U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission China’s State-Owned and State-Controlled Enterprises

Rough draft very upfront first thougths might leave in cognitional martial arts for fun might not


How to make this institution better. 

1. Allowing leaders and researchers to present non empirical waste of time research.

2. Not properly directing each recipient of the request to present to apply security issues to their questions or area of request for information. 

3. The website is a horrible web design and is not very pleasing to the eye to direct folks to want to hang out at the cite and come back or even read more, like the DOD cite is. 

I have decided I will finish this post and make it a nice unprofessional critique with proper citiations like at least an undergraduate paper should look like.


I think I might try and lay down thunder and lighting and some bolts after I am done with my defensive moves I might strike with research if I find the energy after this vague unprofessional critique. 
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 

China’s State-Owned and State-Controlled Enterprises

Rider I's Review of statements

Documents being reviewed:

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/hr12_02_15.php


Review of Statements.


Representative Peter J. Visclosky: 
Statement:
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/12_02_15/visclosky_testimony.pdf


First I must notate on the weakness of the opining of the supposed offensive institution meant to secure the US from the Communist Chinese, not further their SOE centralized military economy. Rep Visclosky states  by using two articles to that the Communist Chinese are advancing their SOE centralized economic Foreign Direct Investment (which we fought the Soviets against) at a massive scale. Instead of starting with an article showing where we are being attacked he makes a cognition that we should except the attack and thus allow the SOE's that are illegal as per WTO trade agreements to liberalize their economy and stop the centralized military attacks on free markets.


Then he states that the US is interested in the SOEs by citing a foreign Communist owned State Owned Enterprise. Which the US has no state owned aviations business. So that fact is reality that the State Owned enterprises will be competitiveness unfairly even with our free enterprise aviation. Much like they have done internationally to take our contracts through unfair competition. However, at home they will centralized our domestic market shares to them as it is cheaper. We have already seen the US military allowing Communist Chinese enterprises take from the US free market high security productions becuase it was cheaper by a few thousand. Even though they are the biggest military threat to the US and biggest cyber Intellectual property and cyber terrorist in the world. This man should not be speaking in front of the US Chinese Security review commission every again. Already I have not heard on security issue in his intro. It sounds like a heavily lobbied paid off Politician speaking to allow the SOE illegal as per WTO trade and three world wars against centralized militarized economies to destroy our markets. This is a security commission not a business council. Secret threats are talked about not business investments unless it is a security threat.


Then he states his worries are subsidies for American workers by a foreign country that used subsidies to take our jobs away. Next he makes a statement of serious doubt in front of a professional panel. If not confidence here then confidence where should it be. No doubts in front of the US last stance of agency towards this matter. How could a professional get up and speak like a college student or unprofessional. What if, what the hell excuse me you are a Representative of the US. You have at your command many intelligence agencies there should be no what iff's it is solid confidence when you speak, hold evidence and command do not be a person of what if's and doubts and starting off with showing how it could be a good thing to allow illegal SOE's to destroy free markets and individual ownership. This man call himself a Republican he should find himself another party. He is no Republican Commander worth hearing from, "What if" what do you mean then where confidence if not here. 


Republicans we did not allow one Soviet SOE into our land's during their transition. Now all of a sudden the same exact institution which is doing the same thing. Makes you afraid if we say no we can't trade with them. Well good India is bigger and free market galore more market shares better proper compeition and we have not lost one business to India's country because of loss of IP or stolen things or forced bullying by a single fascist party. What the hell stand a Republican these people genocided your people and today wish to oppress them with SOE's. 


I have been threatened four times by Communist Chinese agents. Each time getting closer and closer. And these Republicans are in fear if we tell them no SOE's as we have no SOE's to compete against them and Republic doe snot believe in SOE. That they may get hurt, when they can command full National Guards armies or have private paid for security. It is just me on these streets with maybe if I am lucky a few folks of cause watching me now and then. I stand up this matter. Nobody trades with India as you afraid to stand up to them. I am not let them kill me. I have kin all over this world who make sure the day my death is well repaid 10 fold. I have even had two people try and set me up with a local report to the police against things locally I had witness to prove it was not me. This is stupid a full Representative saying what if?


Then he uses pacification words which is believe. As I have to use in my unprofessional nature. Instead of being a Representative and a stone in the community of his polls and knowing that he read the intel reports and we stand by our word. No he acts passified and scared. When you are speaking in front of a security review commission it is not a belief it is fact or saw we are investigating the issue to find facts. Then he goes into a case study about Ansteel which was a major case work I was doing, pointing out how they found major steel reservers with supposed 30 different SOE rare earth resource companies all acting differently, then they took that specific rare earth metal needed and combined it down to a single SOE and then Ansteel went into a joint venture with it, which seemed like anti trust activities to me but of course he does not speak on the real issue of that issue he just muttles around and says I believe or what if as if he is a high school philosphy teacher and not a Commander of the Republican cognitions. 


I do like the idea that he states a problem in our financial warfare defense institutions. Which again is stated passively and not like a Commander of a Genocided people. Which should have been stated that I believe the current issue of reviewing investments is not properly being handled by this institution. Then stating I think you need to open up an economic warfare review board for this country. Which would be a commanders facts and not stated like currently we have no with hint hint I am passive poor me. No you need to do this purely and simple like a Commander. Then he uses another passive word of concerned instead of we know they would as per their historical 90% of all interactions with Communist China end up in IP seizure or stealing. Plain and simple we have facts on that in every single business entity that has interacted with them. 


Then he finally makes a commanders statement which all should be and says I have cite of. Which others should say say I have facts of that is how our leaders should speak. That is how all cold war leaders spoke with regards to the Soviets, we have facts of or cite of or investigating the matter. He says I have no reason to believe. He should state in fact not in unprofessional undergraduate speech Representation is a graduate position to social leadership. I see two articles cites against the US for which it explains we should allow such illegal nature. Then not one other cite for against them was used with factual research. So the report if graded in my speech and debate class or economic class is an F. he makes statements at a graduate position with no research and major no confidence. you fail. Only two research cites against your main opinion is failure. Failure in real life is deficit, is terrorism is dead humans and also lost jobs and basic loss of Republican beliefe of no SOEs and individual laborships and ownerships. You fail and have real consequences in this world as a graduate position. Like my favorite teacher in Mock trial said you are not prepared you fail and you are being reported to the ABA for violation of your clients rights. sit down, of course I had no client and was juggling the death of grandpa so he said we will go through real life then with death note you get up and do your best. Which I did not accept and took a low grade in the matter. As neither did I accept my stat redue either as in real life when folks die and your clients are on you case you might and maybe is a key term get a movement to help with it. However, it is possible that it might not happen. So that event in my life is shown by destroying my straight A's in my major.  Which to may was more important to show I was not afraid to fail as when folks are afraid to fail they seize up and I do not. I am ok with failure and understand things happen as long as not below honor average. Which this statement is to me as two articles against his man point then so far not one article or research fact and confidence shows to me a consent failure of belief in this matter. 


