大家论坛

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 833|回复: 5

[经济学人] [2008.11.13] The World Economy:重装上阵的全球金融体系

[复制链接]

198

主题

8250

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
20495
发表于 2010-4-28 21:49 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
The world economy
世界经济


Redesigning global finance
重新设计全球金融体系

Nov 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Government leaders cannot rewrite the rules this weekend. But they can still do some useful things
政府们无法在本周末重新改写金融规则,但仍可进行一些有益的改良。




IT IS tempting to dismiss the upcoming G20 meeting as a piece of political theatre. Presidents and prime ministers from a score of rich and emerging economies will descend on Washington, DC, ostensibly to remake the rules of global finance. Several have talked grandly of a sequel to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, which created the post-war system of fixed exchange rates and established the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. That is nonsense. The original Bretton Woods lasted three weeks and was preceded by more than two years of technical preparation. Today’s crisis may be the gravest since the Depression, but global finance will not be remade in a five-hour powwow hosted by a lame-duck president after less preparation than many corporate board meetings. Yet for three reasons it is still a meeting worth having.
人们有理由相信即将举行的20国集团财长和央行行长会议(以下简称20国会议)并不是单纯的政治表演。来自发达国家以及新兴经济国家的各位总统、总理、首相等元首汇聚在华盛顿特区的目的是为了重建全球金融规则。一些人盛赞此次会议是1944年布雷顿森林会议的续篇;众所周知,那次会议建立了战后著名的固定汇率制、国际货币基金组织和世界银行。不过这些人的观点可谓荒谬:布雷顿森林会议持续了3周,而且各项措施在会议召开以前已经进行了2年多的技术操作。而当前的经济危机是继大萧条以来最严重的一次,全球金融体系不可能通过低能总统主办的土著会议实现重建,更何况会议的准备工作还不如一些公司的董事会议充分。如果定要找出些理由来证明这是一个值得召开的会议的话,以下三个原因可以算在内。

The first is that this could mark the beginning of a better multilateral economic system. The G20, created after the emerging-market crises a decade ago, is not perfect for today’s problems. It excludes a big economy with an admired system of financial regulation (Spain) but includes a mid-sized country that has become irrelevant to global finance because of its own mismanagement (Argentina). Still, the G20 includes most of the key parts of the rich and emerging world, making it a better forum for global economic co-operation than the G7 group of rich countries, which has until now held the stage.
首当其冲的原因应该是:此次会议的召开标志着一个全新多边经济体系的开端,而这个系统比以往的任何一个都更优秀。20国集团建立于10年前爆发的新兴市场危机之后,因此对于当前的经济问题,它无法制定出完美的应对方案。当时20国集团名没有接纳西班牙这个经济大国,而后者拥有令人羡慕的金融立法系统;反而吸收了阿根廷,不过由于自身管理不善,阿已经日益游离于全球金融事务以外了。尽管全部由发达国家组成的7国集团会议目前仍十分活跃,但20国集团包括了发达国家和新兴经济国家的大部分重要角色,因此可称为一个更好的全球经济合作论坛。

Don’t just stand there
不要止步不前


In the short term that co-operation, and this weekend’s meeting, should focus on the second good reason for the Washington summit: crisis management. Although the panic in the credit markets shows signs of abating, the economic news gets ever grimmer. Global demand is slumping as rich economies plunge into what, collectively, could be their deepest recession since the 1930s. Pernicious deflation, though still unlikely, is no longer an idle risk (see article). Emerging economies are being hit hard by weakening exports and the collapse of private capital flows. The G20 summiteers cannot prevent this, but they can stave off a slump with zealous and co-ordinated action to prop up domestic demand and provide resources to cash-strapped emerging economies.
从短期来看,各项合作及本周的会议都应该聚焦危机管理这个议题上;而危机管理也是第二个支持华盛顿峰会召开的重要原因。信贷市场的恐慌已经表现出了经济硬度降低的迹象,然而经济的整体情况更加恐怖。由于发达国家的经济整体上已经跌入了自30年代以来最深入的衰退,所以全球需求锐减。尽管通缩发生的可能性依然不大,但也不再像以前那样显得毫无可能。而新兴经济受到了出口额削减和私有资本流失带来的重创。20国集团与会人员无法防止这类事情的发生,但是他们可以利用积极的态度和通力协作来刺激内需,并向资金短缺的新兴经济国家提供援助,借此来阻止经济萧条。

