These are my notes on a line by line bases. In which I will edit, and then add proper citations and backing documents to my critique of the Levy Institutes paper regarding the idea that China is not a cause of the global imbalance. After that I will write a full page article on the ideas in my critique and present backing documentation to blizt the papers vulnerabilities in theories and improper rhetoric direction. This will take me sometime. However, I fill as my theory revolves around China's part in the imbalance as China blamed the whole thing on the US. That the Levy Institute needs a good eyeing. Candles up, books out lets battle.



I will read this paper and go line through. As I have already found logical fallacies in the last paper I read. As their calculations did not properly input cartel activities, political inspirations, economic warfare, military acquisitions, nor State Owned Enterprise activities through the scope of my theory of Blitzkrieg which is the theory that China has a SOE trade surplus stage, then an acquisition stage. In which the last two American Business cycles blatantly show that my theory is proper. This is as easily shown if the Levy Institute would look at the .com service driver of the two times ago business cycles trough and thew now mortgage service industry recession trough. Then apply strategic economic warfare theories to such a test and graph and see that there is no way that you can deny that China is blitzing the free market societies during their troughs, recessions and possible next a depression as the US keeps loosing liquidity at the end of it business cycles were liquidity is needed for the US to inflate its economy, or pay off its accumulated debts, or to be able to properly slow or stop any hard hitting credit crunches, which inherently stop the flow of capital.

As such lets begin the dig (paper that gets my bright eyes, and sword and shield with intent to make sure your statements where fully certified, calculated and properly when you address my country Levy, as China so dearly blamed the whole crash on the US and you seem to back their theory. Fighting words. Lets battle) http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_617.pdf

This statement troubles me as obviously. " We reject the prominence widely attributed to China as a cause of global imbalances and the exclusive focus on the renminbi-dollar exchange rate as misguided."Incorrect.

Just to make sure I am fighting the right folks here lets skip to the conclusion and see "Our analysis denies the paramount role widely attributed to China as a cause of global" Ah ya I think I am right and we are only on page 7 and you are so wrong. As a matter of fact I have turned some many statements against your primary statement and conclusion that this paper can easily be dislodged. Sure body maybe you did not read your paper after you wrote it, or maybe I am so into this topic that it just seems like I am reading the primary statements the wrong way. Or maybe I am. Does that mean that you think that China is not the paramount reason for global imbalances? Cause I am thinking your paper says the opposite thing than your primary statement and conclusion. Wow so confusing. Not confusing yout think that China is here to help, ok I am right to fight you. You getting your but whopmed. Its like I sting like a bee and fly like a butterfly on this topic. Your hurting right now. Dislodged.] of course that is if your primary statment and conclusions is so easily turned and disproved. Houes of Levy can I write for y'all. I mean who makes a primary statement that China is not a cause of the global imlabaces then says things like, they have high FDI, they have high GFDI, they have high development, they have shielded their system, and then shows graphs of exatly were China only allows more imports after they are under the gun from the world going through recessions. Really though, oh my lord I have found what I am good at.
imbalances in the precrisis era

As any good economists knows it takes more than one factor to play into a recession. Along those lines unless the Levy Institute applies proper cartel activities and anti-trust Sherman law applications I will right off the bat dislodge the paper and the applicable statement as irrelevant. As such a strong statement would have to come to grips with China's SOE cartels and their as stated in another paper high subsidizing to create their padded market as even the Levy Institute admits to "In the case of China, this was done by protecting certain capital and technology-industries, giving them monopoly positions and subsidizing them through various price distortions, including suppressed interest rates." pg 29 pdf pg 27 article http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_611.pdf . As such since the Levy institute went to such grave measures as to reject China as a cause of global imbalance. I must say, as a up and coming young economists this paper better do justice to cartel and anti-trust laws and theories of detriment regarding unfair market places. However, I can tell right now by that theory as I am narrowed on the top the Levy Institute has not.
As a matter of fact Levy Institute, I will leave the light on for you after this one.

Along those lines it is also acknowledged that China uses high subsidized industries as per my study on banking loans to SOE's SME's and PCB's when the Levy institute states "The objective of the first type of policies is to resolve economy-wide market failures that affect broad sectors of the economy (e.g., provide subsidies to innovation, relief financial constraints for SMEs)" id cited pg 38 PDF pg 36 document. This is an acknowledgement that China does have restraints on its SME's. However, yet the Levy institute specifically states that that is an area of concern. However, I get the feeling when they made their statement of China being no cause to the global imbalance I am sure before reading this paper they did not calculate their own statements of findings into this paper I am about to read.

After my disclaimer to the statement and pre common knowledge theories of the Mr. I. I shall began. Had to get a beer and my tobacco pipe going battle write got to battle write proper like. wait I have to turn on some music too. Alright we will grove Real Life; Send me an angel for this battle. Bare knuckles no under the belt, first to hit, the ladies will stop us if we get to mad.
And we emphasize that China's response to the global crisis has been exemplary"
China only made any movements to help the world after they were afraid to be placed in the spotlight at the World meeting. Prior to that China and its military we threatening to start economic warfare by selling American debt to cause harm to the US dollar. In which they ended up doing right before they were to purchase a free enterprise steel company with one of their SOE's. Not exemplary.
Exemplarary is fighting words compared to the arrogance that China has shown to international cooperation and the actually threatening to start economic warfare because the US and other asked for it to raise its currency to a normalized production to value level. Their production levels went up why would not their value of their currency. There gold stocks went up along with their foreign currency holdings and foreign debt holdings. Why would not their currency go up pg. 1 statement fails.

