【08.10.14 英国卫报】中国花掉存款，危机就可避免
【来源】http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen ... /15/economics-china【标题】If China spends its trillions, recession could be averted 如果中国花掉其巨额存款，经济危机就可避免
【翻译方式】人工翻译
【翻译】dakelv
【声明】本译文版权归Anti-CNN和本人共同拥有。转载请注明翻译及出处。
【原文】
If China spends its trillions, recession could be averted
The country should be invited into the G8 immediately; it has a vital part to play in restoring global stability
Andrew Graham
The massive government interventions announced on both sides of the Atlantic in the last 48 hours may, just, have prevented the world's financial system from imploding. Alongside the largest monetary meltdown in half a century, we face collapsing consumer and business spending. These problems are closely intertwined - the financial crisis is part of the cause of the collapse in spending, and the collapse in spending is now undermining financial markets - but they need separate (and yet non-conflicting) solutions.
To get a handle on these problems, start on the financial side and two big "facts" about banking and money.
First, since the emergence of modern capitalism some three centuries ago, we have seen more than 30 major financial crises - about one every 10 years. But this is an average. In the UK, we've had more than 30 years since the last banking rescue (the secondary banks in 1974). One result was a growing belief, now shattered, that banking could be left largely to the private sector.
In the US, the ideology of the unfettered market is more deep-seated. Despite the collapse and rescue of Continental Illinois in 1984, despite the savings and loans crisis of the 80s, and despite the rescue of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, the US clung, until the last few weeks, to the belief that the banks could largely be left alone. Nevertheless, economic history is clear: banking systems almost always eventually over-extend themselves and have to be rescued - not just the Brits and the Americans, but the Japanese and the Latin Americans in the early 80s and then the Scandinavians, the south Asians and the Russians in the 90s.
Secondly, money is not like cars or cups of tea - you cannot test-drive or taste it. It depends, above all, on trust and confidence which cannot be bought or exchanged. Money is the bedrock for the whole economic system. If you are to avoid catastrophe when confidence evaporates, as it has done in the recent turmoil, the only option is for the state to underpin the core financial institutions.
These two facts are the reasons we are where we are today. Faced with meltdown, the chancellor's dramatic actions on Monday (followed by the US and Europe) are exactly appropriate: inject liquidity into the markets, provide guarantees to the inter-bank market and, above all, inject public capital directly into the banks by the purchase of their shares. But why not also match the commitments made by others for 100% security for personal deposits? This is an area where, now that the government has acted with credibility, the greater the promise, the less the cost!
Do taxpayers here and in the US need to be worried about the scale of this intervention? Hardly at all. The bank shares governments are buying at these depressed prices will almost certainly prove to be a bargain. When the Scandinavians did the same, the public purse made a gain. Moreover, as the chief secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper, has said, the scare-mongering about the scale of government debt is based on the fallacy that this is "spending" just like buying the services of a teacher or a doctor. It is not, it is a financial investment. The talk of tax rises is also irresponsible. It causes people to be yet more fearful and to spend less, increasing the spiral downwards towards major recession.
That recession (or the shortage of global aggregate demand) is the elephant in the room. Its origins lie in the huge imbalances in the world economy, resulting from our credit-driven consumption in the west having filled the vast hole in demand that would otherwise have been left by high levels of Asian (especially Chinese) saving. As we in the west stop spending, the only way to avoid a global recession is for the Chinese, especially, to spend more. So far there is no sign of this. Would they cooperate if asked? Not necessarily, but they hold such vast dollar reserves (around $2 trillion) that they have a massive incentive to help stop the US economy and its currency descending into chaos. At the global and aggregate demand level, as well as in terms of future global financial stability, the Chinese are an essential part of the solution and it is extraordinary that the G7 or G8 groups do not include them. They should be invited immediately.
Meanwhile, the current financial crisis, its reminder of economic history, and the differences between finance and the rest of the economy, make two further points imperative. One is that every major bank has to have the state standing behind it. This has been known for ages but, shockingly, was forgotten in the case of Iceland. We now need international agreement that countries with a small tax base must either run banks that are commensurately small or must get their banks underwritten by international bodies such as the IMF. The second is that financial regulation has to be approached with a completely different mindset from that for the rest of the economy. Elsewhere, competition can be a substitute for regulation. In banking, the opposite applies: the greater the competition, the greater the need for regulation and/or supervision.
