I don't know what other financial services the Accredited Investor Rule deprives ordinary consumers of, but to the extent that it deprives them of access to VC investments: it's increasing their wealth. Most VC firms fail. A significant chunk of assets under VC management are there as part of a hedging strategy for a much larger portfolio; it's not parked there with the expectation that any one person's retirement can depend on it.
> I don't know what other financial services the Accredited Investor Rule deprives ordinary consumers of, but to the extent that it deprives them of access to VC investments: it's increasing their wealth.
By that same logic, we should deprive engineers of the ability to start companies, and push them instead towards AmaGooBookSoft. We would undoubtedly be increasing their wealth.
I just wanted to note something about this that is part of a broader pattern of something I notice about HN posters. They will generally argue in favour of personal liberties, and even go so far to do it based on principle, but only when it comes to a case where liberties they personally care about are taken away. There is a contrast between this argument for liberty based on principle--which is by definition libertarian ideology (but note: not necessarily US Libertarian Party followers)--and the pattern of anti-libertarian rhetoric seen around here sometimes in threads where it comes up.
It seems perhaps there is a disconnect: people appear to generally care a lot about their liberties when suddenly it comes the ones they care about being taken away, and they will be argued for them based on principle. However When others generally want liberties they care about, then, that's apparently a different story.
Sometimes it is different person being attracted to different topic. E.g. libertarians like to argue when it is easy for them to defend their opinions and are silent when it is harder.
Moreover, most people opinions are not systematically based on ideology - they are based on their own observations about what worked well in their opinion.
I think you've confused positive with normative arguments: you're rebutting a normative argument I did not make. I'm simply describing a fact: the Accredited Investor Rule is not excluding average people from processes that, like the rich, would make them richer.
