Editor,

(Comments on "Internet war on economists is lesson for intellectuals," November 14):

It is pretty clear that China has made massive strides over the past 25 years. It would seem silly to say that the economists have not had an influence in this, along with the pragmatic political leadership. The danger now is that theoretical economists start to play games that have huge effects on the public.

Economics is not an exact science Galbraith has stated this repeatedly over his career. Much of economic policy is aimed at psychological effects rather than real financial controls. They have also been the puppets of business and political leaders with their own objectives to achieve just like the cigarette industry found plenty of "experts" to tell us that smoking wasn't really harmful.

As with all these things, we must look critically at what the "experts" are telling us.

Ex-File via e-mail

Editor,

China's economists are of very high calibre.

China's failure to narrow the gap between the rich and poor or failure to generate enough jobs is not because of the poor quality of the economists, but the poor quality of some public servants and corruption.

Sometimes, those who are well connected have protection, tax exemptions (or they don't pay taxes at all) and are able to buy their way through layers of red tape to get a business licence. Some public servants do not behave like they are serving the public interests, but rather their own. The power they hold is often abused.

If the red tape and corruption was reduced, I am sure China will be able to generate more jobs and grow faster.

So the debate should not be about how good or bad are our economists, but should be about how to get rid of or control inefficient and corrupt public servants. After that, our economists can do their job.

Fairminded, via e-mail

(China Daily 11/18/2005 page4)