average Joe with zero sales charges. But average Joe can't buy an IPO because regulators won't allow it."


So that means 97% of people are not given the chance to get mega rich in case hitting the right (start-up) "jackpot". While those who are already mega rich have every chance to get more. Am I missing something?

What is a IPO?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering

Initial Public Offering.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Sciocco said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
"I think much of the regulatory environment could and should be structured to allow equal access to market instruments. Right now, it's not.

There are plenty of firms that cater to the average Joe with zero sales charges. But average Joe can't buy an IPO because regulators won't allow it."


So that means 97% of people are not given the chance to get mega rich in case hitting the right (start-up) "jackpot". While those who are already mega rich have every chance to get more. Am I missing something?

What is a IPO?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering

Initial Public Offering.
Wow. More shocked. In Germany we (still) can. So for the future I fear the worst for our country. Remember everything, the good and bad, comes over here 10-15 years later.
Had the biggest profits with the launch of Telekom, some .com companies, and Argentina "junk bonds". It was real easy money. Sign up (30 mins max in the bank office), wait for the launch, make a bank call on the day of the launch selling the papers/stocks > min 20% profit literally "out of fresh air"...
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
OK, but then at least people with less money shall be allowed to invest in start-ups thru transparent Investment-Fonds (without being stolen the usual 5% comission). Are such fonds existing for the "Average-Joe", 5%-comission-or-not?
"I think much of the regulatory environment could and should be structured to allow equal access to market instruments. Right now, it's not.

There are plenty of firms that cater to the average Joe with zero sales charges. But average Joe can't buy an IPO because regulators won't allow it."


So that means 97% of people are not given the chance to get mega rich in case hitting the right (start-up) "jackpot". While those who are already mega rich have every chance to get more. Am I missing something?

What is a IPO?
It's not quite that simple. For every rock-star IPO there are a hundred that disappoint. It's not as if those who have access to the IPO market have the golden egg laying goose. Those guys lose money on investments too. I think it was Facebook that rocked the first few weeks the stock was traded then tanked for a long time putting the hurt on people to the point where lawsuits were being threatened to the stock's underwriters. Alledged shenanigans or some such nonsense.

At any rate, those (political party) complaining about average Joes lack of access are the ones that prevent average Joes access.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Well, the "secret" is being fast. Hyped companies that are "over-subscribed" are a money-printing guarantee. Once you get your small share, the "money falls from the sky" if you sell fast (best on the day the IPO papers/stocks are going on the market), before the public reacts.
At least that way it worked for me.
 
The latest poll of the Republican Presidental candidates has Trump surging to second place behind Jeb Bush. There is so many candidates and no one taking control of the race so it does only take 11% to get to second.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile, Bobby Jindal has jumped into the race on the already very crowded GOP side. He has no chance.
Poor old Bobby can't even get a news cycle bump from his announcement. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is preaching to overflow crowds of 5,000 in Colorado on only one day's notice. I still say Hillary is getting primaried again.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Edit: this article from those who wet their pants at the idea of partially privatizing Social Security... you know, possibly losing money on Wall St. I can only hear and see the howls and crocodile tears if your uncle Benny lost his life savings on some IPO gone south (not to mention the lawsuits). You guys really are a terribly conflicted bunch.
Part of the Securities Act...of 1933, dude. When the economic elite was composed entirely of...rich white guys.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0


The Repubs have outgrown their clown car. Time for a clown bus update. The short bus had to be extended to hold the Donald's ego. Official count now at 13 - they can start their own coven!

Definites -
Cruz
Paul
Rubio
Carson
Fiorina
Huckabee
Santorum
Pataki
Graham
Perry
Bush
The Donald!
Jindal

Probables -
Kasich

Maybes -
Christie
Walker
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
VeloCity said:
Something that might interest you, Alpe:

http://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans-are-legally-allowed-to-invest-in-start-ups/

More than 97% of Americans cannot invest in the latest startups, nor profit from their meteoric rises...Under US law, only “accredited investors” are legally allowed to invest and own a stake in a start-up.

So who are accredited investors?

An investor is accredited if he or she has a net worth of at least $1 million. That doesn’t count the value of their primary residence. Another way to become accredited is to have income of at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 together with a spouse) and expect to make the same amount in the current year.

So few Americans can meet these two ways of being accredited that, both legally and literally, any US crowdfunding investor must be part of an elite 3% of the population. And of that small group, only 300,000 individuals and 500 firms actually invest.These select few determine what is new and innovative, and thus what the remaining 97 percent want, need and will use. With such an elitist system, it goes without saying that Americans are missing out on the discovery and implementation of thousands of effective solutions.
Lmao.

Uh, there's a regulatory element to this and you should know it as its your tribes genius that brought it about. You see, suitability.... The investment must be "suitable" to protect the "average" investor from all those predatory securities sales scum. Startups represent THE HIGHEST RISK of any security sold over an exchange. Sooooo, to protect you from yourself you guys thought, because everybody involved is so out to get the know-nothing investor, it would be best to let those who can withstand losses take them. As it turns out, with high risk comes high reward. It's certainly not the case of old rich white guys shutting out everyone else. It's the do gooder government awash with unintended consequences. Again.

Edit: this article from those who wet their pants at the idea of partially privatizing Social Security... you know, possibly losing money on Wall St. I can only hear and see the howls and crocodile tears if your uncle Benny lost his life savings on some IPO gone south (not to mention the lawsuits). You guys really are a terribly conflicted bunch.
Part of the Securities Act...of 1933, dude. When the economic elite was composed entirely of...rich white guys.
Uh, these rules are massaged regularly. Once again, this is propaganda. Your side sets up the rules then vilifies what your rules produce.

Tell me, are you finally in favor of allowing future Social Security beneficiaries to invest a portion of their SS contribution in securities products?

I can only imagine the stories of the average Joes losing their ass with regularity in a super risky investment environment and what the lefts response would be. At least attempt to be consistent and argue for the ban of IPOs. That's how you fix this "problem" you guys created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS