首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
A dozen years ago, James Grant — one of the wisest commentators on Wall Street — wrote a book called The Trouble with Prosperity
A dozen years ago, James Grant — one of the wisest commentators on Wall Street — wrote a book called The Trouble with Prosperity
admin
2018-06-29
19
问题
A dozen years ago, James Grant — one of the wisest commentators on Wall Street — wrote a book called The Trouble with Prosperity. Grant’s survey of financial history captured his crusty theory of economic predestination. If things seem splendid, they will get worse. Success inspires overconfidence and excess. If things seem dismal, they will get better. Crisis spawns opportunity and progress. Our triumphs and follies follow a rhythm that, though it can be influenced, cannot be repealed.
Good times breed bad, and vice versa. Bear that in mind. It provides context for today’s turmoil and recriminations. The recent astounding events — the government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury’s investments in private banks, the stock market’s wild swings — have thrust us into fierce debate. Has enough been done to protect the economy? Who or what caused this mess?
We Americans want problems with instant solutions. We want victories and defeats with clear heroes and villains. We crave a world of crisp moral certitudes, when the real world is awash with murky ambiguities. So it is now. Start with the immediate question: has enough been done? Well, enough for what? If the goal is to prevent a calamitous collapse of bank lending, the answer is probably "yes".
Last week, the government guaranteed most interbank loans(loans among banks) and pressured nine major banks to accept $ 125 billion of added capital from the Treasury. Together, these steps make it easier for banks to borrow and lend. There’s less need to hoard cash. But if the goal is to inoculate us against recession and more financial turmoil, the answer is "no".
We’re probably already in recession. In September, retail sales dropped 1. 2 percent. The housing collapse, higher oil prices( now receding), job losses and sagging stocks have battered confidence. Consumption spends — more than two thirds of all spending — may drop in the third quarter for the first time since 1991. Loans are harder to get, because there’s been a "correction of lax lending standards," says financial consultant Bert Ely. Economist David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s expects unemployment, now 6.1 percent, to reach 7. 5 percent by year-end 2009.
Ditto for financial perils, " the United States has an enormous financial system outside the banks," says economist Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago. Take hedge funds. They manage nearly $ 2 trillion and rely heavily on borrowed funds. They could destabilize the markets as they’re pressured to sell. They’ve suffered heavy redemptions — $ 43 billion in September, according to the Financial Times. There’s also a global chain reaction. Losses in one market inspire losses in others; and nervous international investors sell everywhere. Brazil’s market has lost about half its value in the past year.
In this fluid situation, one thing is predictable: the crisis will produce a cottage industry of academics, journalists, pundits, politicians and bloggers to assess blame. Is former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan responsible for holding interest rates too low and for not imposing tougher regulations on mortgage lending? Would Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin have spotted the crisis sooner? Did Republican free-market ideologies leave greedy Wall Streets types too unregulated? Was Congress too permissive with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Some stories are make-believe. After leaving government, Rubin landed at Citigroup as "senior counselor. " He failed to identify toxic mortgage securities as a big problem in the bank’s own portfolio. It’s implausible to think he’d have done so in Washington. As recent investigative stories in the New York Times and The Washington Post show, the Clinton administration broadly supported the financial deregulation that Democrats are now so loudly denouncing.
Greenspan is a harder case. His resistance to tougher regulation of mortgage lending is legitimately criticized, but the story of his low-interest rate policies is more complicated. True, the overnight fed-funds rate dropped to 1 percent in 2003 to offset the effects of the burst tech bubble and 9/11. Still. The Fed started raising rates in mid-2004. Unfortunately and surprisingly, long-term interest rates on mortgages(which are set by the market) didn’t follow. That undercut the Fed and is often attributed to a surge of cheap capital from China and Asia.
There’s a broader lesson. When things go well, everyone wants to get on the bandwagon. Skeptics are regarded as fools. It’s hard for government — or anyone else — to say, "Whoa, cowboys; this won’t last. " In this respect, the tech bubble and the housing bubble were identical twins.
We suffer cycles of self-delusion, sometimes too giddy and sometimes too glum. The next recovery usually lies in the ruins of the last recession.
As the housing boom strengthened, lenders overlent, builders overbuilt and buyers overpaid. Existing home prices rose 50 percent from 2000 to 2006. Lending standards weakened. Investment bankers packaged dubious loans in increasingly opaque securities. But bankers — to their eventual regret — kept many bad loans themselves. Almost everyone assumed that home prices would rise forever, so risks were minimal. Congress was complicit. It allowed Fannie and Freddie to operate with meager capital. They were, in effect, giant hedge funds backed by government congress also increased the share of their mortgages that had to go to low — and moderate-income buyers, form 40 percent in 1996 to 52 percent in 2005. This blessed and promoted supreme mortgage lending.
So Grant’s thesis is confirmed. We go through cycles of self-delusion, sometimes too giddy and sometimes too glum. The only consolation is that the genesis of the next recovery usually lies in the ruins of the last recession. Optimistic Americans "recognize error and put it behind them," Grant writes in the current Foreign Affairs. The Pew survey reports this contrast: though half of Americans believe there’s a recession, almost half also think the economy will improve in the next year.(by Robert J. Samuelson, from Newsweek, October 27, 2008)
Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the passage?
选项
A、The Calamitous Collapse of Bank Lending
B、The Trouble with Prosperity
C、Good Times Breed Bad Times
D、Cycles of Self-delusion
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/b81YFFFM
本试题收录于:
CATTI二级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格(CATTI)分类
0
CATTI二级笔译综合能力
翻译专业资格(CATTI)
相关试题推荐
Ithinktheexistingcompaniesusuallyencouragetheso-called"provenway",somethingthathasworkedbefore,insteadofinnov
Thebigchallengewefaceintheseearlyyearsofthe21stcentury,ishowtogrowoureconomiesandensuresharedprosperityto
Thebigchallengewefaceintheseearlyyearsofthe21stcentury,ishowtogrowoureconomiesandensuresharedprosperityto
A、正确B、错误B根据原文“shewouldnothaveknownhowtocareforherownhomeandchildren.”,此句是虚拟语气,表示与事实相反,说明母亲懂得了如何照顾自己的家庭和孩子。
A、正确B、错误B根据原文“Americansupremacywastheresultnotjustofmilitarymight,butofourvaluesandoftheabundantopportunities
Whenisanordinarytropicalstormcalledahurricane?
RitualChildKillingsSpreadAlarm,AngerinIvoryCoastAtleast21childrenhavebeenkidnappedinIvoryCoastsinceDecemb
RitualChildKillingsSpreadAlarm,AngerinIvoryCoastAtleast21childrenhavebeenkidnappedinIvoryCoastsinceDecemb
随机试题
直肠癌根治术后腹壁造口应维持多大的直径
宫缩压力试验的目的是()。
我国现行的施工质量计划的方式不包括()。
某市甲银行下属金店(增值税一般纳税人),主要经营金银首饰零售业务,兼营金银首饰的来料加工、翻新改制、以旧换新、清洗、修理业务。2019年3月主要发生下列业务:(1)向消费者个人销售纯金首饰取得销售收入50万元,销售纯金首饰同时收取的包装盒价款0.25万元
吃橘子时,岚岚说:“老师,你给我剥皮。”王老师大声说:“咱们来帮小橘子脱衣服吧,看谁做得又快又好!”小朋友们争着说:“好!”“我来!”大家争相动起手来,岚岚也在模仿中学会了剥橘子皮。王老师的行为体现了其善于()。
下列批评家中,提出文学艺术“境界说”的是()。
研究有关公安工作的方针、政策,制定公安法制工作总体规划;研究执法中的问题和对策属于( )。
茅盾是我国一位著名作家的笔名,这位作家的原名是()。
红叶子理论认为:一个人职业的成功不在于红叶子的数目多少,而在于他是否具备一片特别硕大的红叶子,这片特别硕大的红叶子不是与生俱来的,需要根据个人优势不断努力才能获得。根据上述定义,下列哪项能用红叶子理论解释?
WhatisthelargestethnicgroupinSanFrancisco?
最新回复
(
0
)