<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.fastcompany.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/member_recent_content/166556</link>
 <description>Member recent activity block for member profile page</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/ant-1004</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I don&#039;t agree with Wolife with his &quot;Striking a balance&quot;, the reality is that any regulation is obsolete when it&#039;s published, but much like DNA, we never strip these regulations, in fact the right thing to do is to minimize regulations, but maximize penalty for abuse.  Should we let the government regulate to whom to issue credit, and what terms (as Obama is doing now)?, or should we simply enact very stern penalties for abusing lending practices?&lt;br /&gt;
i.e. why provide a loan to people if they have not shown credit worthiness?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/ant-1004&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:42:59 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paul Gagnon</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1288660 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
