<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reverse Robin Hood: The $30 Billion Question</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/where_socialism.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/where_socialism.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nate Oman</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/where_socialism.html/comment-page-1#comment-49824</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate Oman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/03/reverse-robin-hood-the-30-billion-question.html#comment-49824</guid>
		<description>Frank: I agree with you that the U.S. government&#039;s willingness to bail out wealthy and sophisticated investors that make bad bets creates big moral hazard problems.  On the other hand, I fail to see how a wholesale government subsidy of bad investments is an example of &quot;market fundamentalism.&quot;  Being pro-market and being &quot;pro-business&quot; is not always that same thing.  I also fail to see why condemning policies that allow investors to avoid the downside of bad risks justifies some sort of disgorgement of profits on the upside.  Market fundamentalism, it would seem to me, would imply that we let investors take risk as they see fit, allow them the benefit of the upside and leave them with the loss on the downside.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frank: I agree with you that the U.S. government&#8217;s willingness to bail out wealthy and sophisticated investors that make bad bets creates big moral hazard problems.  On the other hand, I fail to see how a wholesale government subsidy of bad investments is an example of &#8220;market fundamentalism.&#8221;  Being pro-market and being &#8220;pro-business&#8221; is not always that same thing.  I also fail to see why condemning policies that allow investors to avoid the downside of bad risks justifies some sort of disgorgement of profits on the upside.  Market fundamentalism, it would seem to me, would imply that we let investors take risk as they see fit, allow them the benefit of the upside and leave them with the loss on the downside.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Blow</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/where_socialism.html/comment-page-1#comment-49823</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Blow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/03/reverse-robin-hood-the-30-billion-question.html#comment-49823</guid>
		<description>Yeah, the federal government is really stepping in here and letting these guys off easy. It&#039;s not like all these executives lost a large portion of their wealth when the stock went in the toilet or anything.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the federal government is really stepping in here and letting these guys off easy. It&#8217;s not like all these executives lost a large portion of their wealth when the stock went in the toilet or anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
