英语报刊阅读教程-对外经贸大学Unit5

Unit5passage1

But are today's economic times actually worse?One way to measure that is the misery index.That was a gauge of economic trouble developed in the late1970s and 1980s that was supposed to be a more accurate measure of how bad the economy was for the average Joe.The misery index combines the inflation rate with the unemployment rate to come.And indeed those twin fears of joblessness and souring food and gas prices are what seems to be sapping confidence in the economy these days as well.

So how does the economy measure up to the1970s based on the misery index. Actually pretty well.The misery index hit19.3at the end of1974,the year I was born. In1980,the index https://www.360docs.net/doc/4e11554862.html,pare that to now and the economy looks positively rosy.Today the misery index would stand at11.Good times,right.Maybe not.

But while the misery index may have been a good gauge of economic health in the1970s,it isn't the best measure of economic health at all times and misses the point today.One example,deflation is one of the worse things that can happen to the economy.Wages and income and asset values tumble,while debts stay the same. Bankruptcies galore.Yet,by the misery index,deflation would be a good thing, bringing the index down.And too little inflation,and the fear of deflation,has been one of the things that Bernanke has worried about.

That's why Kathleen Madigan,over at the Wall Street Journal,has devised a new misery index that may do a better job of actually comparing today's economic times to back then.While inflation is low,many think it will soon rise,and that along housing prices and the lack of jobs could be what is holding back the economy.So Madigan's new misery index looks at the one year change in the jobless rate,gas prices and home prices.Based on those calculations,Madigan's new misery index scores in at20, up from8.3a year ago.She also finds that Phoenix is not the most miserable place, economy-wise,in the nation to live.

So how does our current economic times measure up to the1970s?The earliest I could find for gas price data was1979.At the end of that year,the new misery index would actually stand at-8.So a rating of positively groovy.That's mostly due to the fact that housing prices rose12that year.The reading for1980would be13.2%.So now we are talking some economic pain.But still that's significantly less than Madigan's misery index reads now.So I guess it's time for me to recalibrate what I think the worst of economic times are.And I thought it was just the music that was better back then.

至少对20世纪70年代出生的我们这一代人，那十年仍然是最糟糕的时代。或许因为那时候我们只是婴儿，所以没有真正亲自体验那个时代的生活，但是通过父母的讲述以及电影《出租车司机》所反映出的逼真世界，我们了解到那时候物价和燃气价格飞涨，犯罪率急剧上升，这些都清晰地向我们展现出经济灾难的真实面目。

现在的经济状况是不是更糟糕呢？一个度量方式就是“痛苦指数”，这是20世纪七八十年代出现的测量经济困难的方法，应该可以准确度量经济对普通美国人影响的糟糕程度。“痛苦指数”是将通货膨胀率和失业率结合起来计算而得的。事实上，失业及食物和油价飞涨的双重恐惧好像正是削弱了我们对当前经济信心的因素。

用“痛苦指数”测量得出的经济状况符合20世纪70年代的真实情况吗？非常符合！1974年末，也就是我出生的那年，“痛苦指数”达到19.3。1980年，平均“痛苦指数”为21。把这些数字与现在的情况相比，当前的经济看起来相当乐观，因为现在的“痛苦指数”只有11。经济繁荣时期，是吗？或许不是。

虽然“痛苦指数”是测量20世纪70年代经济情况健全程度的很好的方式，但它不是适合所有时代的，它对于现在的经济状况的测量就没有抓住核心。例如，通货紧缩是当前经济中最糟糕的问题。工资收入及资产价值暴跌，而债务却不变，这导致了大量的破产事件。但是，用“痛苦指数”度量经济状况的话，通货紧缩反而是件好事，它会降低该指数的值。极低的通货膨胀率加上通货紧缩的恐惧，一直是伯南克非常担心的事。

鉴于此，凯思琳。麦迪甘在《华尔街日报》上设计了一个新的“痛苦指数”，或许能够真正地将今天和以前的经济状况进行比较。虽然通货膨胀率低，但很多人认为它很快会上升，同时也认为制约经济的可能就是房价和失业。因此，麦迪甘设计的新“痛苦指数”会考查一年当中失业率、油价及房价的变化。按照麦迪甘的这种新的计算方法，现在的“痛苦指数”会达到20，一年前为8.3.她也发现，菲尼克斯不是美国经济最惨淡的地方。

那么现在的经济状况跟20世纪70年代差不多吗？我能找到的最早的油价数据是1979年的。在那年年末计算得出的新“痛苦指数”为-8，这绝对是个极好的数据，主要是因为那年房价上涨了12个百分点。1980年的数据为13.2%。现在，我们谈的是经济困难问题，但是那仍然远远小于现阶段的麦迪甘“痛苦指数”。因此，我想我该重新校准一下我心目中的经济困难时期。我认为还是过去的乐曲更悦耳些。

Unit5passage2

Weak dollar gives British tourists reason to smile

A plummeting dollar is giving Britons a better reason to look across the Atlantic for their holidays than they’ve had since2009,with a steadily gaining euro making the continent a pricey option.

