<?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: The real costs and benefits of investment treaties</title> <atom:link href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/16/the-real-costs-and-benefits-of-investment-treaties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/16/the-real-costs-and-benefits-of-investment-treaties/</link> <description>Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Lincoln Fung</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/16/the-real-costs-and-benefits-of-investment-treaties/comment-page-1/#comment-104303</link> <dc:creator>Lincoln Fung</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:41:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10694#comment-104303</guid> <description>I noticed Jonathan Bonnitcha&#039;s main conclusion and some of its implicit implications, although not entirely by any means.
I also noticed the qualifications, or the likes of seems likely or unlikely he used in deriving his conclusion.
Having considered the qualifications and conclusion, I am left very much bewildered to say the least: what can the readers get out of Jonathan Bonnitcha&#039;s article?
More specifically, does his conclusion seem likely, if I can borrow his tactics but not trying to be too slippery myself, to be sufficiently reliable?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed Jonathan Bonnitcha&#8217;s main conclusion and some of its implicit implications, although not entirely by any means.</p><p>I also noticed the qualifications, or the likes of seems likely or unlikely he used in deriving his conclusion.</p><p>Having considered the qualifications and conclusion, I am left very much bewildered to say the least: what can the readers get out of Jonathan Bonnitcha&#8217;s article?</p><p>More specifically, does his conclusion seem likely, if I can borrow his tactics but not trying to be too slippery myself, to be sufficiently reliable?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