Then they stated the only course of action we could take was a letter. Again this man speaking is a Congressional representative. With media outlets at his side, funds for proper issuing of collegiate reports, and a necessary massive amount of issues for Republican viewpoints against SOE free market ownership. He did not properly take into account the idea of college reports which are cheap and can be done, a proper class started in the matter, or even the idea of having his constituents voice their opinion in a poll or proper collection of Republicans. Nor did he properly commit the Republican party to a congressional research on the issue.Nor did he use the Republican College Congressional untis to do one either. This man is a failure of a leader in this position and should be removed as far as I can see. I am a citizen I have spent now over $375,000 of my personal time writing letters. More than one directing folks on ideas and what to do. If I was a Representative I would direct actions first and foremost not letters against the world party that genocides every single Republican in their territory and currently economically oppresses all of them by forcing Communist party secretaries in their businesses or joint venture forced with Communist owned businesses. 


Far as I am concerned Gaithner did not sees a proper movement by the People of this country as this man obviously is a horrible Shepard of the cause. Communist Chinese MSS agents in the US throw bigger movements for the Communist Chinese party than I have ever seen a Republican commander or leader throw against their movements. Also which was not stated is that the primary rare earth resource that the company they invested in uses comes from an Ansteel joint venture of a rare earth resource. Which means stake holder ship will easily rise overtime as they control the relationship through a monopoly created by 30 SOE's collecting then centralizing down to one main SOE as there is no competitor in the world for that metal resource. 

Then he makes a primary vague statement with no facts addressing the primary conclusion he made to the Ansteel issue. Which as a graduate is a failing remark. Vague statements after a conclusion thesis is a failure mark. So far his battle cognition's on this issue are horrible not one weapon wieled so far just throwing out wind punches. So far I have seen this man stab himself twice with his opponents weapons and then sit there and swing in the air hitting nothing,. This man is a horrible cognitional warrior. I sit hear and create massive rail gun of cognition with a simple control f on four pages could have brought up facts on each issue he swung on yet all he has is his opponets weapons. waste of my life here. In any graduate program this man would fail his presentation. Making vague statements after he explains he failed while the first two weapons he used where stabs to himself. I see either horrible leader, clerks, or some kind of manipulation behind him. 


Next up


Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) lets see what shes got. 
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/12_02_15/myrick_statement.pdf
She is speaking on Telecommunications. Let's see if she picks up the Huwaei blocks in Afghanistan for the terrorist cause that is the atom bomb of cognitional warfare with regards to Telecom with the Communist Chinese.

She starts off weak with passive ideals. The idea that we are forced to work with Communist Chinese SOE's is again against the ideals we have held that we work with India's Democracy against the Russian's and Communist Chinese in trade. Only this last ten years has this changed to the idea that we have to allow the SOE's to destroy our economy then come in and conquer scorched earth. This idea alone has help destroy India's Democracy as the Communist Chinese play a bigger and bigger trade roll with specific communist idealistic people in India who are against Democracy. Called power building. Prior to 911 it was the idea that we balance out Communist China and India trade. Today we are majorly in deficit way passed any kind of sain ideological perspective and Indian trade lags way far behind a country that has historically been our enemy while India has been with us ever step of the way hand and hand we now leave our allies behind us to be destroyed by a very economically militarized economy.

She makes a strong statement of why her first conclusion is passive fallacy. The idea that we have to trade with a country that is completely against us and wishes to destroy us is against her primary conclusion. So far she is swinging but just hit herself in the face with a swing. As she stated we have to trade then make a strong swing with a fact of their specific issues we have had with the German Socialist Soviets and the same type or regime the Communist Chinese. You do not go enriching you utmost enemy in the world and then state oh yes but they are completely against the US. We did not do this to the German Socialist nor the Soviets. Why are we doing this now besides weak leaders with ver weak stances as we leave behind the EU, Africa and India to concentrate all of our trade with Communist China, as per the worlds biggest trade deficit. Which should be spread out to all countries not just Communist China. The Communist Chinese make statements that it gets involved heavily with its economy to direct trade in the world with them. So the US should return fire and direct balance of trade like we had to with the Soviets as they tried to suck in all trade to monopolies world economy to them so they could breath it in destroy it and then breath out their SOE's. Which as the German Socialist did is called a point grid network. Which then after the world is centralized to their economy like we have seen international trade with the US at the worlds biggest last place of world balances not doing very well at all in this relationship. Then will after a few proxy wars like North Korea, Vietnam and the Mercanary war Charlie Wilson Style 911, with two more in Mao's 150 year plan will walk out and go to network points of SOE's where political dissedence ofr fascism and single one world China policy will be waiting to help secure their military, like they are heavily doing in San Fransciso, after the Russians did it. Which the Communist Chinese just took over the Soviet play book in San Fran bay.

Then she speaks on how the Communist Chinese submarines which are built up just like the strategy of the German Socialist and Soviets are preparing for blocking strategies in ASEANIC like Iran prepared and is ready for the Straights. Which again is vague statement and has no ties to how Huwaei works heavily to secure against US operations in Lebanon, and any fascist middle east country. Which lead to the capture of 12 CIA agents in Lebanon as the US pissed of the Communist Chinese and Huweai leaked area communications as it is their grid. Not to mention every terrorist you find uses Huweai tech and they will not work with us on listening warrants in the areas they are terrorizing not in Pakistan not anywhere in the middle east.

Then she makes strong statements stating facts but not backing up with proper research and wielding weapons just swinging powerful in the air about cyber warfare which is purely telecom and how the Communist Chinese government and PLA are the worst in the world no research or wielding of weapons though so failure but nice swing. It upsets me seeing statements not backed with weapons of research and proper stats. During the cold war when any side spoken on the Soviets it was riddled with facts and research as genocide and economic implosion was a real impact to the US as it is now. You could not hang an opposing thought in the speeches given by leaders during the cold war on the Soviets. This is speech is like buck naked bend over and let them give it to you good.

Love the strong statement of PLA involvement in telecom business. However, a strong statement is the fact they have written document stating that telecom entities are national security and thus fall under the control of the government. So you fail under that statement. Along with that again no facts placed behind vague swing.

Inherent word is passive shows that she has read my thoughts as that is my primary cognitional tag. Yet she uses none of open source non confidential weapons to battle. She uses the word pose a problem. Instead of a strong active word like are a problem after making factual statements that they are a problem. Which shows again a passive weak leadership role.