美元飙升给英国人更好的理由，看看大西洋的假期比2009年以来，欧洲稳定增长使欧洲成为一个昂贵的选择。

Unit5passage3

Wall Street is back

华尔街卷土重来

American investment banks dominate global finance once more.

That’s not necessarily good for America

美国投行再次占据全球金融主导地位,对美国未必好

May11th2013|From the print edition

FOR a few tense weeks in2008,as investment-bank executives huddled behind the imposing doors of the New York Federal Reserve,Wall Street seemed to be collapsing around them.Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy,Merrill Lynch collapsed into the arms of Bank of America.American International Group(AIG) and Citigroup had to be bailed out and the rot seemed to be spreading.Hank Paulson,the treasury secretary at the time,recalled in his memoir that:“Lose Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would be next in line—if they fell the

financial system might vaporise.”

2008年投行高层挤在纽约联储局里的那几个月，华尔街摇摇欲坠。雷曼兄弟申请清盘；美林无力独支，被美国银行并购；美国国际集团和花旗集团被美国政府注资救市，即便如此灾难仍在蔓延。当年的财长保尔森在回忆录中写道”接下来就是摩根和高盛了，他们也倒下的话，金融系统就灰飞烟灭了”Across the Atlantic,European politicians saw this as the timely comeuppance of American capitalism.Angela Merkel,Germany’s chancellor,blamed her peers in Washington for not having regulated banks and hedge funds more rigorously. European banks saw the crisis as their chance to get one up on the American banks that had long dominated international finance.Barclays quickly pounced on the carcass of Lehman Brothers,buying its American operations in what Bob Diamond,the head of its investment bank at the time,called“an incredible opportunity”to gain entry to the American market.Deutsche Bank,a German giant,also expanded to take market share from American rivals.The dominance that American firms had long exerted over global capital markets

seemed to have come to an abrupt end.

大西洋另一面的政客认为这是美国式资本主义的报应。德国总理默克尔指责华盛顿对银行和对冲基金的管理太松了，欧洲的银行则视危为机欲籍此主导国际金融秩序。巴克莱迅速的扑向了雷曼兄弟的残骸，收购其美国业务，巴克莱当时投行负责人bod diamond称之为进入美国市场的”良机”。德国巨头德意志银行也在美国扩张其市场份额。美国长期的国际金融主导地位似乎将毁于一旦。

Almost five years on it is Europe’s banks that are on their knees and Wall Street that is resurgent.Switzerland’s two biggest banks,UBS and Credit Suisse, which were expanding fast before the crisis,are still shedding assets.Royal Bank of Scotland,which for a brief time broke into the ranks of the world’s ten-biggest investment banks,remains a ward of the British government.The share of the investment-banking market held by European banks has slumped by a fifth since the crisis(see our special report),with many of the gains going to Wall Street’s surviving behemoths.JPMorgan Chase,Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alone account for a third of the industry’s revenues.Two European outfits,Barclays and Deutsche Bank,have managed to share in some of these spoils since the crisis.Both,however,face hostile regulations at home and abroad that seem likely to crimp their global ambitions.And although HSBC has increased its share of some investment-banking markets,it is still well behind

Wall Street’s titans.

近五年来，欧洲银行举步为艰，华尔街日益复兴。危机前快速扩张的瑞士最大的两家银行瑞士银行和瑞士信贷现仍在剥离资产。曾一度挤身全球十大投行之列的苏格兰皇家银行，现仍处于英国政府的庇护之下。危机发生以来欧洲银行所占的投行市场份额下降了五分之一，大部分又被华尔街巨鳄吃回去了。仅摩根，高盛和花旗三家就占了全球份额的三分之一。巴克莱和德意志银行这两家欧洲的机构虽然在这次危机中占了点小便宜，但却由于本国和海外所面临的敌意监管导致其全球策略无法施展。汇丰的投行市场份额也有所增长但仍不能和华尔街巨头相提

并论。

What America got right

美国做了什么

The industry over which Wall Street is reasserting itself is very different from the one it dominated half a decade ago.Revenues globally have fallen by about $100billion,or almost a third.Employment has plunged,with London alone shedding100,000jobs.Pay has fallen too.Higher capital requirements and other regulations,including America’s absurdly complicated(and still unfinished) Dodd-Frank act,are likely to erode the profitability of the industry.The stellar returns earned by banks before the crisis and the massive rewards paid to their employees are unlikely to recur soon,if at all.

华尔街再次主导的这个行业和五年前已经不同了，全球收入减少了近三分之一，约一千亿美元。工作机会也大大减少，仅伦敦就缩减了十万个职位。薪酬也缩水了。行业的盈利能力被更高的资本要求和其他监管法案所侵蚀，包括”多德-弗兰克法案“这样复杂得离谱的法案(其麻烦还未结束)。危机前那样的暴利和丰厚的薪资奖金再也没有了，至少近期是不可能了。

One of the reasons that American banks are doing better is that they took the pain,and dealt with it,faster.The American authorities acted quickly,making their banks write down bad debts and rapidly raise more capital.Those that proved unwilling or unable,and even those,like Goldman,that claimed they didn’t need it were force-fed additional capital.As a result America’s big banks have been able to return to profitability,pay back the government and support lending in the economy.This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.