Some countries understand the urgency. China’s stimulus plan, even if it is a little less dramatic than first trumpeted, is an important step (see article). Others, such as Germany, are being woefully timid (see article). A collective commitment by those who can afford it will pack more punch than individual initiatives. Useful too, would be a pledge to cushion the slump in private capital flows to emerging economies, through both central-bank swap lines and the IMF. Countries with ample reserves, particularly China, Japan and the oil exporters, should promise now, and without preconditions, that they will lend to the IMF if it needs cash in the coming months. The G20 should also pledge its unequivocal support for free trade—a pledge that would gain credence if the leaders made a commitment to complete the Doha round of trade talks.
一些国家对世界经济形势的危急程度有清晰的认识:尽管中国的刺激措施不如开始宣传的那样激动人心,但仍然是重要的举措;而德国和其它一些国家面对危机时所表现出的怯懦已经到了可悲的程度。有实力的国家团结在一起所做出的集体承诺比各自为政的自救方案更有实力。通过央行的货币互换协议和国际货币基金组织向新兴经经济国家提供援助,也可以帮助缓冲该地区私有资本流动的骤降。拥有充足储备的国家,比如中国、日本和原油出口国应该承诺,如果国际货币基金组织在未来的数月中出现资金需求,他们将无条件的向其进行贷款。同时20国集团也应承诺向自由贸易提供明确的支持,如果这些国家元首承诺完成多哈回合的贸易谈判,那么这个承诺将会让彼此取得信任。

But what of the larger ambitions of “fixing” global finance? Here the temptation for hollow promises is greatest of all (see article). The summiteers can make progress, but only if they temper their hyperbole with realism and humility.
“修复”全球金融体系与更大宏伟的志向有什么关系呢?最具诱惑力的是可以做出空头支票似的承诺。但与会者只有使用务实精神和谦虚态度调整他们的夸夸其谈,会议才能取得一些实质性进展。

International finance cannot just be “fixed”, because the system is a tug-of-war between the global capital markets and national sovereignty. As cross-border financial flows have expanded and big financial institutions have far outgrown their domestic markets, finance has become one of the most globalised parts of the world economy. At the same time, finance is inherently unstable, so the state has to play a big role in making it safer by lending in a crisis in return for regulation and oversight. Governments broadly welcome the benefits of global finance, yet they are not prepared to set up either a global financial regulator, which would interfere deep inside their markets, or a global lender of last resort. Instead, regulated financial firms are overseen by disparate national supervisors (in America they are sometimes state-based). The IMF helps cash-strapped countries, but the fund was conceived in an era when capital flows were restrained. It is puny relative to the size of global markets today.
然而国际金融体系不是那么容易就可以被“修复”的,因为其中牵扯到全球资本市场和国家主权之间的角力。随着跨国资金流动的增加以及重量级金融机构业务的海外扩张,金融体系表现出与生俱来的不稳定性;因此政府必须承担重任,通过在危机过程中进行贷放取得监督和管理的权利,借此让金融体系变得更加安全。总体上来说,各国政府对全球金融体系带来的实惠持欢迎态度,但是他们既没有准备好建立一个可以深入干预本国市场的全球金融监管机构,也没有准备使用设立最后贷款人。

This tug-of-war helped create today’s mess. Disparate rules led to loopholes and “regulatory arbitrage”. Many emerging economies sought to protect themselves against sudden outflows of foreign capital by building up vast foreign-exchange reserves. That fuelled the global credit bubble. Given today’s crisis, the incentives to amass reserves have only grown.
上述角力对今天的混乱局面起到了推波助澜的作用。立法缺乏性容易导致监管漏洞和“监管套利行为”的出现。很多新兴经济国家寻求通过构建巨额外汇储备的方式保护自己不受国外资本突然外流的打击。该举措助长了国际信贷泡沫。当今危机形势更加刺激了外汇储备的积累。

