<?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 for syntech finance blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.syntechfinancial.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.syntechfinancial.com</link>
	<description>all that is new from the finance sector...</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nothing &#34;Ideological&#34; About The Call For World Government by Ahithophel</title>
		<link>http://www.syntechfinancial.com/nothing-ideological-about-the-call-for-world-government/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Ahithophel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.syntechfinancial.com/sf/nothing-ideological-about-the-call-for-world-government/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Exaggerate much?

Peter Wehner posted a portion of a column that speaks of developing minimal and effective regulations within the US, but also having international cooperation for risk protection.  A "global regulatory system" does not imply a "world government" anymore than international agreements on arms control.  The only way I can imagine conflating this with world government is if you took "the government can hire private firms..." to refer to some sort of world government.  I read it as referring to the United States government, or any particular government for that matter.  

Anyway, one post from Peter Wehner quoting someone talking about a "global regulatory system" hardly amounts to "The Bushies and the NeoCons...cheering on a guy who's advocating world government..."

The response you cite from Don Boudreaux really had little to do with the call for a new global financial regulatory regime; it had to do with the trust in government in general.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exaggerate much?</p>
<p>Peter Wehner posted a portion of a column that speaks of developing minimal and effective regulations within the US, but also having international cooperation for risk protection.  A &#8220;global regulatory system&#8221; does not imply a &#8220;world government&#8221; anymore than international agreements on arms control.  The only way I can imagine conflating this with world government is if you took &#8220;the government can hire private firms&#8230;&#8221; to refer to some sort of world government.  I read it as referring to the United States government, or any particular government for that matter.  </p>
<p>Anyway, one post from Peter Wehner quoting someone talking about a &#8220;global regulatory system&#8221; hardly amounts to &#8220;The Bushies and the NeoCons&#8230;cheering on a guy who&#8217;s advocating world government&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>The response you cite from Don Boudreaux really had little to do with the call for a new global financial regulatory regime; it had to do with the trust in government in general.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
