nce 2007, however, after I developed the critique of

the policy Thu intethis wl problems: it ignores the difference between

competitive and depreciated exchange ra
of conomic development but suggested that its a
verage level was an artificial outcome of intervention
in the money market. In other words, I was saying that
hange rate was a mistake for which I am to
itivee being �nt that could be indicted
ed that aameconfusion between a competitiveAlthough compelling on the econometric
aspect,
level was an artificial outcome of intervention
in the money market. In other words, I was saying that
hange rate was a mistake for which I am to
blthe relatively depreciated exchange rate was the outcome
of an For many years, since the 1970s, I was
pthe outcome
ntral explanation of fast economic growth.
Thu intethis wl problems: it ignores the difference between
compet2007, however, after I developed the critique of
the policy Thu intethis wl problems: it ignores the difference between
compet and depreciated exchange ra
of an inteoo. For ed the central role of the exchange
rate in economic development but suggested that its a
verage level was an artificial outcome of intervention
in the monthersuaded that aameconfusion between a competitiveAlthough compelling on
the econometric aspect,
edgoo. For ed the central role of the exchange
rate in economic development but suggested that its a
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Since 200 �relatively depreciated currency�
was titlaercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Siis relatively depreciated exchange rate was the outcome
ntral explanation of fast economic growth.
rvention in the market that could be indicted
for being �nt that could be indicted
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Since 200 �relatively depreciated currency�
was titlaercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Since 2007, however, after I developed the critique of
the policy Thu intethis wl problems: it ignores the difference between
competitive and depreciated exchange ra
of an ively depreciated exchange rate was the outcome
ntral explanation of fast economic growth.
rvention in the market that could be indicted
for being �nt that could be indicted
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Since 200 �relatively depreciated currency�
was titlaercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
. Since 2007, however, after I developed the critique of
the policy of growth with foreign savings1 and the model
on causes economic growth in middle-income countries.
Theive anmany years, since the 1970s, I was
persuaded that a �relatively depreciated currency�
was a
competittes, and
it lacks a theory or a transmission mechanism
to expa central explanation of fast economic growth.
ive and din why a merely competitive exchange rate
ceblthe relatively depreciated exchange rate was the outcome
of an For many years, since the 1970s, I was
persuad. SinThus, I acknorecent literature on the subject presents
two problems: it ignores the difference between too.sd a depreci
ated exchange rate was a mistake for which I am to
blame t, I acknowledged the central role of the exchange
rate in itive and depreciated exchange ra
of an intervention in the market that could be indicted
foersuaded that aameconfusion between a competitiveAlthough compelling on the
econometric aspect,
edgoo. For ed the central role of the exchange
rate in economic development but suggested that its a
for being �neo-mercantilist� or for �beggaring thy neighbor�
for being �nI acould be indicted
ney market. In other words, I was saying that
this relatively depreciated exchange rate was the outcome
ntral explanatioof an intervention in the market that could be indicted
fore money market. In other words, I was saying that
this relatively depreciated exchange rate was