美国的银行之所以能够好起来，其中一个原因是他们承受了痛苦，并且较快地解决了它。美国政府反应迅速，让银行撇清坏账,快速筹资。那些不愿、不能甚至于像高盛这样声称不需的银行被强行注入资本。正因为这个，美国的大银行才得以能够恢复盈利，还钱给政府并继续向市场提供贷款。这使得他们为经济复苏做

出了贡献，从而也降低了自身的坏账。

European banks,in contrast,are continuing to shrink their balance-sheets and limp along with insufficient capital.Citigroup alone has flushed through$143 billion of loan losses;no euro-zone bank has set aside more than$30billion. Deutsche Bank,which had insisted it did not need more equity,has at last faced reality and is raising almost€3billion($4billion).

相反，欧洲的银行资产仍在继续缩水，不充足的资本使其难以前行。仅花旗一家就冲销了1430亿的贷款坏账，然而没有任何欧元区银行撇除过300亿以上的坏账。德意志银行曾一度声称资本充足，最后还是得面对现实，目前正在筹资约

30亿欧元（40亿美元）。

What Europe got right

欧洲做了什么

European regulators have also contributed to their banks’decline,in two ways. First,they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses relative to base pay.Second,they are trying to force banks to hold more capital and to make it easier to allow them to fail by,for instance,separating their retail deposits from

their wholesale businesses.

欧洲的监管机构也对银行衰退出了些力，通过这样两个方法：一，他们规定银行员工的奖金上限不可超过薪资的某个比例。其次，他们强制要求银行拥有更多的资本，并通过要求银行将零售储蓄和批发银行业务分离等方法降低其倒闭时对经

济的影响。

The first approach is foolish.It will drive up the fixed costs of Europe’s banks and reduce their flexibility to cut expenses in downturns.They will therefore struggle to compete in America or fast-growing Asian markets with foreign rivals that have the freedom to pay the going rate for talent.The second approach is sensible.Switzerland and Britain are making progress in ending the implicit taxpayer subsidy that supports banks that are too big to fail.The collapse of Ireland’s economy is warning enough of what happens when governments feel compelled to bail out banks that dwarf their economies.

第一个方法非常愚蠢。这提高了欧洲银行的固定成本，使他们在市道不好的时候不能灵活的减少成本。美国和快速增长的亚洲地区的银行可以自主按市场行情支付员工，欧洲的银行必然需要艰难的与之竞争。第二个方法可以理解。有些银行规模大到不能倒。政府被逼进行银行紓困，但后果是什么?爱尔兰经济崩溃是一个很好的警示。所以瑞士和英国都已致力于停止对银行提供隐性财政补贴。

Some European bankers argue that the continent needs investment-banking champions.Yet it is not obvious that European firms or taxpayers gain from having national banks that are good at packaging and selling American subprime loans.Indeed,it is American taxpayers and investors who should worry about the dominance of a few Wall Street firms.They bear the main risk of future bail-outs.They would benefit from greater competition in investment banking.IPO fees are much higher in America than elsewhere(7%v4%), mainly because the market is dominated by a few big investment banks.

一些欧洲的银行家声称欧洲需要领导地位的投行。不过很难看出来一个擅长打包和销售美国次贷证卷的欧洲银行会给欧洲的商业或纳税人带来什么好处。实际上需要对华尔街巨头处于垄断地位担心的应该是美国人，是美国人的纳税人承担着下一轮银行紓困的风险。在美国公司上市的费用要比其他地方都高(7%对4%),主要是寡头垄断的原因，若能有更多的竞争，美国纳税人也会从中受益。

Wall Street’s new titans say they are already penalised by new international rules that insist they have somewhat bigger capital buffers than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail.Yet the huge economies of scale and implicit subsidies from being too big to fail more than offset the cost of the buffers.Increasing the capital surcharges for big banks would do more for the stability of the financial system than the thicket of

Dodd-Frank rules ever will.

华尔街巨头说他们已经受到了惩罚，因为新的国际监管条例向他们提出了比小银行更高的资本缓冲要求，监管机构认为大行的倒闭对经济构成了巨大的风险。实际上大到不能倒给他们带来的规模效益和隐性补贴完全大于缓冲资本的成本。在保持金融系统稳定方面增收资本附加费远比多德弗兰克法案类似的条例要有效

的多。

Five years on from the frightening summer of2008,America’s big banks are back,and that is a good thing.But there are still things that could make Wall

Street safer.

自2008年夏季危机爆发5年了，美国的大银行又回来了，这是好事。但是要想

华尔街更安全，还有些事情要做。