From the April 01, 2007 issue of Futures Magazine • Subscribe!

Free markets for free men

Michael Guerra, M.D.

It is paternalistic and immoral for government to prohibit freely entered into transactions. As such I support allowing any American to invest in any fund they choose. Net worth is not a determinant of critical thinking and keen analysis.

Lana C. Sanders

It is totally UN-AMERICAN to decide who has the intelligence to invest in Hedge Funds or anything else. When you have worked and paid taxes, the same as the RICH, then why are we not allowed to invest OUR MONEY anyway we choose.

Nathaniel Kellogg

The role of government is to protect people’s freedom of choice, not to limit it. This rule is biased in so many ways it is difficult to know where to begin. Certainly, limiting one’s choice by race, sex, or religion would be ridiculous; net worth is no better a judge of an individuals investing acumen.

Douglas A. Palmer, PhD

This is an egregious and discriminatory rule that violates equality under the law.

Larry Nelson

Equal access for all. Say “NO” to the 2.5 million requirement!

Kenneth A. Lagana

The previous $1 million threshold affects 8.7% of U.S. households. I don’t believe that those people who have been able to create that wealth over time need or want this extension of BIG BROTHER-BIG GOVERNMENT-SURROGATE PARENT protectionism.

comments powered by Disqus
Check out Futures Magazine - Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome