Researchers need to be factual and logic thinking

Comments on Xiao Geng “US-China economic imbalance: Alternatives to appreciating the Chinese yuan”, 23/02/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/02/23/us-china-economic-imbalance-alternatives-to-appreciating-the-chinese-yuan/

The article raises a fundamental point: there are other mechanisms besides exchange rate management to address the so called imbalances, if they are indeed an issue at all as opposed to crises panicking, straw-fetching exercises by some interested parties and some no brain people.

However, most of the points in the article are debateable.

For example, the inefficient investment argument is likely to be highly misleading and no-economics. Unless the investment is used in ways like the sub-mortgage occurred in the US prior to the recent crises, investment in infrastructure, in urbanisation in productive capacities taking advantage of the low cost capital available are hardly inefficient!

It is unclear what the author meant by the statement of the “rudimentary carbon emission standard”.

From what point of view is the carbon emission standard rudimentary? How rudimentary is China’s carbon emission standard, when taking account on the size of the Chinese population and GDP measured in PPP?

While this forum is probably not meant to allow for full scale and detailed article, one would expect that arguments need to be able to withstand basic factual and simple logic test.

What about the argument about for China to inflate its way out of the imbalance? That sounds more like those arguments for the US to get out of its trouble of government budget deficit and debt out of interesting people. But it is not clear at all if that is the thinking of Chinese policy makers.