The twin results - the growth and influence of China, plus a more regulated and state-financed banking system - make it inevitable that the Anglo-Saxon model of unfettered capitalism that has dominated thinking for half a century will be much diminished. What will replace it is unclear, but it may well look more like a form of state capitalism - perhaps not full-blown, but something much closer to Chinese capitalism than would have seemed conceivable just a month ago.
【译文】
如果中国花掉其巨额存款，经济危机就可避免
中国应该立即被邀请加入G8，因为它对恢复全球稳定起着至关重要的作用。
作者：Andrew Graham
在过去48小时内，大西洋两岸的政府分别宣布了巨大的政府救市举措，这一举措很可能避免了世界金融系统的崩溃。除了五十年来最大的货币崩溃以外，我们还面临着企业和消费支出的崩溃。这些问题之间有着千丝万缕的联系 -- 金融危机是支出崩溃的原因之一，而支出崩溃反过来又对金融市场造成伤害 --但是这些问题的解决方案却不尽相同（而且不能相互冲突）。
要了解这些问题，让我们从金融这边入手，看一下银行和货币的两大“事实”。
首先，从三个世纪前现代资本主义的兴起算起，一共经历了30次大的金融危机--也就是说每隔10年一次。当然这只是个平均值。在英国，上一次针对银行的救市（1974年对二级银行的救市）是三十年以前的事情。救市的结果之一就是人们越来越相信，应该让银行业最大限度地保持私有化，而这一信念在今天已经荡然无存了。
在美国，自由市场的观念要比其他国家更根深蒂固。在经历了1984年大陆伊利诺斯银行的奔溃和救市，80年代储蓄和贷款危机，和1998年长期资本管理公司的崩溃后，直到几个星期以前，美国仍然坚信银行业总体来说不会受到冲击。然而，经济学的历史清楚地告诉我们，银行系统最终几乎都逃避不了捉襟见肘而被救市的命运。这个命运不仅发生在英国和美国银行，80年代初的日本和拉美银行以及后来90年代的斯堪地那维亚银行、东南亚银行业和俄罗斯的银行业也不能幸免。
其次，货币和汽车或者一杯茶水不一样 --因为你不能试驾或者品尝它。它首先依赖于信任和信心，而这二者都不是用金钱所能买到的。货币是整个经济系统的基石。如果在信心开始动摇时想要避免大的灾难，就像我们在最近的风暴中所看到的那样，唯一的选择就是政府从根本上支持主要的金融机构。
我们今天之所以能走到这一步也正是因为这两个因素。面对危机，财政大臣在星期一所作的引人注目的举措（美国和欧洲也随后作出同样的举措）是再合适不过的了：向市场注入流动资金，向银行间市场提供担保，更重要的是，通过购买银行股票的方式直接向银行注入公共资金。但是为什么不为了100%的安全同时对个人存款也实行对等资金注入呢？因为政府已经采取了具有诚信的措施，在这一块，许诺的越多，费用就越小！
英国和美国的纳税人需要担心政府介入的力度吗？几乎不需要。政府目前以低价买入银行的股份，到头来肯定会证明是很划算的。当斯堪地那维亚政府这样做时，最后获益的是大家。而且，正如财务部第一副大臣YvettCooper所说，对政府债务规模的恐慌是建立在一个错误的观点之上的，这个观点就是这种债务是像雇佣教师和医生所指出的花费一样。但事实上这不是支出，这是金融投资。有关提高税额的说法也是不负责任的。这只能使人们更加恐慌，减少消费，从而加速朝向大萧条的螺旋向下运动。
这个大萧条（或者全球总需求的减少）就是屋里的大象【译注：指非常明显但是却被忽视的事实或实情。】它的根源在于世界经济的极端不平衡，而这一不平衡的原因就是西方由贷款刺激起的消费填补了由亚洲人（尤其是中国人）巨额存款所造成的需求方面的大洞。当我们西方人停止消费，唯一可以避免萧条的方法就是让中国人增加消费。可是到目前为止没有这方面的一点迹象。如果我们要求他们这样做，他们会合作吗？可能不会，但是他们手中有大量的美元储备（大约2兆亿），所以他们在帮助避免美国经济和货币陷入混乱方面有很大的动力。在全球总需求水平和未来全球经济稳定上，中国是解决方案中一个非常基本的组成部分，而G7或G8竟然不包括中国，简直太不可思议了。中国应该立刻被邀请加入。