Good swing connection great DOD document yes great good very good. Love it DOD is powerful stuff they are specifically active in their research it is or is not or is being sought. She still does not get to the meat of the issue which is control of national security. As the PLA view their telecom as a national security and control as a weapon as per DOD needs for warrant on terrorist being turned down. She goes into Huweai and its ties but does not state that the Military specifically trained them for this operation as they have which we have documents on easily accessed. They are PLA agents not private workers. I like the it is a significant risk great swing no backing weapons or evidence though. It is simple bad policy is a passive word According to the DOD it is against national security that is an active statement. Thats my girl nocking folks out now with the facts great hits great swings beautiful nice area of movements. It is reported is horrible passive statement had a nice hit swung and fell. You need to understand the world look to the US leaders for its light and direction. Not as a leader what you get paid for is graduate speeches and services not this it is stated. Where is it stated for other leaders that look up to us for light and direction. This failure has caused major deaths in the middle east and already major Huweai technology blocking massive amounts of research in Africa because of bad leadership speeches and research documents people are dying because of bad leadership in the US literally whole villages could not get info that other cities where being genocided because Huwaei was used and it was blocked where as CYSCO Oracle or google would have sent out alerts in that area to warn them about the current news in that area via local news reports on yahoo and google.

Here we have another failure a Congressional leader stating it appears as if to say to the world it is ok to think I am wrong on this. It appears no they did it is a fact world I proud of graduate research and presentation skills I know 90% it is a fact. multiple lawsuits have been filled yet not one name for world research into facts behind statement. So the world is at a lost and probable might not find it as the rest of the world does not have the great research sources we have. I find this speaker to be lazy and incompetent on her duties of a representative of facts and stats at her position. Which is her position, opinions are for citizens not for Representatives as they Represent facts as per polls and research. simple high school debate presentation this is a fact this is why it is a fact statement. Easy piecy failing u are.

There are whole worlds of countries out there with no research and they live by our research and presentation. As they love us. However, today the Communist Chinese have trillions in surplus. Where have trillions in deficit. Along with teh worlds worst account balances. We can't afford to send a representative to every countries meeting about Communist China. Guess what the communist chines can and do. They bring facts stacts of them. While our lazy reps can't even make a speech with facts. This is real life failure going on here. My grandfather would have found a way to sit down with these people and explain that to them. I have not the church backing yet I need for this as I was taught young to act hit and run not like G Mac with proper stance and hold ground never give up But I am learning.

I like that statement quasi private sector. That is factual wish it where backed up with with report or research showing that the majority of Communist Chinese economy is still centralized to the SASAC SOE's like the German Socailist and Soviet Union and Iran and North Korea. I do not like the idea of relatively new idea as the last 60 years they have known about our economy and the worlds wish for them to be a free market. As a matter of fact they genocided everyone who believed in it and forced out all those who could make it a US and UN protected Island.  Stalin and Mao both made public statements leaking cognition's that they where going to use the free market and Democracy against the West as a weapon in their 150 year plans. Which they are still doing today. Not so much Russia but even then I still can think but have not read Stalin's secret papers that the fall of the Soviets was to allow a belief that the fascist Communist international party was out of power.

Statement that Chinese officials where raised that free markets is wrong is weak. It is an ongoing thing the Communist Cadre school that all officials and media have to go to still preaches the idea of using SOE's to destroy free markets for centralized control. Which is easy tracked on my website of articles.

Again Communist China's does not have a version of capitalism that is passive sympathetic and shows fear they are a Communist economy in the transitional phase of Das Capital that states all SOE's must act like free enterprise to destroy them then take over for the single party of all. If you read his memories it states thar Marx's and Engels named Das Capital Das Capital so it would create a sympathetic bridge to those with regards to starting capitalism. The name itself was cognitional warfare sympathetic briding.

I do not like the passive use of I am not convinced. I do not think that convincing is the world as that is passive and leaves way for arguments or beliefs that one may be wrong again showing non confidence is leadership role on this issue.

Al together not bad did not stab one self did hurt one self with a swing and fell but better than last presentator as at least she did not wield a weapon to hurt her own stance.

Next is
Mr. Andrew Szamosszegi, Principal, Capital Trade, Inc., Washington
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/12_02_15/12_2_15_szamosszegi_testimony.pdf

This man is not a paid leader or commander of a political party. So i can't go as hard on him as he is a researcher. However, as a researcher  I will grade him on his service to this entity.
I like his outline the idea of answer questions. But already i can see this man has failed his show of professionalism in one of the highest institutions for this study with no resources of fact or poll. Again what I see is yugaslavia, Poland, Czech, latin American countries looking at this and wondering where is cite's, not all of them can pay the time or funds to properly figure out what you know unless you have a blog system like mine that takes a simple control and f to search for. This is horrible this research has gone before the utmost institution on this matter and present vague terms that would fail us in an international battle we could not be at if the Communist where at. It is like this whole committee session on the most important thing ever to the Republic which is State Owned Enterprise destroying individual labors and free markets does not realize that countries look here for research. They need help proper citations you a professional at the utmost professional entity and this is like a elementary paper with no citations/. These statements would not even muster high school debate papers.

This researcher should not have been speaken in front of the utmost world government entity on this issue and he states there is no straight forward answer. um no easy to calculate SOE SASAC control of GDP then whole GDP by my calcs of that simple quation it is 75% SOE's then less than 25% joint and free which are still managed by the Communist Chinese party just not claimed as SOE's. This what this next quarter the whole world of Democracy our people died for an fought breath and blood for have to look forward to. A man in front of the last and fore front issue government institution stating there is no straight forward answer to a simple GDP calculation with less than two algorythms at most. If this guy where a teacher at the Rider school I would fire him instantly for this brief to me and the elders of table for his next semesters lessons. Which is another thing they are talking about the SOE's but I have not heard one thing about the root problem of the SASAC. Which is worse than the SS and KGB where with regards to centralized economic military actions.

So the stance is good like the outline looks proper and tight for easy reading and research.
The idea of how much of the economy is state owned is what we call at my table a complex give up. Instead of breaking the material down so it is manageable for the student or fellowship entity learner. The professor lacks the ability to clarify the issue at hand and explain the asked topic of procedural cognition. Then he makes a horrible cognitional error of passive weakness which shows fear in teaching or studies for furthering necessary professor grade holding of lectures. Where he states economy split which shows he has no clue about how to do economic simple GDP equations. As SOE's make this GDP as a whole makes that an economy means in terms the whole. So the qustion how much of the whole is SOE is simple done by how much intake they gain and control copared to the whole. Simple question for a professor to answer and explain. His complex creation shows he has no clue and shows fear in his statement as he choses 50 50 as stating in his word problem answer an economy split. You shall not move forward into the next chapter of this research until you get over your fear and his is your project to confront your fear of the SASAC which I am sure is why you are speaking this way as a lot of journalist in Communist China are taught in the Cadre school to fear the SASAC.