The contradictory desires for national sovereignty and global capital markets limit the room for an overhaul. For all the grand rhetoric, no politician is proposing to cede sovereignty to a global regulator, let alone create a true global lender of last resort. Nor is anyone proposing a wholesale effort to curb capital flows (which is just as well). With no great design on the drawing board, it is better to concentrate on the more modest goal of improving the current muddled contraption through a series of politically feasible enhancements that together could amount to a third justification for this meeting.
国家主权和资本市场全球化是一对相互对立的诉求,因此也就限制了监察的力度。尽管很多政客精于浮夸的花言巧语,但现实中没有人提议向国际监管机构转让主权,更不要说建立一个真正的全球最后贷款人了;同样也没有人提议共同努力约束资本流动。在最佳方案没有出炉以前,还不如将精力集中在更为适中的目标上:通过一系列可行的政治努力来改善目前一团浆糊的金融产品,而这也正是此次会议得以召开的第三个原因。

Refit the existing engine
改装现有的金融引擎


One example is Gordon Brown’s idea of a “college of supervisors” to oversee the biggest financial firms. Another is a global set of norms on what should be regulated and how: from hedge funds to leverage limits, national regulators would do a better job if they acted in concert. By all means start to look at schemes to revamp the IMF by scaling back Europe’s presence and enhancing emerging economies’ clout. But it would be a mistake to rely only on the IMF. The Fed’s new swap lines with other central banks are an important reassurance for countries that face a liquidity squeeze; those swap lines deserve to be systematised and broadened.
英相布朗关于成立“监督者学院”来对大型金融公司进行监管的理念就是最好的例证。另一个例子就是制定一个全球规范来约定应该对什么对象实行怎样的监管:从对冲基金到信贷投资限额的问题上,如果各国的监管机构如果可以通力协作,应该可以更好的完成使命。目前确实应该关注改进国际货币基金组织的计划,减少欧洲国家话语权的同时应该提高新兴经济国家的影响力。不过单纯的依赖国际货币基金组织也是错误的决定。美联储同其他中央银行签订的外汇掉期对于面临流动性银根紧缩国家的复兴同样重要;那些外汇掉期应该被系统化,并且值得推广。

Modest as they sound, such repairs will be difficult and time-consuming. This summit should get them off to a start. It won’t earn anyone a place in the history books alongside John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White. But it would be a lot more useful than more gusts of grandiose rhetoric.
这些修复计划虽然听起来比较适度,但实操中将会非常耗时耗力。此次峰会应该促成这些计划的启动,虽然没有人会通过峰会有赢得与国际货币基金组织设计者约翰•梅纳德•凯恩斯和亨利•迪克特•怀特一同名垂史册的机会,但此次会议所起到的作用应该远远大于一阵浮夸的豪言壮语。
回复

使用道具 举报

219

主题

8166

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
20293
发表于 2010-4-28 21:59 | 显示全部楼层
IT IS tempting to dismiss the upcoming G20 meeting as a piece of political theatre.这话的意思跟你的译文正好相反啊

首当其冲的原因应该是……首当其冲这个词用错了。第一句没有用ever better,所以没有“比以往任何一个”的意思。The G20, created after the emerging-market crises a decade ago, is not perfect for today’s problems.这来那个句话之间也没有因果关系,只是说十年前建立的东西不能解决现在的问题。这段话最后两句之间的意思是连贯的,尽管G20没包含西班牙却包含了阿根廷,但它包括了发达国家和新兴市场的绝大多数关键成员,因此,作为一个全球经济合作论坛,它要比G7更优秀,尽管后者仍然起着主导作用。你把这两句的含义割裂了。

第三段Although the panic in the credit markets shows signs of abating, the economic news gets ever grimmer. 尽管信贷市场的恐慌情绪有消退迹象,但经济消息还是越来越坏。

