Life vs. Risk

They say life can't be without risk. Naturally this is a normie-ism, not a truism. 

All the good choices in life are risky. That's a fact. However, you can always invest in the "safe" option. The treasury bill option. There's no risk: you are guaranteed a slow death. Instead of a chance of gain, there is a iron promise of loss.

Prudence, ironically, is always risky. 

P.S. The sophism of T-bills: risk can always be made relevant to the risk-aversion reflexes, which distracts the mark from doing the accounting regarding what a T-bill in fact guarantees. 

P.P.S. Aristocrats win because peasants can't safely take risks; [informed consent] is a joke, because they're inherently too ignorant to achieved the state [informed]. Peasants can do what they're told and hope they have a wise teller, or they can do even worse than that. Ref: democracy. 

P.P.P.S. Mutual funds are index funds except some rando is paid enormous amounts of money to get very stressed about the fact it's an index fund. He pretends to work, we pretend to hold him responsible. Lots of struggle sessions. It's not communism because his salary is real; it comes out of your investment. 

Hedge funds are scams, except the part where the investors are the scammers, not the marks. (Usually graft, often insider trading, occasionally other exploitations, rarely de jure legal, always de facto legal.) Which is why de jure peasants aren't allowed to buy into them. A) It would work, can't have that. B) The peasants would then become marks, not the scammer, inverting the hedge fund dynamic and forcing the associated degenerate fops to dream up some other scam.