"Apart from acting as a growth leader in the global recovery by boosting domestic demand to
offset the slump in exports." This is a strategy to create intra value by creating service sectors. In which again your very id cited paper stated was necessary for economies to create value for themselves.Along those lines it is another form of strategy called acquisition. Were Chinese SOE centralized boards stop worrying about trade surpluses and strategically concentrate more on acquiring economic infrastructures of military and political strategies. pg 1 statement as standing alone fails

"Apart from acting as a growth leader in the global recovery by boosting domestic demand to offset the slump in exports, China has in the process successfully completed the first stage in re balancing its economy, which is in stark contrast to other leading trading nations that have simply resumed previous policy patterns." This is a false statement as the US was the only country that I know that went through major financial trading overhauls thanks to our Chief and Commander with an appearance from nano as depicted in the news media picture after he announced that it went through. Plus the US did this right away and without threatening anyone with economic warfare or trying to say that it was someone Else's fault like China did. Truly it was China that went back to its same policy. After making hallow threats to the US. This again shows that Levy did not properly address China's SOE cartel activities or the idea of what China has been doing during the US and free market troughs and recessions. As if Levy would have seen they would see that the detriment caused by the Chinese switching gears actually creates more of an unfair market place. Because of instead of concentrating on their own economy. They are still concentrating on foreign acquisition. statement fails in part however, is true in part as this domestic import levels going up is part of their strategy. pg. 1

"We argue that this will be best supported by continued reliance on renminbi stability and capital account management, so as to assure that macroeconomic policies can be framed in line with domestic development requirements" True statement. However, China has not properly advanced SME's or PCB's with financial matters, and is concentrating heavily on its SOE strategies in such that it is calling them SOE Champions. This then as stated in your paper would call for a failure as the Levy institute called for China to loosen its financial areas for SME's to help them proper address the balance of wealth in areas of high centralized economies like SOE padding or other dependant companies on SOE's. The stability of the renminbi will also help them keep up on their SOE cartel strategies. As currently with the calculation of such a low increase. It will not affect their countries economy nor the international market place to even out the playing field for underdeveloped countries. As the WTO stated that China can't have the benefit of an underdeveloped country as it is to massive in size. As they have gained such high comparative advantages in strategic industries like manufacturing and high technology along with rare earth materials that China can basically can keep its comparative advantages without allowing others to gain. As legalities of international law state that when a country holds a surplus for such a long time or even holds debts for such a long time they have allow for other countries to balance them out. China has not done this for 30years and currently is not on target to allow this now. pg 1true however, inadequate to level a statement that China did not have cause in the global imbalances. Along those lines, the basic legality of imbalanced trade, and financial matters shows that China is of course worried more about their own intra economy than they are fair international market places.

Introduction page 2

"This paper investigates the idea of China as a paramount cause of global imbalances, a view that is closely related to calls for a massive renminbi revaluation as the chief policy change to forestall their reemergence as the world economy recovers from severe crisis" This statement calls for a false dichotomy in the matter of stick person theory. As the idea that the world calling for China to revalue their currency wishes to cause them to not reemerge as or even stop or slow them. This is a false dichotomy. As the world does not wish to stop them from reemerging. and I am sure that papers like these are what cause the Chinese to threaten the US when it asked. As such this statement is a detriment in itself and is worded horrible. The wish for the currency revaluation was for fair international marketplaces and so that the US could create a balanced GDP equation. Along with the free market practices. Plus in a wider spectrum it was a test of China as a countries maturity. They failed, they threatened war like a teen gangster and then only helped out when they though they were going to be embarrassed at a meeting. This statement is itself is a bad statement and creates a false dichotomy. page 2 fail. Further more as a war economists I find it calculating and inaccurate to think that the US would want any country to not emerge being that we are the country that basically opened up China and helped both China and Russia along the privatized road so that they could gain security and freedom for their people. I am appalled. As a matte of fact if China would have followed a good instruction like we have been giving them for 30years now. We could have allowed other real underdeveloped markets to start to develop so that we all could have more markets to export too. Instead China wishes to keep its advantages for itself and wishes to further its SOE trade surplus and acquisitions strategies. Failed. To be a leader my young grasshopper pitching in for the community is a necessity, especially when all are to blame and everyone has their part.
I am sorry that F word just come natural to someone who can't share blame or be friendly and pitch in without threatening or acting childish.
"China’s response to the global crisis has been exemplary." pg 2
I would like to define exemplary for you: then I am going to critique your statement based on common definition:
"1a: serving as a pattern b: deserving imitation because of excellence 2: serving as a warning: monitory 3: serving as an example, instance or illustration."

Ok so I could create a false dichotomy and run a stick person theory on the idea that you mean exemplary to mean they deserve punishment and or a warning. Much like the Levy institute did regarding the reason why the US and world wanted China to raise its currency value in line with its production, gold holdings, foreign debt holdings and foreign currency holdings. So that as through international legalities the countries being held against could have a fair chance to gain back their holdings. Were again the Levy institute create a false dichotomy of the reason why the US and world wanted China to raise its currency was because for some backwards reason the very country that has been helping them along did not want them to re-emerge.

However, I will not do that. I will take the definition and statement in context with true nature and feel of the paper.

As such exemplary in context of the natural feel for this paper is that China is to be followed and used as an example regarding this economic imbalance. Ok so lets apply that to in a macro version to one single country and then vaguely throughout.

China already heavily subsidized their SOE' markets with unfair loans, and the non enforcement of cartel or anti-trust laws. Along with that China did not want to change their currency and then threatened the major asking party and counseling party on the matter. Along with that China blamed the Us for the worlds crash.

So lets take that exemplary action and apply it in mirror to the US.

If I take your statement without a false dichotomy for face value through a definitional expression. Then the US should heavily subsidize its SOE's, then it should also make it harder for their SME and PCB's to gain financing which is against your very counseling in id cited paper as there are only two on here. Along with that the US should have come right out and acted like China and should have blamed China for the imbalance and did nothing until the US felt they might be pressured at a meeting. Along with that the US should have threatened China with economic warfare, like steel tariffs, rare resource export quotas at a high recession rate of 72% and the US should have used its massive SOE cartels (which we do not have) to economically attack China. Well Levy, that would have caused war. And as big bro does not want to go to war and we are a defensive country. Our chief and commander took a leadership role and immediately made repairs to possible areas of interest, did not threaten China, and did not attack China's economy with bunker busting tariffs, quotas or SOE economic weapons. So as applied you used the wrong word. I would not say that China should have been followed in any circumstance of this economic imbalance which was as much the free markets fault as it was the neo-mercantalists fault. page 2 again this statement fails.

"Apart from acting as a growth leader in the global recovery by boosting domestic demand to offset the slump in exports, China has successfully completed the first stage in rebalanced its economy in the process, contrasting with other leading trading nations that have simply resumed previous policy patterns. The second stage in the rebalanced will consist of further strengthening of private consumption—supported by the continued reliance on renminbi stability and capital account management, so as to assure that macroeconomic policies can be framed in line with domestic development requirements." already failed these statements see pg 1 rhetoric.

