MNvest legislation provides an opportunity for Minnesota consumers

sourced

Categories

By Chris Hanson, MinnPost

“One of the ongoing debates in our country is what role our government should play in protecting the rights of consumers in the marketplace. The groundswell of people pushing for Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the 2016 presidential race is coming largely from her work on consumer-protection issues.

While I applaud government efforts to protect consumers from fraudulent business practices, I find some efforts to limit or reduce consumer rights in the name of protection to be disingenuous, perhaps fraudulent themselves.”

Read More…

Comments

  • http://tech.mn Jeff Pesek

    Interesting words, Chris, and furthermore that MP published them considering their tacit editorial support for the state apparatus.

    Recognize that on at least two previous occasions, MP provided the MNDoC with a direct media channel to articulate and defend their anti-MNvest propaganda. In which case, guess it’s to be expected that MP attempt the illusion of editorial objectivity at some point in the process, for it was quite blatant.

    Not sure what that all says about MP? But back to your words, if I may:

    “I find some efforts to limit or reduce consumer rights in the name of protection to be disingenuous, perhaps fraudulent themselves.”

    +Do you consider the MNDoC efforts against MNvest to be an example?

    “…to restrict the rights of over 90 percent of consumers in the name of protection is about as Big Brother as you can get…The MNvest legislation would create an investment process that is much more open and transparent than what currently exists.”

    +Well said!

    “I understand that the Commerce Department is concerned; it’s the department’s job to monitor and enforce securities laws and regulations. But why should their concerns trump the rights of consumers? Who are they to say who should and should not have the right to benefit from security investment opportunities? Isn’t it time to break the stranglehold that the 80-year-old Securities Act of 1933 created and let every consumer decide where and how to invest their hard-earned money?”

    +Rhetorical questions can be powerful emotional tools, but examing them closer (understanding why things are the way they are) may prove more useful ultimately:

    “But why should their concerns trump the rights of consumers?”

    +Their (MNDoC, SEC) concerns trump the rights of consumers because the consumers allow them to – as illustrated by forfeiting those rights to these agencies in the first place (willingly or otherwise) and becoming apathetic to regaining them when it matters most, some 80 years later.

    “Who are they to say who should and should not have the right to benefit from security investment opportunities?”

    +They are market regulators and agents of the government-as-an-enterprise. Until the consumers say otherwise, do not expect them to cease writing the rules and enforcing their regulations upon the consumers in the market.

    “Isn’t it time to break the stranglehold that the 80-year-old Securities Act of 1933 created and let every consumer decide where and how to invest their hard-earned money?”

    +Maybe? It will only be time when the consumers decide it’s time, not a moment sooner – which is personally very fascinating to observe.

    • http://tech.mn Jeff Pesek

      For some reason Chris can reply to me via email but he’s hesitant to go on the record in response to the questions posed. That said, Zach Robins confirmed that MNvest is now an official 501c4 non-profit organization consisting of himself, Ryan Schildkraut, Casey Helbling, Chris Hanson and Scott Cole.

Sponsors