经管之家App
让优质教育人人可得
立即打开
No one factor made the difference in the divergent paths（分岔路） the two continents have taken. But there are two — both related to financial conditions — that were very important. In each case, it appears that the United States did a much better job.
The first one concerns the banks. The huge bailouts, started in the administration of George W. Bush and continued by President Obama, worked. The banks were bailed out, and the survivors were forced to recapitalize(重组）.
The bailouts have become generally unpopular, in no small part because many banks seem to still view themselves as masters of the universe. There is nothing more grating than an ungrateful welfare recipient（接受社会福利者） riding around in a chauffeured（租来的） Mercedes complaining that he is not being treated fairly. But the reality then — and now — was that a modern economy must have a decently functioning financial system.
It was also necessary to bail out the lenders at the center of the American home mortgage system, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That, too, is unpopular in many circles, especially since there are politicians proclaiming that those two government-sponsored enterprises were the sole cause of the financial crisis. They were not, of course. Most of the really bad loans were made by privately financed lenders who believed they had little reason to care if the loans were good, since they planned to sell them immediately to investors. But Fannie and Freddie also reduced their standards in a foolish effort to maintain market share.
There is a fundamental dispute when it comes to setting bank capital standards. Requirements for high capital are often seen as discouraging lending, thus damaging an already weak economy. Too many regulators in Europe accepted that argument and delayed efforts to force banks to raise more capital. Unfortunately, whatever window of opportunity was there for them to raise capital at anything like acceptable cost has vanished with the spread of the sovereign debt crisis.
It turns out that forcing banks to raise capital can be critically important. If they turn out to need that capital, and don’t have it, then lending will dry up. The American regulators applied stress tests that appear to have been adequate, while the first European round of stress tests assumed that sovereign debt was safe. If you want to destroy public confidence, solemnly asserting something that is obviously untrue is a good way to start.
That is a lesson that Europe seems to have not learned very well. In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, bank regulators around the world agreed on an outline for new capital rules, known as Basel III. It is up to each country to adopt those rules, and that process is not going smoothly. The proposed rules in Europe call for long delays in imposition and ignore the idea that higher-than-minimum standards may be appropriate for some countries and some large banks.
The meeting of European finance ministers this week failed to get an agreement on those rules. Britain wants to be able to impose tougher rules on its own banks, but countries such as France fear that would make their own banks look bad.
“We’re not implementing the Basel agreement, as anyone who takes a look at this text will be able to tell you,” said George Osborne, the British chancellor of the exchequer. “Every bank analyst, every financial journalist, every other finance ministry in the world would say that.” He added, “I am not prepared to go out there and say something that would make me look like an idiot five minutes later.”
Rather than argue with him on details, one finance minister simply asserted that looking like an idiot was standard procedure for ministers.
The other area where American policy seems to have worked better is monetary policy. The Federal Reserve’s purchase of large amounts of securities — known to some as quantitative easing — was critical in restoring liquidity to American banks and making it possible for them to continue lending. The European Central Bank avoided disaster with its own program to pump cash into banks but, as two Morgan Stanley economists, Joachim Fels and Elga Bartsch, noted this week, that move was “not a circuit breaker that transferred risk from the private sector to the central bank’s balance sheet.” It has bought time, but fundamental problems remain.
Of course a new crisis could reveal American banks are still undercapitalized（资本不足）, but they certainly are in better shape than they were. And a severe European downturn conceivably could stop the American recovery in its tracks. The Conference Board survey of consumers indicates that a plurality （众多）of Americans expects there will be fewer jobs six months from now. The disappointing jobs report that came out a month ago has revived some talk of renewed recession, even if corporate profits are booming. And the continued shrinkage of government spending, particularly at the state and local level, is obscuring the growing strength of the private sector.
The consensus forecast for the April jobs number, to be released Friday morning, is for a respectable 160,000 jobs, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists. The distribution of predictions indicates that there is much more fear of a negative surprise than there is hope for a positive one.
Perhaps such fears are inevitable after a financial crisis. But as of now, there can be little doubt that the American government handled the problems of the last year far better than did its European counterparts.
For more information,http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/0 ... ery.html?ref=global
了解Follow Us版
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1130480-1-1.html
英文网址，欢迎补充！
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1410923-1-1.html
Follow Us 发帖指南、常见问题及意见征集
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1131076-1-1.html
关于Follow Us 版面建立官方群
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1212960-1-1.html
It was also necessary to bail out thelenders at the center of the American home mortgage system, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That, too, is unpopular in many circles, especially since thereare politicians proclaiming that those two government-sponsored enterpriseswere the sole cause of the financial crisis. They were not, of course. Most ofthe really bad loans were made by privately financed lenders who believed theyhad little reason to care if the loans were good, since they planned to sellthem immediately to investors. But Fannie and Freddie also reduced theirstandards in a foolish effort to maintain market share.
救助的中心放在在美国的住房抵押系统的房利美和房地美也很必要。当然,在很多行业圈内也很不受欢迎,尤其是在政客宣称这两家ZF资助的企业是导致金融危机的根源之后.当然,他们显然不是问题的根源.真正的不良贷款绝大多数来自于那些自认为没有理由去关心贷款是否可行的个体融资者,因为这些人打算立即把房屋销售给投资者. 但房利美和房地美两家房地产公司也用降低对个体融资者降低标准的这一令人可笑的方式来维持市场份额.
