Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further elaborate - a young student putting in $1000 in facebook seed round would now be a millionaire. Not unthinkable for someone like a young Warren Buffet. The government has successfully regulated the future to the top 1%, while claiming it's for the public good.
OK sure, but it assumes that young student would be able to discriminate a money-making investment from a money-losing one-- something the best VC's in the business, who vet tech deals all day every day, struggle to do. Imagine you repeal all accredited investment regs overnight. Which of these seems likely: - everyone in america invests $1000 in a future facebook, ten years later we're a nation of millionaires. - 10…
You just answered the rebuttal, which is supported by data. VCs don't outperform the S&P 500. Trying to support that everyone outside a specific industry is too dumb to be able to be risk-on just ignores too much.
I think this argument and rebuttals are red herrings. The SEC tried non-net-worth tests, before settling on the net-worth tests, they were intelligence (financial literacy) tests which were also a nightmare for the entire industry and perpetuated rampant discrimination across socioeconomic and racial lines.
Still, this current outcome should not be seen as the end all be all, and it merely hasn't been challenged adequately because the people rich enough to challenge it aren't affected by it, and the poorer classes barely know they are being so blatantly discriminated against because the private investments were prohibited from advertising to them at all!