Dead on accounting of the size is easy. There are accounting off the Communist Chinese economy you take three of the highest educational institutions tracking them do the equation take the mean you get the answer. Then he makes a complex guess towards the agriculture. Which all agriculture land is owned by the Government so 100% is SOE so he fails his research there and then finishes off his fear of lack of duty in research with a not far fetched which means he is asking to be throne a bone and has no clue again as I stated in above he choses 50% and is way off a simple calculation. I will throw you a bone here I wil through you an economy that is the worlds worst account balances because the majority of our economy has been drive to a countries economy that is 75% controlled by the SASAC SOE's.

Then obvious he tries to make up for the fall before hand with a catch as he says absolute so he figured out this move and might strike but no research presented so still swinging in the air. so his confidence goes up which means striking pose is stronger. Then he states that state sector has shrunk which goes against ten articles I have on my research cite that states the SOE's have become champions in Communist China and the SASAC reserves and Sovereign Wealth funds all have expanded by thousands of percents. This is a critical failure and causes major damage to further reputation of this article.

Ah good speaks on the SASAC great. Bites on the deceptional intellegence though where he thinks the SASAC only controlls 117. Those are just the ones they state they do. They controll all SOE's as per constitutional mandate and centralized party and economic controls. This professor should read deaper on the SASAC if he presents on a matter of very strong hit and miss stance.

Then he states the general number of SOE's have been decling again showing his inability to practice the art of SOE and SASAC research. As if he did he would realize it is not decling they are just be conglomerated into massive SOE's. Which means the SOE's are not being lost they are still there just under an umbrella of the bigger SOE's. Which the ultimate communist goal as per the SASAC is to conglomerate them all done to a few SOE's, controlling full industrial economic equations from dirt minerals to production, to manufacturing, to sales to banking all the way to marketing and then shipping.

Then he counters himself with a smack in the face as his first statement says the State sector has been shrinking but then says the central SOE's have been expanding which means he almost finds the energy force of the conglomeration research.

He creates his own definition of state owned enterprise not citing root issue. Where the actual definition of an SOE by any dictionary is an entity that is controlled by the state in majority. Which this guys has no right to do as I am still waiting for an educated empirical weapon to come out of this mans cognitional battle. Then to show his wear scared stance he then cites the real definition which is what I stated. Showing he is not to keen on this issue and is probable speaking out of turn in this matter. This paper reminds me of late night paper in Jr high when I would play video games to much and make vague assumptions hoping to get away with it as if I knew what I was talking about. Which even then I was able to cite the dictionary. Obviously this man did not find this task important in his daily life to prepare a proper brief on the matter of utmost importance to this institution and the world of free markets. Which is SOE Communist destruction of free markets. That is paraphrasing one of my Jr High teachers on the coastal destruction of rain forest in my Honors science class working on air to carbon molecular numbers.

I do not know if I can go on. Now I see the problem. This countries professor leaders think it is ok to present to this institution a not even elementary structure research paper. Obviously the general of this institution does not run a strict strong conservative house. As Dean table sitter and cognitional character check to Democracy multicultural presentation. If I saw this in front of my table I would have stopped it so far and state the last three presenators have a set an issue that my table feels like you do not have to work or present facts to me or show your work for my peers and the world who will be making major decisions based on you movements at my table. Thus then this day is done I would like to reschedule when you feel you can present a professional document to my table. Please. If not I know many a college professor who love this on their resume to present in front of me. Obviously there is no respect for my table. I am sorry for what every I did to make you think you could bring elementary work to this table and the worlds utmost forefront of the institution working on security matters of the Communist Chinese. This day is done please we will reschedule. That is a Jedda Fiqh general strong stric conservative.

Then he takes a simplex question and stretches it out to show ignorance and ends with the answer which is as long as the state has control. Which I can take the word to and make a paragraph out of and waste anyones time.

Next is the analogy of the city and state levels very good intro stating the structure is the same would love to see research and facts backing it though. As very upsetting where I want proof prove it  to me so I can make a decision folks lives rest on what you say this is graduate work at the highest level here. If I or one of my 5,000 names have to present in front of the an institution for the USA as Dean of Professing something. I have to state facts after each statement or issue so as to allow proper decisions to be made. This institution is being treated like a blog dump cite for when a scholar is not working and just expressing and keeping up chops.

I would have loved to see any real work behind this committee these folks wasted my time. Not one wrote research papers backing their statements. I am so upset. If I went before the UN or a US panel of war birds and did this I would demoted and power taken from me. MMMM maybe that country is trying to genocide the Democracy people Generals I believe so and um it is inherent that um ya I am 50% sure here guys. No this is graduate work this kind of presentation does not fly in the US government institutions. Throw me a bone ya I would get a 50 caliber pistol gavel thrown at me.

Then the ultimate fail which is stating the private companies are actually private and there is no government control. This is obviously stating he has not found the articles that state that even private enterprises have to have communist secretaries in them and the majority of them have red phones directly to the SASAC and PLA in them too. Which is in a major book about their economy. Then he states however, enormous clout and influence is used. Which he is not able to find the research that shows that the three are actual control methods of the Communist Chinese party to control the so called free enterprises.

Then he states the Communist Chinese party allows private institutions to join the party. In most instances the private parties are bullied into joining the party to gain market shares if they become a Democracy economic power check to the party. Where full private enterprises following Communist orders have been taken down because the owner did not want to join the Communist Chinese Party. This is a security review commission we do not want to hear how they play patty cake we want to hear the bad stuff and the research and facts proven it. It states it encourages to development wishes. NO there are full scale research articles on when so called free enterprise did not do like the Communist wanted their ip was stolen their market shares taken by an SOE and the law did nothing to help the owner. There are lines in front of the Communist head quarters with SOE's doing that to free enterprise that is never heard even when they fill petitions on it. As it is considered that all as per constitution economy is controlled by the state.

This next section I would love to hear about recapatalization quarterly by the centralized SASAC committee SOE banks. In which the US does it when in a recession once every ten years the CCP does it quarterly. As per research article. Please bring to me something on the forefront not a vague simple we can find that on the CIA cite or wikipedia. there you go debt forgiveness that touches on the bigger issue of recapitalization that is a brazen cognitional move almost a connect. I think I might see a research cite I am getting happy almost a parapgraph away, that a boy. I did not see predatory laws on the subsidy list like innovation laws or forced monopoly laws like the 75% of all shipping into or out of Communist China most be SOE shipping companies law. Almost there a research cite yes, I get to think the people in the world will have the highest institution on this matter statement with a research cite yaa. oh god. very good hit used a Chinese think tank which is a good one from the heart of the beast, great move. Beautiful you get a strong critical plus to balance out the critical failure. Love it with the research draining all value of SOE's. Would have loved to hear more how their noncompetitive nature is also a subside just the idea of an SOE is to be a state economic massive champion and not to compete fairly. But that move was great. That is how every single paragraph should be when presenting to the worlds highest government institution on this matter.

Talk in fact or pool when speaking to the government. As unless unprofessional and not using your real name to drive ideas. You are to prepare proper documents when presenting. First best so far, the last good one started with one line of a research in a structured outline that should have had each statement in point with a research cite as if you start with a research quote all should be with it.

So far in this committee you  have a man who stabbed himself and his thesis with the opposing sides research. Then you have an un proper structure citation and then finally a proper paragraph of a statement with research in it backing both statements up in the paragraph. Showing he knows how it should be but did not properly respect his career as a professional nor the institution itself as a government higher archy of world direction of light. The first one I can say maybe as he did not do it right once that he has no clue as we do have leaders in the US with no college education and barely a high school education (we are a free country and a Democracy). However, the fact this researcher did write one paragraph correct looks worse for him as he knows what he should have done properly.

SOE's being commercial this is interesting. Should not think your audience when speaking to a governmental institution knows what commercial means as this is a wide audience.  I can tell you abasbatucs means blue n red together as unit color. But I could be making that up. I have 6 college degrees and wall full of plaques awards certs and licenses and currently I am a loss for a root commercial definition on this issue. I get the drift of it as it goes on though that commercial is a definition of freedom of operation and that SOE's are more centralized controlled institutions. I get that but as wider audience should not have to be a genius to nexuses it together.

This area I would like to see how the Sovereign Wealth funds of the Communist Chinese have gained trillions in their financial warfare chests. As it is the SOE paying dividends and where their funds go if they make funds. Of course my issue was that according to the SOE's not making any more due to financial malfeasance of recapitalizing every quarter. I did not see how the Sovereign Wealth funds where gaining funds from the SOE's but there where. So I just thought that inflation was being created without being counted by the centralized SASAC. Which could show a reason for the worlds 50 trillion dissapearance almost over night of value in the world. Which I believe is a strategic suck of inflationary funds and accounting methods to drain the West of its value and accounting procedures.

See what happens is lets say we have two people. One keeps their books and knows what they are doing and has a proper flow sheet of accounting of numbers. Then the other constantly recapitalization but makes numbers dissapear. Well what happens when the first one goes so far into debt that it implodes the second one sucks in the value of that implosion as its numbers are not there and seems to be able to operate at a higher funding rate. Which in reality then the value of the first one just dissapears as the value of the second one was not properly accounted for and there is no way to stop the dissapearing world value. It goes somewhere. Which is into the accounting books of the one that is not keeping numbers correctly. It is the financial black whole theory. Where one creates a black whole of financing to cause the sucking in to the whole of the other. It is very complex would take me days to rework the report I wrote. Then that shows where 50 trillion dollars in Western value went. Which in my theory is to the Communist parties books that are not keeping proper deficit on their accounts which sucked in the value as per unfair competition in the market place. Very complex took me about a month to work that out to a coherent theory.

It is like a Bookie case I studied in Criminal justice class where the Bookie was able to improperly cook the books to keep the gangster giving him money while some how the funds dissapeared and the Gangsters did not figure it out until he got greedy. However in a free market it comes down to a government and how well their banks are internationally monitored which up until recently the Communist Chinese did not allow international monetering of their banks. Which they are still very touchy about their SOE banks. Which means it could be very easy for a bank to say oops where did that bad debt loan go to the SOE and have it dissapear. However, in world accounting it would have the kind of consequence that we saw with the dissapearing values in my tehory the algorythmic financial chaing took up almost a page of how it worked. It is like HTML scrip if you mess up one line even at the bottom or top the whole page comes out funny. I have no clue where that report ended up but nobody ever pays me or tells me if they read it or if it is TP or open, so you know, was not allowed to keep it though.

He does not speak on the Sovereign Wealth funds issue at all. Which is upsetting at this at the forefront of centralized economics econ war chest treasuries.

That is another thing not only the disresepced and impunity for research and proper presentations without proper citations that our leaders have these days. But $50 trillion dollars is gone has been for almost four years and not one person stated I wonder where it all went. They just kind of said oh well. I mean during the stock market crash of the 1920's the German's picked up most of the lost value and took it to Germany to prepare for the Socialist party. My theory based on German wealth picking of the 1920's was that through a myraid of industries and financial institutions it was sucked up in the Communist Chinese accounting black whole. In which i traced almost every single industry known to an kind to find the black whole. Which they did not get the value like we would think of a heist or theft as it has been spread out over very bad accounting for decades.

Which I theorized that every major recession from the savings and loans to the .com to the mortgage major value loss that creates infllation can be traced back to Communist Chinese black whole SOE bank accounting. As it goes somewhere. The Germans on the other hand thefted it what looked to be a heist. Cause value shifted hands in that stock market crash to later folks who became major funders of the German Socalist party.  I am not like these people who live nice lives get to be professionals in DC and present horrible elementry research papers. I do unprofessional work in hopes someday my bravindo can be seen as something for my elders to invest in so I can become professional as, as a unprofessional I blow these professionals out the water. I just do it as these days I wake up sometimes and all I live for is reading more to try and protect the world from another Soviet genocide or Communist Chinese genocide or even worse a full scale SOE pin point network for the fascist to militarily work towards like the German Socialist did. I just could not see my life without working against the Communist Chinese propaganda and economic warfare. It engulfs my life everything I see either is pro Democracy or Communist Chinese fascist genocidal.

Then he spews out the white papers of the Communist Chinese without citing pages or documents. With little incite that I could have read from the white pages myself. and the institution already published.

Then he uses a great cite to show the political heavy cultural control of the major industries. Which is a great move. Finally uses an empirical research from a high ranking very peticular institution. Really good. Would have liked to know the document he is citing though so I can collect it or use it. citation failure of a graduate presentation to a government institution.

I like the straight forward fact with confidence but in a real world application you lose ground in international debates with Communist Chinese officials who will be there and ours will not as we can't afford it. Now if we could just get one of the last presentators to have a strong active voice with backing statements with facts and polls and research then I will be proud of this committee so far, failure is what I see in these minds trying to lead but failing to hold light to an institution the MSS which will blast your horrible presented paper in front of any foreing committee on trade issues with us or them.

Statement stating that Communist China still exercises a substantial degree of control is against the viewpoint of the idea that SOE's are only 50% of the economy. As substantial is common textually defined as more than 50%. indigenous innovation policies that is a major SOE issue and you barely brush over it without a major citation for the readers and wide audience of the world leaders.

Statement stating in a recent essay then stating the author is not a graduate style citation. This horrible work for the world to use as a proper US government presentation. Author no paper title horrible. This is horrible it does not go over their constitutional mandate that their SOE's should be the world trumpets for the Communist party and be used to destroy free markets, nor the massive papers explaining the c

Allocation of capital resources I am hoping to hear about SOE sovereign wealth funds against private equity funds and of course SOE banks against private banks here. He makes a weak conclusion about a very serious issue. That the private enterprise are soar. No they are being destroyed by SOE's many articles about Chinese citizens business being destroyed by the Communist Chinese SOE's along with foreign businesses doing that to because of unfair capital massive owned by the single party. Does not speak on how when a private bank or firm tries to lend money to people who believe in a Democracy government that the business is destroyed by SOE unfair competition.

Another weak passive comment. SOE's are well places. No my friend SOE's own all resources and land and take it without any asking from free enterprises and citizens. Hence the massive amount of protest going on over closed business and land losses. It is not clear that SOE's receive better treatment. Obviously this man has no clue about what he is talking about. The SOE's as per constitutional mandate and as per SASAC standards do what they wish as per SOE Ansteel's allowance of violation of anti trust when 30 rare earth resources that monopolized a specific earth mineral then conglomerated down to on mineral entity was allowed to join ventures with Ansteel then be used around the world as the primary Communist SOE to pry open free enterprise steel companies with Ansteel doing joint ventures as they violated anti trust protocals and monopolies. Which is just one out of thousands of SOE's that have had the same unfair supply chain cartel anti trust violation allowed by the Communist Chinese specifically to destroy free enterprises in the world.

Next
Presentator 
Dr. Adam Hersh, Economist, Center for American Progress
Statements
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/12_02_15/hersh_testimony.pdf


First thing I look for in a governmental research report to a security institution is the bibliography of citations. This article has one and has enough for at least 3 per page. Which is about one citation per paragraph which is great. This I can tell already is going to make me proud to be an American. While thinking in my mind if a foreign country has to make a decision they will think that this is solid report and can rely upon the USA for great leadership. However as this is a progressive institution I can tell you already that at least two citations would be progressive one per paragraph is not considered progressive but the norm. This may not even be the US progressive battle or proper document for weaponization of cognitional articles but my first thought is no matter what as per the proper structure proper understanding of cognitional battle the fight I am about to witness is going to be a good one, strong. 


Cognitional maritial arts a fine art form of agrumenting as a bare knuckle debator. Must martial arts and argue at the same time, using the nerve endings of cogntion and physical control to strength the issues at hand. 


So alrady smile on my face iced limon coffee pitch black with sludge at the bottom ready to critique. 


Dramatically different that is stance you best be ready to defend on as it is a crane stance with one leg up very imbalanced idea. The current SOE SASAC is not much different than the basic MAo structure that he created to control the SOE's in the first place. Which still owns 75% of the economy so dramatic which usually is a word left for bigger than substantial as substantial is defined at the bright line of 51% means dramatic is a complete backwards. The system is dramatically unchanged, you fall on your but and are left in a position of very bad posture. The only thing that has changed besides it being very rich, is that they created a transitional economic institution. Which was supposed to as per WTO holdings disband SOE's. But the institution has taken hundreds of thousands of SOE's and just conglomerated then under other SOE's to make them more powerful. Thus advancing MAO's theory of State Owned Economic control. While using a Soviet style less than 25% free enterprise owned market to show case areas for investors to think they are a free market. The WTO thought it was a transtitional economic institution to turn it into a free market. It was not and is not. It is the constitutionally mandated transitional institution as per Das Capital to empower the SOE's to be bigger to transform the world into a one major SOE single party controlled communist world. one of your limbs is hurt making further strikes difficult after such a bad stance on such a power structure. If you have ever been to North Korea and seen the literal obvious showcase of how life in Communist North Korea is great. Then you can easily analogize how the less than 25% of the Communist Chinese market is free enterprise is used to hide the SOE's still conglomerating bigger and bigger violating WTO and World Bank wishes and beliefs. Both Mao and Stalin stated they would at some time have to become partially capitalist to act like they are going to become capitalist so as to draw in the free markets to destroy them. Which is part of Mao's 150 year strategy and that is still happening. There is no change to the plan of Communist single party take over for their race. The Crane stance is very powerful it shows complete confidence in ones own abilities. Thus the opposition as per normal competition morality goes harder on the crane stance. 


Sweeping reforms. Again what reforms this is a brazen swing if I dare further hurt your cognitional body you may be harms way. Sweeping reforms what are these a democracy no they still vote intra a party, free enterprise no still 75% SOE with the 25% still heavily controlled by SASAC and single party. What reforms are these. Maybe they are richer and more money but there are no sweeping reforms. I block you swing miss. Only sweeping reforms other than the above stated one is that the propoganda unit is trillions richer and the unit is world expanded now to cloak and show case its barely 25% free market as if it is a mircale economy and the same Marxist racist cultural state controlled destruction of all other cultures and parties economic structure.  You are trying to use your oppenets best moves against me by then attacking with practice for us. Which is not working this is a security review institution. We want to know things that we need to review for security, let the business review institution deal with the propaganda for good things. Security is about the things we need to worry about. 


You make a great point for security review of financial institutions all being owned would have loved to have a research cite on that that furthers the need for  my table to research not just some air swing at the thing. you are smacked silly with your own stance and your master laughs as your strong stance does not start strong and leaves way for weakness with no proper weilding of energy points of research. 


He makes a statement of still evolving. Which fails to represent the statements that the Communist Chinese will not transition their SOE's out as stated when we let them, nor will they become a Democracy system as they stated they would when we let them in the WTO. The youth are very head strong and not following elders contracts. Then they try and make weaker minds believe for the their Das Capital transition from weak SOE's to major econ military weapons SOE's that they are a capitalist system just a state capitalism, which there is not such thing that is communism, then they state they are a Democracy just a Democracy with Chinese characteristics. That would be like stating the Nazi's where a Democracy with German characteristics or that the Soviets where a Democracy with Russian characteristics. 


This man also shows fear in presenting against the Communist Chinese. Which shows a source of information that they do not think their domestic espionage counter institutions secret warriors and other methodically instittuions of Democracy militants not with Chinese characteristics or german or russian just a Democracy will not protect them or properly refute 30,000 booted out of a country if they threaten. 


Ah yes the strongest paper presented of course will be the one that completely goes against the truth. "Beijing neither controls nor coordinates everything in the Chinese economy" There is truth to that statement but not what it is purported to be. The Communism Chinese literally control everything in the economy. Obviously this man knows nothing about mapping systems or structural stat teams. This mans premise is backed with the idea that local governments make all the decisions for their economy. Thus then again that is like stating that local political parties do not have directives and controls over the issues they are presenting. These local people all live in Bejing and then go home from time to time to implement Communist structural control from Bejing. On top of that every town city village has a local communist secretary that specifically daily gets updates from the Communist Propaganda unit on what they should be doing today, just like the Nazi's did the Soviets did and most fascist system don. 


This is a great statement obvious this man should be speaking to the business council not the security review council "remarkable economic success" really ya the German's use of SOE's to prempting their military movements for weigh points of resources and funds and espionage turn of political parties was remarkable, the Soviets ability to control all institutions and enslave their people was remarkable, the Communist Chinese use of both latter examples economic fascist warfare strategies is also remarkable, but again not in the way you are purporting, it is remarkable it has been allowed to get this far not because they are doing something good. 



Then he states that local control is bigger than central control to support its own SOE's. Which under cuts the SASAC's sovereign wealthy funds and control of the SOE banks which are all local, which all SOE financing goes through the SASAC which is in Beijing. 


Here is a security review issue that there is private institutions being purported to be free when they are still heavily SOE controlled. But again no researching backing it. 


Another key issue how government Communist officials take high ranking SOE positions. No research backing it or explanation of why it is a security threat as per economic control by the Communist will never allow a Democracy transition as there is no opposition to fund a vote against them. 


I like the cheating part that is great. Would have loved a major research article for that one but at least the issue is presented to create research on it. 


Then he takes the side of Communism and centralized economic control for military actions, by stating that the current innovation policies that force ip seizure and led to monopolized rare earth resources are a good strategy for all as that makes economic sense to do for their competition and structural building yey stealing and thieving as stated in his prior statement I guess can make a profound economic sense. Ridiculous the type of man that makes a statement they have created most of the wealth by cheating on economic contracts then states that they have profound economic sense is not a really smart type of man. 
Then goes ont o state they are regulating financial sectors but above he stated the state just outright owns them all and controls all financial institutions. So they are obviously not regulating but controlling. Regulations are for governments that refeer not governments that control. 
This man makes no sense to me he goes from a security issue of cheating on international agreements then states that it is profound economic sense. What kind of logic is that. Then instead of properly addressing the unfair violations with specific areas for research he states vague obvious already known areas unfair advantages and the most easiest form of cognitional warfare on this subject workers rights and environments, he does not get into one of his power points or any of the prior cognition he states as areas of concern, he just says its profound logical sense. Then he leaves a vague statement of these policies are of US economic principle and US history, I am guessing the idea of researching the fascist economic model, but no clear research backing this statement here so taking a guess as there is no nexus from the policies of Communist China being free market or the policy of US trying to stop fascist economic models. 


what policies the a research article linking soviet issues analogized to communist issues and policies taken towards them would be nice if you are going state policy matters. 


Then he speaks on origins
Mao erar centrally planned economy that is something that is still heavily there and I oppose this idea that the Communist Party as a whole or unit is not party of the central control of a single collective militarized economic issue. As with no opposition to them to act on their own will all entities act for the whole of the Communist thus being in vague as this two page so far is vaguities it is still centrally controlled by a single party. 


makes an inconsistent statement as prior he stated that the Mao era centralized economy is no more, yet then states that that in Mao error it was all local brigades doing the business. Thus controlled I am guessing by local communist party officials which today is the same thing still taking orders from communist china to control the local workers except entities of SOE's have just been conglomerated to much bigger entities due to the SASAC for easier control of the centralized government. Which again I have not heard about how all these local SOE's ahve become one or two major SOE's in the area making it easier for centralized control of the economic production. The idea that at system of once tons of small communist party controlled SOE's that are now still tons but just more conglomerated for easier centralized control I feel refutes his whole thought process on how the economy seems to be decentralizing. Along with that I do not see this issue of origins as a security issue especially the way it is being presente.d I would have presented it as the origins where actually more decentralized with more SOE's spread further apart harder to control. Now their SOE's are conglomerated for easier militarized control.. Security issues are how they can hurt us not how they are decentralizing it is great, wrong institution wrong thought process. 


Then he proves my point that they have party secretaries that control city village and town activities for the communist party by citing their existence. Which he stated that local villages have more autonomy. What is the exsistance of a secretary of the Communist party? It is to mandate to the organs what to do. 


Love this area of research using research to back up direction of contact and swinging great connections for thought process. Just think it could be direct to the cognitional body areas better this is like attacking the shoulder the issue. 
He states again they control the financial system thus agreeing that in economics they are not a free market. As free markets are based on the idea of non state owned banks or control of financing, as any party or culture can get financing in a free state where as in a fascist state any opposing party to the majority leading party can't get financing. 


Speaks on State financing issues. Thats good for local projects. Does not speak on historical influence of soe to private local contracts or orginins of security issues there. Mainly makes the point that local governments are being allowed to operate. However, does not show the nexuse of the Communist secretaries involved in the local matters. I guess central government is not well enough defined for me. I see the US central government as the Federal building. I see federal buildings in every country. Where federal mandates come out of I analogize Communist secretaries as a centralize form of control however, more branching in cities and towns and villages unlike US federal buildings which are not political and are just in counties. I think the idea he is trying to make is that cities are making more decisions. While I think the idea I am trying to make is that the Communist foothold on villages has become more invasive through empowering more sort of Federal buildings in cities and villages as their Communist party officials are still making more decisions. I see it still cenralized just more spread out for more control. Kind of like how DC spread out their federal buildings. Howeve rin Communist CHina the communist party buildings analogizable to US Federal buildings in some sort of way, are in every single city and town and village. Where as in the US federal buildings are just county and do not mandage economic issues as does the centralized communist headquaters in each city town and village. Just because that area makes the decisions he thus goes against the idea and still states that the centralized government the Communist Chinese or the local officials which are thus are still making the decisions but just more empowered as their centralized system has become strong enough to spread branches.  He pruprots that the local cities are decentralized and have more sway to make decisions. I state not the Communist Centralized government is stronger than ever and their foothold and footprint is bigger and ever expanding in every single city and town and village for more control. Thus in thought process the Communist party headquarters in each city are the centralized government. Thus the local officals are still acting out of centralized order without being allowed to decentralize. As decentralization means non federal seperation of state and free ideas. There is non here so thus I see his thought process as wrong and not properly seeing the centralized foot hold getting stronger. As the more local control is not decentralized it is still centralized Communist headquarters locally controlling it. Just more powerfully and central has gained more control. Where as before you may have had a Communist headquarter in a province or what we call district. Now the central control of the Communist Party has spread major control bases to every single city village and town. Where the Communist centralized control has become bigger and stronger. A decentralized from of government is what we have. Where local governments are not controlled by the federal government. In which in communist China is every single communist head quarter as per their constitution and their actions. Therefore, in the US we are decentralized the majority of political parties listen to their political parties but the federal government doe snot mandate economic control over the areas economy as SOE's are not controlled by a single centralized government institution. As such, this man is wrong. The cities and townships have become more centrally controlled and the Communist party or central government more empowerd for daily life decisions. Where Communist headquarters where very few and far and spread apart today the centralized economic control party of the Communist are in ever single area thus spreading the centralized control even more. Where daily phone calls and Communist Party propoganda are centrally controlled for all political officials to fallow. 


At this point I am losing steam and can't wait for the brain strom clean up of where I get t obuild my thoughts out. Usually I do not do this as it takes a lot of time unless a journal has a open request for one of my chops. However, I want to on this one. 