By they way again I do not work for the government and I have the freedom to br brass and blatant so I am. Welcome to my stadium which is economic warfare.

"The analysis begins in section 2 with a brief account of China’s economic miracle and chief contributing policies" This statement in itself creates the thought and cloaking of what China did was something we could not fathom or understand. We know what China did. We allowed them when their were underdeveloped and up & coming to use SOE's in the contractual statement that they would start to privatize them. However, China has not they have kept upwards of 40% of their GDP for the SOE's and instead of actually selling off those SOE market shares to SME's or PCB they just conglomerated those market shares under one SOE name in which they wish to create the biggest government subsidized SOE cartels in the world as so Called Champions. China's economy was not a miracle. It was the free markets being nice to China so that they could become stable and secure so that they would not be left in the dark or in an anarchist state. The cloak is not allowed to be in a proper economists paper. Especially when making such a strong statement as China had no cause in the global imbalance. Cloaked removed statement is now proper criticized and can say it fails as China's economy is not a miracle. pg 3 failed

2. CHINA’S ECONOMIC MIRACLE AND ITS FOUNDATION page 3

"Starting from a low level of income and high incidence of poverty in the early 1980s, China’s catching-up process has ensued at a breakneck pace" This statement is true. This is predominately because the US did not want to go the same route that it went with Russia. As the end game of Russia caused to many dad's and moms to be scared that some Red Communist terrorist would get nucs after the Soviet Union collapsed. So this time we tried to do an infiltration by infiltration. Which is a game theory were the US and free markets allow the neo-mercantalists into the free market place in hopes that they will see the benefit of the free markets and wish to obtain such freedoms of economics for their people so that the US and free markets can have someone to trade with. However, though this strategy I believe was better than the Soviet Union strategy. It is now time to shift gears. As the benefits of the trade with China now do not out way the detriments. Such things as loss of high technological trade, loss of resource contracts, becoming a satellite country dependant on China's financial stimulus of debt purchasing are all signs that the US and the free market need to make sure that China is held to their contract of their SOE's being sold to private markets. As of recently the Chinese have seen more benefit in keeping their SOE's strong than in competing in the international market place fairly in regards to anti-trust doctrine and cartel doctrine which is used to control relative comparative advantage once it starts to become a problem in the international market place. Comparative advantage has a red line. Much like the space economic theory. Once certain spaces get filled up and others have nothing then it becomes unfair. As such China's space economic calculation is starting to get filled relatively high compared to other countries that also need to be civilized and secured. However, China wishes to not help out in civilizing other countries via industrial manufacturing as they are just as afraid to let go as the old Capitalist as in Senator Sherman's days. However, the balance must be at high costs be kept. It is imbalanced because of a current over crowing in the international marketplace by one country. This statement is true. As the US and other free market sectors have pushed heavily for China to privatize their markets. However, they have stopped at a very high level. Which as detriments go for cartel and anti-trust doctrines causes huge detriments to the producers and consumers by keeping out competitor producers, and causing consumers to lose jobs through exploited comparative advantage theories in which wish to become relative absolute advantages.

Oh the gleam don't let it burn your eyes ladies and gentiles.

"While the 1980s and early 1990s were somewhat volatile, including a slump (1989–90) and episodes of high inflation (1988–89, 1993– 95), GDP growth was both high and stable from the mid-1990s until the global crisis hit China in 2008 (see figure 1). GDP growth had slowed around the time of the Asian crises in the late 1990s, but picked up speed again in the 2000s, peaking at 13 percent in 2007"

This is a statement of fact and see not how it presumes your primary statement of rejecting that China was a cause in the world economic imbalance. I am sure you will use it to build a statement. Still have not heard any effects on how Chinese unfair markets or centralized strategies affect the international market place.

"Annual growth of the real capital stock has been even higher and exceptionally steady, indicating a focus on capital accumulation in China’s development plans."

This statement along with the understanding that Levy has about China's high subsidized market place and restrictions on SME's or PCB's shows that if China is a capital market. They therefore wish to gain capital. One of the best ways to do that with a country that is bent on not properly privatizing SOE market shares is to use the SOE's to gain the capital through strategic campaigns. As such this high wish for capital can cause economic imbalances. This is because again instead of China thinking about helping other countries develop through trade or industrial revolutions. China is thinking about is own capital wishes and how to sustain a high 10% growth rate. This then shows that there is inherently an imbalance in international economics. As through legalities if China does not allow other countries to compete fairly with them then they are acting in cartel and anti-trust fashion. As a matter of fact China is so into gaining Capital. That it is currently seeking free trade agreements with countries that could not compete with its Massive SOE cartel activities and China knows that. This again will cause a basic imbalance as China uses its padded markets to move into foreign markets and set up government entities much like a military would set up bases. pg 4 with outside sources that point can be used against the primary statement that you do not believe that China was a cause in the economic imbalance.

"Confirming that China’s growth process has been capital rather than labor intensive, annual growth in labor productivity has only been little below GDP growth (on average, about one percentage point since the 1990s)." This Can be explained in a hybrid economic theory. Were the reason why labor is not growing is because China is using comparative advantage to specialize in those trades that it only finds itself needing to keep gaining capital. As such China has found that manufacturing and high technology are two areas that can gain it capital. Therefore, China has not really gained any labor points because it has just moved the labor from one point to another. This is inherently because it is a Communist State were it heavily regulates its industries. As such i would think that the actual labor pool would have started to decline a bit because of privatization. However, because China has such high State Owned Enterprise market share they do not feel the full blow of the economic imbalance. This is due much to a centralized economy. This can be shown by unemployment records. Were China had a low 4% unemployment while the US and other free markets ran and run upwards of 10% unemployment because we do not pad our markets. This again creates an economic imbalance. As because China has such a high protected market place due to SOE' it allows it to artificially procure free market enterprises so that it can push up its capital investments. This then causes the free markets to lose more liquidity in their business cycles. As the US has lost its job sectors primarily due to SOE cartels entering the US without any kind of proper weight on them. This then allows China to keep is economy relatively stable while the US and the free markets have to fluctuate because China will not allow more imports into their country. Will not raise their currency to a proper rate so that other countries can gain comparative advantage to create more secure and safe market places to export to and therefore, causes a ripple in the international marketplace because of China's inability to share with other countries much like the free markets shared with China. As such this statement is again a statement of fact. pg 4

"During this period the GDP share of the agricultural sector has shrunk from 40 percent to below 10 percent, while the services share increased by six percentage points to 36 percent and the share of industry by 20 percentage points to 55 percent, with the agriculture share in total employment declining from over two-thirds to around one-third and the urban population share rising from 20 to 45 percent." So China's economy is rising that is great more statements of facts. However, you conclusion is derived that because China's economy is rising it has something to do with the China not being part of the economic imbalance. As a matter of fact this is false. The real nature is that China wishes to keep its high growth rate that it has seen for the last 30 years. Even thought it has caught up up with the other 1st world economies already. These data sets of facts that have been used show nothing more than a natural conclusion that if China wishes to keep growing they have to keep the international market place at an imbalance because the other countries that are less fortunate and need to grow will not be able to compete with China. As the date sets of facts that show the growth rate of China in effect to the allowance of other countries to gain comparative advantage for their space economic theories is not here. As such China wishes to keep the mansion and the absolute advantages much like the old Capitalists in which Senator Shermani had to fight against their comparative advantage exploitation as it was causing a huge economic imbalance. I hope that these statements of growth will be better backed by data sets that explain ho China's interior growth is helping the international market place. Because through Shermani theory's of cartel and anti-trust such monopolized heavily subsidized and SOE protected markets as applied through old capitalist style monopolies and cartel actions cause huge detriments and rifts in the market place much like we have been seeing in the international market place.

"Meanwhile, annual population growth has slowed down from 1.5 percent in the 1980s to 1 percent in the 1990 and 0.5 percent in the 2000s; labor force growth slowed from 3 percent in the 1980s to just over 1 percent in the 1990s and just below 1 percent in the 2000s. With a population of 1.33bn and labor force of 800 million (in 2008), China is far advanced in its demographic transition and the demographic profile of its working age
population is near its peak (partly owing to the one-child policy of the 1980s).1 Remarkably, in purchasing power parity terms, real per capital income increased twenty-fold since the early" That is great more statement of facts. Its going to slow down a lot more too. That country can't sustain such a high population growth. They are going to have to start allowing more freedoms to slow the creation of new human beings in that country.

"1980s; based on a poverty line of $1.25 a day in 2005 prices, Chen and Ravallion (2008) calculate that China’s poverty rate declined by 68 percentage points over 1981–2005, leaving 635 million fewer people in poverty." More statements of a growing country that I believe have nothing to do with proving the point of being at fault for economic imbalance.

"As to the foundation of the Chinese economic miracle, three factors may be singled out
here: industrial policies, controlled integration into the global economy, and heterodox
macroeconomic management." Now we are getting somewhere. Industrial policy SOE cartel activities and concentration of export then acquisition soe cartel strategies. Controlled integration, could be that they were controlling their industries through unfair uncompetitive subsidies and red phoneSOE's. Those are all stick person theories that I just took a statement out of context and tried to make it look like it was stated that way much like Levy's false dichotomy.

Poverty data set very proud to say that China has become a civilized world based on Lockean Economic Principles and a basic stream natural theory of economics. However, their strategic SOE actions are causing trouble in the field. I need to write a full article to bring back the imperative detriments to monopolies and cartels and ant-trust activities in the international market place.

"Through a fine balance between government planning and market forces these three factors have acted as interdependent engines of fast-track development." Well that is arguable.Fine balance would mean that your statement about private enterprises or SME's needing to be more nourished would be false. So this statement would inherently go against the Levy Institution doctrine of ideas. However, it may be different writers. There is not a fine balance. This is because China has created a padded economy. This economy allows China to sustain world economic imbalances,while the rest of the world crashes.

"As Rodrik (2009: 2–3) observes, all growth superstars have in common that they “based their growth strategies on developing industrial capabilities, rather than specializing according to their prevailing comparative advantages.” This shows again that China has actually done well for itself. I am very proud of them for being so secure and so stable. I still am looking for the correlation in this paper to the primary statement of rejecting the fact that China was a cause in the economic imbalance. Building a foundation is always good just doing a line by line.

"He identifies the production of tradables as the main mechanism through which high productivity growth can be harnessed for fast-track development through industrialization." pg 5 This is true as my theory goes that products that can be trade internationally bring value to a country in which is simple economics. This then allows that country to become strong and have a stable economy in which makes it a very good precursor for balancing out its monetary value with the high countries that can produce at high levels. However, currently find it cheaper in a fallacious theory of absolute advantage to have it all produced in China. So this citation can easily be turned for that fact that China did not want to raise their currency because of such articles of false dichotomies and perpetual backwards theories. As such if this citation is saying that China specifically was building its tradeables to create capital in which it could then keep its growth going. Then it would be necessarily easy to transition and show that this statement is actually more for China being part of the economic balance than not. This is because China has for the last 30 years kept the highest growth rate I believe ( i will find back ups to my one page criticism right now on my specifically narrowed common sense brain tech). So in natural economics it would be that if China is the one doing all the growing and other countries like Turkey, Russia, India and Pakistan are still having pockets of terrorism because of lack of funding for intra security personnel. Then again it would fall to China to stop their padded economics to allow other countries to catch up with China and the high producers. As this statement is saying that China again is going for tradables for capital build up. This then would mean that China's economic strategies are to keep this going. As such then China would find ways to keep outs its competitors from going through the same economic revolution as they have. However, again China did not want to help out, China has gained a huge portion of the international market place, at levels of the highest trade surpluses, very high compared to other countries that need to be secured and productive for foreign reserves and foreign debt holdings. Again this statement goes more for the side that China is part of the economic imbalance because they are rude, crude and they are being greedy in their productive capacity, thats why this I am on it, well lets say the mean streets have made me a little harsh. Further it would also link into theorist who believe that China needs to concentrate more on its service industries so as to raise quality of life for their citizens. As such one way for China to start building its interior for a higher quality of life is through service industries. As service industries create intra country value and not international value. This then would be a good cause for raising China's currency and showing that China has been a part of the international economic imbalance. Because China has already started to take the advice of this theorist though modest and not as honorably as the US Chief and Commander standing up and stating we will fix our economy through financial reform. In China we see still high financial backing for tradeables and not so much service industries for their quality of life. As such, this statement I believe if a failed statement to include in a paper that wishes to claim that China is not a part of the economic imbalance. pg 5 failed.

"In China’s case, too, industrial policies based on successful government planning have played a vital role." This is a very true statement. However again failure for your primary statement. This statement is better shown that China is using a centralized economic strategy by way of SOE's and padded economy and actual currency manipulation. Because of instead of following natural economic principles of were you have more gold, more foreign reserves, you produce more, your country is more secure than others as a natural consequence you currency should be raised and you should start concentrating less on tradeable capital and more on service quality of life capital. pg 5 failed.

"In this regard, the focus on tradables involved a controlled opening up to trade of the Chinese economy, with merchandise exports targeting markets in advanced economies and imports of foreign direct investment (FDI) from advanced countries supporting the production of industrial goods in China." This statement is also a good reason why China has been such an impactor on the international market place. As everyone knows that everyone supported China in their years of security and stabilization through production and industrial revolution. However, the last 5-10 years when China should have been leveling off their economy to start to also join in on helping other countries in the pact of an advanced economy through allowing such countries as stated previously to start importing more. China kept a high trade surplus strategy. And as I theorize will go right back to it once the free market business cycles start to boom after 2014 when the uses new business cycle driver the insurance service industries picks up. As such this statement shows that unlike as China thinks it was the free market places that helped China gain such success with the free markets counseling and allowance of certain annoyances which have now become imperatively detrimental as China wishes to keep high tradeable capital and not start to join the pack of helpers. Which then can cause China to be placed in a bracket of were the Soviet Union was and Russia is just now coming out of. A centralized economy that is worried more about its own high wealth and not a balanced economy so as to help smaller or underdeveloped countries gain security and productivity. As such this statement shows a similarity of China's egotistically belief's that they did it all themselves much like their dishonorable theories of the economic instability was all the US's fault and that China had no cause in the international instability. pg 5 failed.

"After spending several decades following WWII as an almost closed economy aspiring to self-reliance, figure 2 shows that the Chinese economy has become remarkably open in the process—with foreign trade constituting 50 percent of GDP or more since the time of WTO entry in 2001." Previous criticism on their left over dishonorable theories of Centralized economy through SOE's which control more than 40% of their economy and the idea that China is doing good so the rest of the world is at fault for economic instability not China. Which is very dishonorable. Again shows that China was helped by the free markets to its current condition of security and productivity. It did not get their by itself and the annoyances of the centralized economy and unfair practices shall no longer be given child like treatment. After this last spell of finger pointing. embarrassing the world that helped it by stating they would not help and then allowing its military and economic advisers to threaten the US with selling off mass amounts of US debt and reserve holdings to shutter the US economy. Which by the way maybe China does not know, we are the world goal. To be free secure and be able to have a bi party political system that allows for more civil rights. Freedom is what all free humans and scholars fight for the balance between it and the pursuit of liberty and happiness. You can't survive on your owned your current strategy to hurt the world through export quotas of rare resources and the SOE attacks on free markets even if the guardians do not defend against it (however I say we need proper observance as the detriments to the long awaited failure of a neo-mercantlist economy will surpass our lives and personally, I like high welfare (public servants, justice, security, taking care of poor, elderly and sick), and good jobs and good taxes for the US, and security for underdeveloped countries, so lets not wait for this to happen) and go to intellectual armories. Will still based on good of natural economies cause your economy to fail in the long run. So my harsh criticism is not just trying to help the US and underdeveloped countries to compete fairly in the international economy for security, peace and freedom but it is also worried about you my troubled child arrogance and greed are not to be highly positive vibrations in the world. the stream of energy of nature takes not to stagnatism, negativity and detrimental ideas as through greed, there is a reason why every good book on spirituality has spots of study on such activities. Siddhartha and the stream of natural economies pg 5 failed. oh buy the way just given countries security items or loans will not help them stay secure. They must be fostered in much the similar way that the world fostered China, and its economy. However, at there are times when a country must be winged, and either join the the helpers or join those in the centralized economic self reliant box of high observance and economic scarify.

"Figure 2 also reveals the sudden surge in exports and China’s trade surplus as GDP shares in the mid-2000s, providing a first indication of the marked impact of the global crisis on the structure of aggregate demand." Ok now we are getting somewhere. However, but I quote, "marked impact of the global crisis" guess your primary statement is looking even less strong. pg 5 failed

Love the graphs:
pg 6 proves my point and theory

There was a recession of the late 90's .com service industry business cycle started to see high government research in the 99-00's as the Fed began to react to the service industry leading the business cycle by high interest rates. This then probable caused a lash out at China for such high trade surplus. As such the graph on page 6 shows a stall of exports and a leveling out. In which then China allows a high peak in imports to show that they are not strategically keeping the international economy imbalanced for their own tradeable capital. This then again goes to show back to the point of the mortgage service industry driving the business cycle. The exports of 05-08 show that China was once again in the clear to begin their Surplus trade strategies as I theorize with their SOE cartels. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_617.pdf Then in 2009 I know when I began the trace and I am sure the Federal government and the people did too. China then goes through the same routine. They lower exports, probable from demand, observance and basic understand of upset countries. Then they start to allow more imports as we see a high peak in imports into China. That is funny. To go even further back when the US had its saving and loans recession from 90-91 China pretty much wen through the same thing, decreasing exports and increasing imports to switch gears from trade surplus to acquisition strategies. Then once they were in the clear they went back to high trade surpluses. So graph on page 6 failure shows more of an economic imbalance. As since the inception of China into the free markets China has spent more time keeping its exports above everyone imports. As such causing an international economic imbalance as China seems to only allow more imports when they are under the gone from international recessions. This statement would go well with a Chinese SOE strategic acquisition chart, along with a recession chart and this chart of imports and exports in which I believe shows my point of strategic economic imbalance keeping. However as it is possible that the MSS with their high concentration on cyber unconventional warfare regarding the US, Canada and other free markets might try to do a data wipe and replication of different dates and data. I have seen this strategy before for key indicators, at least I believe I have seen it before.

Furthermore on this Graph House of Levy. How could you say that the asking of China to fix their currency is misguided when right before the international recession. China had a huge export surplus, and I believe also dumped many US stocks per SOE financial advisers. Can't find that citation though, The Knight I has gone under I believe. The Rider is still here. Good luck Knight. Study hard and bring forth the truth. See you when you come back to the living. Remember the beer and bread are for sustenance and not for normal consumption. I had to learn the hard way the first couple of weeks. LOl just joking. oh ya plus there is nothing like that water fall purified cold water for a shower. I tell you after 14 hours of eye drying, eye drops, beer bread and page after page of information that cold waterfall shower feels so good. Plus that straw matt that those monks sleep on is not so bad after working so hard. Pretty cool little translator technology too, just point and it translates the words. Those monks are going to make a killing off that device. Imagine go to a foreign land lost pull out the ...... and you can understand any language. Telling you, love those alchy's.

"As an integral part of China’s industrial policies and controlled integration into the global economy the authorities have actively—albeit selectively—encouraged foreign companies to invest in China, mainly in the form of Greenfield FDI." Well it would seem the Greenfield FDI goes against comparative advantage theories which call for specification of trade. As the Greenfield FDI is: "A form of foreign direct investment where a parent company starts a new venture in a foreign country by constructing new operational facilities from the ground up. In addition to building new facilities, most parent companies also create new long-term jobs in the foreign country by hiring new employees." This then is great for China and that Company. However, the direct investment via Green Field causes a sort of backdrop of unfairness for the free market societies. As they lose the ability to create jobs at home and then import those products into China much like China does with their companies. However, as China's biggest companies are SOE's and their government uses heavy cartel and anti-trust activities to keep free enterprises below SOE's by conglomerating smaller SOE market shares into bigger one named SOE's. Which causes the free enterprise of China to lose the availability of those market shares thus causing them to not be able to overshadow the governments entities. It makes it very difficult for China to do GreenField investments in free enterprises. Then again, when China does do Green Fielding in underdeveloped countries it is statistical that they bring their own employment and that other countries do not enjoy the same actuality of Green Field creation of employment as China does at home. Much like what we see in Africa. Were China owns more than 800 SOE's with a high employment rate of Chinese employees. I believe as per articles. This then would mean again if my citations are correct once I collect and produce. That again this statement shows how China is actually causing international instability by unfair economic practices of Green Fielding by creation of jobs for their employees via foreign companies but then turning around and Green Fielding in underdeveloped countries but then not allowing that foreign country to have foreign employees of their own. If my citations I have seen are correct and I can gather them again. pg 6 failed statement. still economic instability creation.

"China has been the number one destination among developing countries for FDI inflows for many years, reaching $108bn and $95bn in 2008 and 2009, respectively."







FDI Means that other countries have participated heavily in China's growth. Again showing that China's thoughts that their own strategies are wait has lead them to this point are not true. Along with the centralized buck passing points of this document that state that it is misguided to want to give back to the world for everything the world has given to help it is also a failed statement. As this statement again shows that China is gaining more and more investments from the world. As a matter of fact I quote " number one" this again shows that our guidance system ME hehe is right on point. That is because China is and has been number one in a lot of things. Foreign investment, foreign currency holdings, foreign debt holdings, trade deficits and very expensive resource holdings. These categories along show that China is a key player in the market place and folks like the House of Levy needs to stop babying them and thinking that by allowing this mass greed of the Chinese government to continue will help the world. As it will not. It will help China. However, China again has a strategy of economic invasion and not economic sovereignty for countries that it derived to be strategically important in their world domination of economics. Especially for the crown which is an international system based on exactly what China is doing. Kind of preempting their wishes to have a one world currency. Under the balance of international holdings. Again which makes the Chinese economy so dangerous. As the Chinese are on a strategic plan of SOE attack that wish to grasp as much foreign debt, reserves and economic infrastructure as they can. However, that goes more with my theory of Blitzkrieg and that has not been theorized properly yet, or tested, or backed. So back to my previous point. If China is getting the number one spot for foreign investments. That leaves out the smaller underdeveloped countries that really need it to lag behind China. This then means that those economies are not built to scale so that other countries can't import to them. As such this leaves much like folks like the House of Levy believe that China is the golden goose for imports and helping countries grow. However, to falsity it is the nature of the stream in international economic that will help. Not the trickle down affect proposed by folks like the House of Levy and others who wish to dam up at the top and allow it to trickle down. The House of I, I like that House of I. LOL, believes that by keeping up this high concentration of China even when they no longer need it as they are secured and safely on their way to a really good competition for number one. However, they will be easily kept out because of their illegal acts of economic of protection and of massive government subsidies during times of troughs and of times of peaks.As such this statement proves again that the guidance is well and proper. As if CHia has held the number one spot for foreign direct investment for so long and at such high concentration it is but logical to think that they are keeping other countries from being able to gain their security and stability. Like Turkey, India, Pakistan, Russia and the others. I would think that the call to intelligence as heavy observance to Chinese economics is well guided. As instead of China allowing other countries to be competitive they wish to keep and exploit their comparative advantages for themselves. Were as teh US and free societies thanks to Tricky dick, they are secure and safe, however, they will use those annoyance to crush like they are doing ever trough. I have not heard anything yet about how China's massive expansionism is on its way or even how it is affecting smaller underdeveloped countries. So failed pg. 6 you are my subjects of my little intelligence battle. The house of Levy, you are not standing up to the guidance's system pin point vulnerabilities tests. I believe my one page article on this 28 page article will pick and chose specific pin point scopes to knock out the paper. many failures many easily turned points for the truth of China is just not sharing and kind of acting maybe a little spoiled from all the years of world and US love and affection. Time to share















"Since 2003 China has also become an important source of outward FDI, soaring to roughly half the size of inward flows in 2008 and 2009 (up from next to nothing in the early 1990s), with developing countries as the foremost destination of Chinese outward direct investments.2"



Again as this paper has not taken into the account of the Chinese Politburo, and their dictatorial democracy or the actual countries in which they back that constantly attack their neighbors in wishes for dominance like Iran which attacks Iraq and employees guerrilla tactics to keep them weak, North Korea which constantly attacks South Korea by small excursions, and Venezuela who is constantly playing the same roll as Iran. While the US is just having to have their allies sit their in hopes that the bigger stronger countries backed by China and their massive outward flow of direct investment will stop their guerrilla warfare or at least use some of that massive monetary inflow to secure their own terrorists. This statement again. Shows that a country that can act much like other major countries do and help build political structures and allied forces against guess most of the countries they are support I would bet hate America. So House of Levy your half style economic paper does not take into account the full picture along with that your statements that wish to show that China does not need to raise its currency or start to equalize its interior through services in which both statements were actually what is the world were you say one thing then say another. I mean in another paper of the House of Levy it is stated that China needs to concentrate on its interior, that would mean raising currency so that exports change to imports. So that other countries can compete fairly from the last 30 years of high trade surpluses. then in another statement the House of levey stated that China needs to help out its SME's which then would allow them to stop world domination of economics through government owned entities and allow other countries to compete in their market place and the international marketplace. so again failed page 6.









"Foreign-owned enterprises feature particularly prominently in China’s exports, more than half of which are processing exports.3"



This statement again goes to my redundant slash of GFDI, which then allows China to gain jobs and the taxes, while then taking jobs from other countries and holding GFDI. This statement is even further a point of why China needs to be guided on a path of equity for international balance. This is because China has a high GFDI which then allows countries business which once create jobs for their country to be moved offshore. This then means that instead of having those countries owners build at home and then export to China keeping taxes and jobs and productivity. China then eats the jobs, taxes productivity and the technological advacments that come with having a high industrial output in those areas of exports. For example lets take plastics as China as a huge market place and power on exporting toys. This then again also goes with China having a huge power in plastic resource chemicals and resources. Which then means much like we are seeing now. China believes that it can place high quotas in the form of tariffs so that other countries cant obtain the necessary resources to build those things. In which China then gains a military advantage as they can easily turn civilian production in military production at higher levels of output because it is not properly streamlined between international market places but stock piled in China. Along with that it allows China to control the industries by basic manipulation of resources like we are seeing in the rare earth sectors right now so that China can gain the upper hand by using upwards of 16 cartel SOE's to work together to produce green technology. This this high outbound Foreign Direce Investment by China comes with a two prong slash to the House of Levy, one is well if they can invest that much in others then maybe they should join the ranks of the high producers and equalise their currency so that its brothers and sisters can compete. 2 is that it becomes a huge national interest when China is turning around money invested by the US to then fund the US's very enemies. this statement fails too page 6









"The significance of China’s export-processing trade reflects the country’s role as the foremost assembly hub in regional supply chains that have Europe and the United States as key destinations for final exports (with Europe overtaking the United States as China’s most important export market in the mid-2000s)."









Again such a strong statement for a house that believes that China should not increase its currency value. It is seeming to me that r wish to keep the other countries down and allow China to stay the foremost hub. When India, Pakistan, Turkey and Russia and others all have need of production and jobs for their interior security. This statement is not gaining you points. You fail again. China being the number one hub means that maybe they need to equalize to the countries of old that were once the hubs. Like the US, UK, Canada and the such. Failed again. pg.6









"Suffice to add that while they are believed to be an important channel of foreign know-how and



state-of-the-art technology, overall, FDI inflows have played only a junior role in China’s fast rate of gross fixed capital formation, with its share declining from an average of 10 percent for the period 1995–2005 to 4 percent in 2009 (UNCTAD, WIR 2010)."









Well House of levy are you hitting yourself in the face there. Where is your primary statement. Oh Levy don't hit yourself you supposed to uphold your idea not turn on yourself. You ok, do you realize that your statements show exactly why the idea to have China raises its currency is not misguided. Maybe if you wrote a paper on how India is being attacked by leftist extremist guerrillas backed by Maoist theorist. and how Pakistan is being constantly attacked by Muslims terrorists. and should how that China is doing such a great job by allowing India and Pakistan and Turkey and for geese sakes Russia needs more money for its security officers too. I mean aren't they being attacked also. This makes no sense. If China is such a place were even the efforts of those who wish to keep the outsourcing of jobs because of the exploited idea of comparative advantage allowing technological advancements n the country that is exporting its jobs, as then is stated that China is believed to be a hub for state of art technology FAILED FAILED FAILED FAILED PG. 6 UPPER CUT TO THE JAW OH OH THAT HAD TO HURT.









"Nor have massive traderelated FDI inflows contributed much to job creation, but, as Liang (2007) argues, may have provided an important conduit for establishing labor practices that follow the neo-liberal “flexibility” ideal and tend to marginalize workers’ power" I will stand down on this one. I agree that the helping of China has raised their labor and marginalized workers power to a higher level. At such , take another hit their Levy, right to the old jaw for ya. I hope that the Chinese people keep fighting for more quality of life as that will help lower their birth rates, as they will have more to do and it will allow other countries to start to compete as quality of life is usually inherent for services. If their workers are seeking higher quality of life that means that it will be necessary for them to start with their service industry build up. As such levy what a better way to help them do that than by raising their currency and equalizing their trade levels so as to allow another up and coming country to build their security and stabilizing. . pg 7 ahh. I.rr









"Be that as it may, defying the wisdom of the Washington Consensus that has ruled in much of the developing world since the 1980s, China’s development has been promoted by thoroughly heterodox macroeconomic policies"















heterodox means this: ah not even old Websters training has me prepared for that one. Oh hit to the head, think some more. I see you mean Marxist economics. However you improperly used the term heterodox as the Marxist economics has been around for a long time and we have properly watched and observed to make sure that China did not become to free to quickly so they did not get the bends. However, they did give the world the bends because they came up to fast without proper regulations from their annoyances and unfair competitions via the biggest imperialist economics which is Marxism. As Levy punch to the I if you know the oh that is a nice cut there, oh brown eye, oh, that imperialism stands for a term used by our forefathers here at home in the US, in which they defined it as a basic unfair competition in economics. Were it was wished that those opposing would be placed own by economic imbalances and unfair competitions. So wrong term. Heterodox more would be for a hybrid model of what China is now, and has become not what is was developing into. Along those lines China was supposed to become a free enterprise country through contractual definition and obligations of those who supported it. However the politicians of new wish to create SOE champions and go back on their fathers and grandfathers obligations and contracts that state that China will form into a free market and will be guided by the principles of free and fair trade. Unlike what we are seeing now. Which is a return to high Marxism in a new form of economics. However, again Hetro. So is was not until recently did China become a heterodox economy. As China is now facing its obligations and turning its backs on it. As China has reinvested in their SOE's and wish to turn them into Champion SOE's in most facets of the market place. Along with the new hybrid economic model they carry. However, was not up until recently that they became this economic model. As before they were being guided to become a free enterprise economy. Much unlike were they have stopped and started fortifying their Marxists imperialist (which is just a hard way to say unfair or uncompetitive, however, the communist use it against free enterprises which is funny because how can a free enterprise compete unfairly with an SOE. It can't it is circular reasoning.) again why your statement is sort of untrue. As China signed obligations to sell off their SOE;s and privatize them in which they did nto keeping the market shares for major holding SOE;s that kept strategic holdings for China. While only now starting to defy their contracts, and obligations to become a fair and competitive market place. Also they did not start to defy the free markets until recently with a reverse in funding of the SOE's as per the old builders where funding heavily privatization. However as of recently the idea of the niceties that we have afforded China in their rise. They believe we wills sill allow them now that they are grown. It is like allowing a grown person to have a child's price. You knocked out levy. Heterodox defying just started recently their boy that big swing really went against didn't it.



pg 7 fail.









"The renminbi’s dollar peg established in 1994 has provided the key external anchor in China’s development strategy." So again unless you can back up this preempted statement with a theory logical data set of how China's pegging of the dollar and massive development has helped anyone except for China this statement fails. As currently, the US and free markets are at a high tech trade deficit with China, a machinery deficit I believe with China, a trade deficit with China, and soon China will have their government owned subsidies in a lot of free market entities economic infrastructures. So sounds like China's pegging is really only benefiting them As I can't see how the US having to keep borrowing money and value from China through way of foreign debt holdings and purchasing. Which then weakens the US market place to easily infiltration of heavy Chinese Government SOE Champions in which will become a staple in the US market much like COSCO ports, which I believe has the highest docking ratio and inputs need cite, along with now Ansteel which just started an acquisition strategy of a Mississippi free enterprise steel, company along with a Chinese SOE rare earth resource company needed for metal. In which would allow Ansteel to unfairly compete in the US as they would have the only connection to such rare steel at great prices. Them making Ansteel the major steel industry owner in the US in as little as 10 years. Again having foreign subsidized government owned companies in the US is a bad thing for free enterprises. As free enterprises can't compete with them unless the legislature properly regulates them like Senator Sherman did. So China pegging its dollar for high development then using that high development along with resource quotas, and tariffs on US steel companies has allowed the Chinese to weaken the US steel industries enough to be able to pick one up and start its acquisition campaign of the US steel industries. Much like Ansteel does in mainland China. Then again what Centralized economies like neo-meracantalist countries do is create fewer owners of business and more SOE's in which they then compete unfairly and unequally then slowing the stream of economics and damming it at certain points. SO once there was a thriving stream of steel industrial owners and market places then becomes only a few with high SOE competitors. So um pegging the US dollar for high development really has not done much for the US. Except take our jobs, take our debts, create debts, force us to lose gusto for manufacturing technology as we can no longer afford the R&D compared to the massive sized SOE Champions of China., page 7 failed.









"Starting in July of 2005 a gradual appreciation occurred vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar as the renminbi was officially referenced to an undisclosed basket of currencies." That is good. I believe they really have no choice in the matter. As the detriments of unfair trade provided by China is causing huge detrimental impacts like massive losses of welfare in free enterprise economies, and even other countries that should be able to compete with China not being able to afford enough security officers to fight terrorism.









"The de facto crawling peg episode then ended in mid- 2008 as stress in global financial markets worsened, by which time the renminbi had appreciated by some 21 percent vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar over a period of three years." So they were under the gun from the last service curve reliance to create an equally production playing field for new economies of underdeveloped countries after 2003. Then as the graph shoes around 2008 Chinese exports hit an all time high. Showing that China was still way below a proper balance of producing and currency. This statement obviously works against your primary statement as I believe you remember not your own graph as presented. pg 7 failed.









"Externally, the Chinese economy has been shielded by a system of capital controls (see People’s Bank of China 2008), supporting both the exchange rate peg and control over domestic financial conditions in line with domestic policy objectives."



When you say something like "We reject the prominence widely attributed to China as a cause of global imbalances [.] and the exclusive focus on the renminbi-dollar exchange rate as misguided. [.]" "This statement helps qualify the previous statement as a statement meaning they think that China is not a cause of global imbalances " And we emphasize that China's response to the global crisis has been exemplary" Which is a primary statement when dealing with such a huge issue.









Your really should not make statements that say that China is manipulating their currency by stating that they have "shielded their system"and they they have supported a peg, and control over the domestic financial systems in line with domestic policy objectives. This statement dislodges your whole primary statement and your paper is no longer valid. At the point when you admit that they are shielding their economy and using currency pegging and control over domestic policies for their own domestic polices. It becomes blatantly obvious that you did not remember your primary statement when writing this. The whole reason for the wish for currency focus, and equalizing of fair and competitive trade was because it is believe to be the exact statement you just made in trying to support your primary statement which in truth and light supports the reform and the truth behind Chinese currency manipulation for their own domestic polices, which are not inline with WTO or free market ideas of free and fair trade and competition. As global imbalances are caused by centralist countries worrying about only their domestic policies and not that of their brothers and sisters. Much like greed does in the fables of old. They worry not about their friends but only what they can gain for themselves. you paper has been dislodged. I will go further as I feel like being a young buch and bucking horns as it is that time of the year. So dislodged page 7. does not mean it is not a good paper. Just in this topic I am probable could be considered an elder maybe. Don't worry there is alwyas next time. learn from my critism and make your primary statement and primary conclusions stronger House of Levy. The House of I is strong in economic warfare analysis and defense strategies.









So lets keep going. Don't give up.