It turns out that forcing banks to raisecapital can be critically important. If they turn out to need that capital, anddon’t have it, then lending will dry up. The American regulators applied stresstests that appear to have been adequate, while the first European round ofstress tests assumed that sovereign debt was safe. If you want to destroypublic confidence, solemnly asserting something that is obviously untrue is agood way to start.
结果表明迫使银行提高资本是极其重要的。如果他们需要资本却没有，贷款就会枯竭。美国监管机构施加压力的测试似乎已经足够证明了这一点;而欧洲压力测试的第一轮的假设是安全的主权债务。如果你想破坏公众信心，郑重声明显然不是一个良好的开始。
That is a lesson that Europe seems tohave not learned very well. In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis,bank regulators around the world agreed on an outline for new capital rules,known as Basel III. It is up to each country to adopt those rules, and thatprocess is not going smoothly. The proposed rules in Europe call for longdelays in imposition and ignore the idea that higher-than-minimum standards maybe appropriate for some countries and some large banks.
这可以作为一个教训,因为欧洲似乎没有很好的学会处理问题.金融危机的直接后果是世界各国的银行监管机构同意制定一个新的资本规则纲要,称为巴塞尔第三协议.这需要每个国家采取这些规则,但是整个过程不太顺利.欧洲提出的规定需要长期的磋商,而且忽略了一个观点,这个观点是比最低值高的标准可能会对一些国家和一些大的银行来讲合适.
The meeting of European financeministers this week failed to get an agreement on those rules. Britain wants tobe able to impose tougher rules on its own banks, but countries such as Francefear that would make their own banks look bad.
本周欧洲财长会议没有能够获得就协议达成一致。英国希望能够对自己的银行施加更严厉的规则，但诸如法国之类的国家担心本国的银行看起来很糟糕。
“We’re not implementing the Baselagreement, as anyone who takes a look at this text will be able to tell you,”said George Osborne, the British chancellor of the exchequer. “Every bankanalyst, every financial journalist, every other finance ministry in the worldwould say that.” He added, “I am not prepared to go out there and say somethingthat would make me look like an idiot five minutes later.”
“我们不会执行”巴塞尔协议，任何人一看条文就能够告诉你”，英国财政大臣乔治·奥斯本说: “每家银行的分析师，每一个财经记者，世界其余的每一个财政部长也会这么说，”他补充说，“我不准备去那里说些什么，因为那样做会让我在5分钟后看起来像一个白痴。”
Rather than argue with him on details,one finance minister simply asserted that looking like an idiot was standardprocedure for ministers.一位财政部长简单断言说，与其与他争辩细节，看起来像个白痴的条文却是一个对于部长来说很标准的一个步骤。
The other area where American policyseems to have worked better is monetary policy. The Federal Reserve’s purchaseof large amounts of securities — known to some as quantitative easing — wascritical in restoring liquidity to American banks and making it possible forthem to continue lending. The European Central Bank avoided disaster with itsown program to pump cash into banks but, as two Morgan Stanley economists,Joachim Fels and Elga Bartsch, noted this week, that move was “not a circuitbreaker that transferred risk from the private sector to the central bank’sbalance sheet.” It has bought time, but fundamental problems remain.
美国的政策做的好的另一个方面似乎是采取了更好的是货币政策。美联储购买大量的证券 – 这被称为量化宽松 – 这对于恢复美国银行资金的流动性很重要，这是他们有可能继续提供贷款的关键。欧洲央行通过向银行注入资金的计划来避免灾难.但是正如两名摩根士丹利经济学家约阿希姆·费尔斯和埃尔加·巴什本周所指出的那样,这一举措是:”不断路由器, 风险从私营部门转移到了央行的资产负债表。“买了时间，但根本问题依然存在。
Of course a new crisis could reveal American banks are still undercapitalized, but they certainly are in better shape than they were. The Conference Board survey of consumersindicates that a plurality of Americans expects there will be fewer jobs sixmonths from now.The disappointing jobs report that came out a month ago has revived some talk of renewed recession, even if corporate profits are booming. And the continued shrinkage of government spending, particularly at the state and local level, is obscuring the growing strength of the private sector.
当然这一次新的危机可以揭示出美国的银行表现也有不足，但他们肯定比表现出了最好的一面。可以想象,欧洲经济的严重衰退可以阻止美国经济的复苏. 会议委员会消费者调查显示，多数美国人预计未来6个月会有就业机会更少。虽然公司利润提高,然而上个月的最新数据报告实在令人失望, 特别是国家和地方一级的ZF开支掩盖了越来越多的私营部门的力量。
The consensus forecast for the Apriljobs number, to be released Friday morning, is for a respectable 160,000 jobs,according to a Bloomberg survey of economists. The distribution of predictionsindicates that there is much more fear of a negative surprise than there ishope for a positive one.
彭博社预计四月的就业数据将于周五上午公布4月份公布,最新的与其是新提供16万个就业机会。分布预测表明，市场对于负面消息的恐惧远远多于乐观情绪.
Perhaps such fears are inevitable aftera financial crisis. But as of now, there can be little doubt that the Americangovernment handled the problems of the last year far better than did itsEuropean counterparts.也许这种担心在金融危机之后是不可避免的。但截至目前，不可否认的是美国ZF去年处理问题比其欧洲同行好很多。
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