In this area I am getting the gist that local centralized officials are getting more control of the economy and the centralized communist party is gaining control at the same time. 


Well taken point great contacts can't see the security issue with regards to this information as it is not properly stating the threat to the US in a form of origin and current it is just stating history, without proper application of security issues to the question. 


Does not fullfill the needs of the institution it is reporting as there are areas of historical threat to the US as applied to the question for example. Historically the towns of the Communist Chinese where centrally controlled by a provincial Communist party headquarters. During this time the threat level to the US as an economic threat to free markets was low as control was very hard to have. Today we see that the Communist Chinese centralized control is ever stronger and growing. As the local centralized communist official headquarters have been able to grab more and more control of the local economy for the communist Chinese. Thus then the security issue is here is that the economy of the Communist Chinese is becoming more and more controlled by a sprawling ever centralizing government of the Communist Chinese Party. That there would be a thesis of the origins of the issue applied to todays isssues of economic security reviews of the Communist Chinese. 
The basic issue of the whole institution purposes is security issues. So far I have not seen but a few comments that he refutes himself after making they are only advancing because of cheated international contracts then it is profound logical miracle of a government that they are. In the same paragraph. Then an issue that is not properly applied to security. Origins are great true, horrible off topic of the issue of how centralized governmetns are a threat to free markets and how this applies. But great historical overview if we where in an economic historical society. This society is a security society. Thus everything needs to be applied to security issues. 


Then he makes a counter intuitave statement. Where above he has stated that the Communist Chinese control all financial matters. Which is true, then he goes and states that "But the key point is that fully three-quarters to fourfifths of all fixed investment in China is not derived from capital sources over which the central 
government in Beijing holds direct control." Which is impossible, as the central government is the Communist Chinese party and so long as the Communist secretary in that area or that entity of the financial SOE system as all Finances are SOE owned is a Communist party member then it is still centrally controlled. 


Along with that the majority of capital sources are from Sovereign Wealth funds which are directly controlled by high ranking Communist Beijing officials. 


round tripping now that is a serious security issue that needs full scale work. The idea that a company owns a company in a foreign land but supplies it locally and takes the foreign treasury earnings from the land and exports it back to the land which it came from is a serious issue when a country is massively in deficit. As the total jobs earned taken from the total income kept in the country is lost to a major issue in which it is not worth allowing the foreign economic security issue to invest in business or own business as the round tripping takes more taxes and investment funds back to Communist China than if it was a local business owner or patriot. Lets see if he talks about how local governments fund their development as applied to a security issue to the USA. Which is the point of all this not a historical lecture it is applicational to the issue at hand of security to the USA. How does your question apply to a security issue. Which he is not answering but doing a great history review but not being applicable or applying the issue at hand to the main issue of the institution. 


I like the issue brought out how folks think Communist China's success is because they did not allow Round Tripping in their economy. That my friend could be a turn to their so called miracle economy to keep them out. 


love the citations on round tripping this is great. I would love to have a whole committee just on round tripping issues as it is a big deal. This area is a critical hit area very good research citations points on pare hear so far no inconstant statements going against each other great love the round tripping hits so far. 


He states an area of security issues where corruption is an issue in entrepreneurial. Which means a secret war kind of thing where if you are corrupt and Communist you are cool if you are straight and not Communist you are not cool. 


showing how the central government controls local majorly they use their areas ability to export business to help them advance or keep political jobs. 


I would have liked to hear an application of that issue as applied to our economic security instead he is just doing a historical overview with no ties to the main issue at hand which is security. My firs thoughts is how the US political parties to do not hinge political affiliation like we did during the cold war on how much the political affiliate can export and give them quotas, instead it is how much they can get for donations. Security implications of that would have been nice. but no application of history review to security in this paper but a few places again he counter refutes seeming showing strong stance but scarred to dig into the issue of security.




He makes a aserious mistake in stating that funneling large amounts of funds to inefficent world job suckers is not something that works so the officials must be doing something correct. He does not make the correlation of the lost $51 trillion of western value to the idea of Communist Party cadres missing debt loans and making them literally dissapear. I mean literally we caught one guy on camera taking a bank loan as a Communist Cadre told him just earase the loan it never happened. Even though the institution could not pay as it was under selling its own overhead to keep the jobs for its people and bring more jobs in to take them from the world. The long term affects of the idea that the inefficient funds that we know where funnelled we do not know if there wher eproperly calculated in the accounting books for the Communist Chinese deficit. Which we beleive they where not.  


Explains how communist officials directed funds to manufacturing efficiency but does not draw the distinction that these are subsidies that is a recapitalization quarterly that is doing it. Where as the US recaps when in a deficit every ten years. 


So far I have found this article in more of praise of the Communist Chinese fascist economic model then I have found any security threats to the US. The Paper seems to make the economy look as if there are not security threats as the application of their model of fascist economics towards the free market model was not properly taken into account with regards to security issues. I find this article really well written but way off topic in its application of the questions I wished to have answered with application to security issues. 


ya the words he uses at the end shows he did not take this research issue into application for the security of this country. Flourish is the idea to allow this predatory fascist economy to persist and go one, seeds means he knows what is going on as he is seeding the idea of allowing it to happen, supportive is a word passage creation of obvious inability to stand ground on security matters with regards to this matter.


horrible grammatic ending paragraph the lines are not needed local and national government is all we have so the idea of separation it as a big deal is horrible writing. horrible ending no real good ground here except a nice part about round tripping where he almost touches on security review application but moves on without even properly dealing with security issues.  This article was dead to me at the start anyways I could tell right away he was a sympathetic to the over-dominate fascist economic model. 


He was placed with a task and failed to the task. As the task was to answer the questions with regards to security implications. He answered the questions but did not apply security issues. Well written though and great structure. 


next
Dr. Roselyn Hsueh, Assistant Professor, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/12_02_15/12_2_15_hsueh_testimony.pdf
Right away she fails there is no new capitalism it is old communist Das Capitalist transitional SOE's growing massive to destroy free markets or capitalism Here very thesis shows she knows nothing about the Communist Chinese and the transitional period of the SOE massive growth to destroy free markets to implement German Socialist Soviet Communist China's desires.
I would not even let her further in the Dojo. However, I will read on but I can tell her topic will be way off point to and swinging outside the ring in the back alley not even anywhere close to being in the ring of the security cognitional battles. No Bibliography presenting to a government security review commission as an elementary school debate paper.


At this point in time I would like to know who is collecting presenators for the review commission as this direction of intelligence gathering was and is horrible. So far this whole committee has been very biased to allowing SOE's to destroy free markets as per their cognition's. 


have to get rest now will push forward more tomorrow. 














































in Concluding remarks I wish to speak on US government seminars and committees and analogize them to the cold war days with my two Kentucky and DC that I have been to and how upset I was to see such non graduate work being presented.