The writer did a good albeit brief job outlining the issue of currency valuation the need for its integrity as well as the implications for the dynamics in play. The article put Mr. Geithners comments in a calmer context than they were presented while suggesting clearly he needs to think more deeply about the situation. The author articulated gently China's own position as well as the critical need for a more thoughtful relationship than Mr. Geithner is capable or willing to put forward as a first step for the fledgling administration.

pointing out the potential hazards and belatedness of labeling china as well as why the label had been possibly appropriate, the article demonstrates the complex difficulties of our global economy. the writer also points out that china's stimulus measures of their own mean much more. i would have wanted to see voices of economists discussing, elaborating this point.

Economist is reputed for its balanced and fair reporting (objectivity seems to be a out-dated term these days). Especially taken into account of its stance as a publication in a third-party country in this Sino-American currency "warfare", this piece delivers a full range of perspectives on this issue. Also, the language is quite concise and brief, better than layers of quotes which we usually find in other news reports. But one thing that needs our rethinking is the common practice of most news magazine to embed comments into news reports. It is a good way to provide more interpretation to contextualize the story. But it nevertheless affects the independent judgment of the readers.

I guess it is OK but it shows that Tim Geithner is quoting old news.