They do seem to open up a much more complex calculus in the tax system. I think you can make an argument that these deals can improve efficient allocation of c

They do seem to open up a much more complex calculus in the tax system. I think you can make an argument that these deals can improve efficient allocation of capital. But like credit default swaps and other complex financial instruments, I think you run into the issue of, is there a level of complexity that's just too much for the rest of the system to be rational around. One of the purposes of tax structures is to allow people to make predictions about what the exact financial consequences of various choices they might make. If you add this kind of one-off negotiation into that, you undermine our collective ability to be rational about our financial choices. However, if you allow this kind of negotiation, and you allow governments to try to compensate organizations for the systemic benefits they bring to an economy, that also has some utility. You can create an incentive to these organizations to create value outside of just their bottom line. And if we allow these kinds of deals, then over time we'll be able to systematize them and then eventually make them broadly available under standard terms. So, I don't know. I'm not sure rushing to an outright ban is the way to go. But I do think there's some merit to the idea that in financial transactions there's a limit to how far the contracts can be recursive. Allowing it to be infinite makes for a chaotic fuzzy edge to the markets.