同时，目前的金融危机，其对经济史所起到的提醒作用，以及金融业和其他经济行业的不同，使我们不得不记住两点：第一，每一个大银行背后都需要有国家的支持。这个事实我们早就了解，但是令人吃惊的是，在冰岛问题上又似乎被人遗忘了。我们现在必须在国际上达成共识，那就是如果纳税人基数很小的国家要经营银行的话，其银行的规模应与其纳税人基数成比例，或者应该由诸如国际货币基金组织的国际组织担保。第二，对待金融法规的观念要和其他经济行业的观念完全不同。在其他方面，竞争可以代替规则。银行业应该正相反：竞争越激烈，越需要规则和监控。
中国的发展和影响，再加上一个更规范化的由国家资助的银行系统，这两个结果将会不可避免地引起主导全球思维半个世纪之久的盎格鲁·撒克逊式自由资本主义模式的衰落。由谁取而代之现在还不清楚，但是看起来它会是一种类似国家资本主义的形式 --也许不是百分之百的国家资本主义，但是和一个月以前相比，现在看起来它更像是一种接近中国式资本主义的模式。
[ 本帖最后由 dakelv 于 2008-10-16 14:54 编辑 ] 改过来了 我比你先发现，呵呵，而且原打算把翻译改发到二楼，结果也被你占了。Q61)
原帖由 langxianping 于 2008-10-16 14:53 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
改过来了 现在有麻烦了想到中国了，以前骂中国的时候怎么没有想象会有今天？
等大难过了他们又会故伎重演，与中国为敌。 原帖由 dakelv 于 2008-10-16 21:50 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
英国和美国的纳税人需要担心政府介入的力度吗？几乎不需要。政府目前以低价买入银行的股份，到头来肯定会证明是很划算的。当斯堪地那维亚政府这样做时，最后获益的是大家。而且，正如财务部第一副大臣YvettCooper所说，对政府债务规模的恐慌是建立在一个错误的观点之上的，这个观点就是这种债务是像雇佣教师和医生所指出的花费一样。但事实上这不是支出，这是金融投资。有关提高税额的说法也是不负责任的。这只能使人们更加恐慌，减少消费，从而加速朝向大萧条的螺旋向下运动。
不是很懂经济。
但是电视里说，就算德国政府承诺了4000亿欧元的银行间贷款担保，银行之间还是不能相互信任，说到底还是对政府能力没信心啊。
[ 本帖最后由 ferrara 于 2008-10-16 23:08 编辑 ] 在危机之前之后，钱还是那些钱，只是人们丧失信心，对未来悲观才造成越来越大的危机。 他们希望在他们这些极度富有的富人开完穷奢极欲的宴会后，由中国的贫穷老百姓省下口粮来替他们买单和打扫他们的残羹剩饭。 在溺水者看来,哪怕只是一根稻草也是好的. 中国花掉银行里面的存款，也是拉动内需用，别想着中国大量扩大进口 我看到乞丐了。 因为人民币不是结算货币,所以中国才需要储存外汇比如美元或者欧元,但这并不说明美国欧州这不需存"外汇"的地方就没有2万亿美金,既然如此,为什么要化我们的钱?! 无耻的发达国家！ 他们是想说"让中国人也没存款,中国人都破产....美国的危机就可避免"Q11) 原帖由 flasher 于 2008-10-17 07:53 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
他们希望在他们这些极度富有的富人开完穷奢极欲的宴会后，由中国的贫穷老百姓省下口粮来替他们买单和打扫他们的残羹剩饭。
这个比喻很喜欢,从题目就看出他们的险恶用心,旨在把中国拖下水,如果真按他们说的那样做了,等我们存款用尽之时,我们的利用价值也就没有了,他们会一脚把我们踹到一边去. 中国没有必要为世界买单，我们的人民存点钱那是不容易的事情！ 又在打中国的主义，这些无耻之徒！ 哎呀，这老外的大脑进化得这么快，真的很雷很强大的狗屁逻辑啊！ 原帖由 wwj62598 于 2008-10-17 08:05 发表 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
我看到乞丐了。
我也看到了 我们可以花掉存款，只要你们肯卖高科技技术和武器技术
别的东西咱们不要 他们是想要中国花掉美元和欧元吧，但中国想买的东西他们都不卖啊，这可不是中国的问题。