第五段But what of the larger ambitions of “fixing” global finance?但修复全球金融的计划再宏伟也无济于事。

第六段finance has become one of the most globalised parts of the world economy.漏掉了Instead, regulated financial firms are overseen by disparate national supervisors (in America they are sometimes state-based). The IMF helps cash-strapped countries, but the fund was conceived in an era when capital flows were restrained. It is puny relative to the size of global markets today. 也漏掉了

第八段politically feasible enhancements政治上可行的改进

最后一段的modest是对当前金融体系的指调整很小
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

234

主题

8253

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
20501
发表于 2010-4-28 22:09 | 显示全部楼层
第一段 lame duck president 不是低能总统,虽然布什的确是弱弱的,呵呵。这里是指过气总统,因为布什任期即将结束,很多方针和政策需要考虑OBAMA的意见,以免新总统上台后有比较大的政策更替,同时买他帐的人也越来越少。所以一般讲,新总统选出到上任这段时间,老总统是不会有太大的作为的。

Wiki上的解释,供参考:
A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.
The status can be due to
    * having lost a re-election bid
    * choosing not to seek another term at the expiration of the current term
    * a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again
    * the abolishment of the office, which must nonetheless be served out until the end of the official's term.
Lame duck officials tend to have less political power, as other elected officials are less inclined to cooperate with them. However, lame ducks are also in the peculiar position of not facing the consequences of their actions in a subsequent election, giving them greater freedom to issue unpopular decisions or appointments. Examples include last minute executive orders by U.S. Presidents.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

146

主题

8192

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
20115
发表于 2010-4-28 22:19 | 显示全部楼层
but global finance will not be remade in a five-hour powwow hosted by a lame-duck president after less preparation than many corporate board meetings.
全球金融体系不可能通过低能总统主办的土著会议实现重建,更何况会议的准备工作还不如一些公司的董事会议充分。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

188

主题

8000

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士生

Rank: 21Rank: 21Rank: 21

积分
19920
发表于 2010-4-28 22:29 | 显示全部楼层
IT IS tempting to dismiss the upcoming G20 meeting as a piece of political theatre.
不把即将召开的20国集团会议作为政治舞台的一份子是很有道理的。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

219

主题

8255

帖子

3万

金币

大家网博士后

Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22Rank: 22

积分
20449
发表于 2010-4-28 22:39 | 显示全部楼层
试试翻译头一段:

IT IS tempting to dismiss the upcoming G20 meeting as a piece of political theatre.
人们(我们)很容易就将即将召开的G20会议当成不过是一场政治表演而已。
dismiss: To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable.

Several have talked grandly of a sequel to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, which created the post-war system of fixed exchange rates and established the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
有些人高谈阔论,说它是1944年布雷顿森林会议的延续,而正是那次会议创立了战后的固定汇率机制,建立了国际货币基金和世界银行。
grandly: 此处似应理解为贬义

That is nonsense. The original Bretton Woods lasted three weeks and was preceded by more than two years of technical preparation. Today’s crisis may be the gravest since the Depression, but global finance will not be remade in a five-hour powwow hosted by a lame-duck president after less preparation than many corporate board meetings. Yet for three reasons it is still a meeting worth having.
此言差矣。当年的布雷顿森林会议历时三周,之前还经过了两年多技术上的准备工作。今日的危机也许是大萧条以来最严重的一次,但是全球金融体系不可能靠一个由跛鸭总统主持的五个小时的聚会就可以实现重建,更何况会议的准备工作还不如一些公司的董事会议充分。不过基于三个原因,这次会议还是值得召开的。


注:原作者译得不错,不过加的小词太多,有点影响译文的忠实。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则



诚聘英才|移动端|Archiver|版权声明|大家论坛 ( 京ICP备06071611号,京公网安备11010802018363号 )

GMT+8, 2020-10-26 15:08 , Processed in 0.091524 second(s), 8 queries , Redis On.

Powered by Discuz!

© Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表