经济学英文实践作业.doc

The world needs bankers adventure Mainstream view is that the financial crisis originated in the U.S. proved that the Anglo - Saxon financial model too dangerous, there is a serious flaw, there is nothing worth learning elsewhere in the world. After all, if this model has merit, the United States and the United Kingdoms banking system nearly crashing why would collapse?But the Anglo - Saxon financial model in the 1990s, the reason why prestige high, at least to some extent due to long advocated the other major banking model seems to countries suffered a defeat.In the 1980s, Japanese banks put money spawned the largest ever one stock and real estate bubbles. They are bad investments reckless behavior perhaps only in recent years Chinas massive spending to par (Incidentally, the Chinese and Japanese banks have a lot of similarities).So, if all of the financial system are bound to fail? 20th centurys most prominent (probably underestimated) One economist Hyman Minsky ? (Hyman Minsky) pointed out, it is impossible to design foolproof, never happen crisis financial system. After all, the bank depositors and borrowers roles act as intermediaries between savers most attention is stable, while holding credit borrowers often want to take risks. History shows that Minsky was right. Without a growing economy can maintain a stable financial system. In fact, often those most willing to support the financial system adventurous entrepreneurs in society, the long-term accumulation of wealth created before the most. And that a financial system is more willing to high-risk new business financing, banking instability likely.Or, which is why making the subprime crisis of the financial system for the computer and Internet revolution has provided funding.Belgian historian Raymond ? Deluo Fu (Raymond de Roover) has pointed out that in the 19th century, the reckless banking bring serious loss to creditors on the one hand, on the other hand the U.S. economy accelerated development and sound Banking probably impeding the economic development of Canada. Or, which is why making the subprime crisis of the financial system for the computer and Internet revolution has provided funding. Belgian historian Raymond? Deluo Fu (Raymond de Roover) has pointed out that in the 19th century, the reckless banking caused serious losses to creditors on the one hand, on the other hand the U.S. economy accelerated development and sound Banking probably impeding the economic development of Canada. In other words, the financial system is too stable, may actually reduce economic growth, because it would limit the transfer of resources to the creation of wealth in the hands. This is not to say that all the reckless behavior of the banking sector are good. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to see the last 10 years the U.S. housing boom in the financial system and what is the value of derivatives abuse. 1980s, the Bank of Japan is too reckless, in the long run, it is difficult to say what the economic benefits.Anyway, according to Minskys logic, we should not waste time trying to design a set of problems from the stability of the financial system will not. Any financial system, regardless of whether the design of sophisticated, it seems to go through bad investments to deal with excess liquidity and low interest rates issue. Minsky do not believe that regulatory agencies can eliminate risk. Regulators can do is through the automatic counter-cyclical policies to mitigate the damage to the real economy.In fact, he pointed out that the stability imposed by regulatory agencies have destabilizing effects. When the loss is too severe for the whole community to bear the loss of the banking system is stable only ultimate way, but it will encourage more risky behavior. For this form of stability, the banks response is often the more adventurous activities implemented until a certain time, such as 2007-08, banks balance sheets twisted too seriously, can no longer prevent the crisis, its economic impact is difficult to easily offset.Instead, we should design such a financial system: in the normal times, it can intelligently funds were allocated to the creation of wealth business and government projects, even if it means there will be periodic crises. We should be allowed to occur more frequently localized but controllable banking crisis.Unfortunately, the United States in the post-crisis Minskys financial system is not likely to propose the kind. The United States has some large, versatile organization, controlling financial assets increasingly large share. If Minsky, he would choose a more fragmented system, this system has more moving parts, these parts are often damaged and was replaced. Large banks are more willing to maintain stability at the expense of rapid development. Currently some U.S. banks such a large scale, you can put your own preferences above the top of the overall U.S. economy.In fact, the United States and around the world, the ideal situation is perhaps more, smaller banks, more brutal even fatal competition, more frequently bankruptcy. Financial institutions more diverse, in addition to this there is a regulatory bodies: their important responsibility is to perform the requirements related to transparency, the use of counter-cyclical measures to deal with recurring crises. We might even like with 19th-century style reckless banks.世界需要冒险的银行家 主流观点认为，发端于美国的金融危机证明，“盎格鲁-撒克逊”金融模式过于危险，存在严重缺陷，没有什么值得世界其他地区学习的。毕竟，如果这套模式有可取之处，美国和英国的银行体系又怎会近乎轰然崩溃？ 但盎格鲁-撒克逊金融模式在20世纪90年代之所以声望高涨，至少在一定程度上是由于长期倡导“其它”主要银行业模式的国家均似乎遭遇了惨败。 20世纪80年代，日本银行业投放的资金催生了有史以来最大的股市和房产泡沫之一。它们鲁莽的不良投资行为或许只有近年中国的大规模支出才能比肩（顺便说一句，中日两国的银行有颇多相似之处）。 那么，是否所有的金融体系都必然会失败？20世纪最杰出（或许被低估了）的经济学家之一海曼.明斯基(Hyman Minsky)指出，不可能设计出万无一失、永远不会发生危机的金融体系。毕竟，银行在储户和借贷者之间充当中间人角色，储户最重视的是稳定，而借贷者往往想要拿着贷款去冒险。历史表明，明斯基是对的。没有一个增长中的经济体能够维持稳定的金融体系。事实上，往往是在那些金融体系最愿意资助冒险企业家的社会中，长期创造的财富才积累得最多。而一种金融体系越是愿意为高风险的新事业提供资金，银行业不稳定的可能性就越大。 或者，这就是为什么制造了次贷危机的金融体系也为计算机和互联网革命提供了资金。比利时历史学家雷蒙德?德罗弗(Raymond de Roover)曾经指出，在19世纪，“鲁莽的银行业一方面给债权人带来严重损失，另一方面却加速了美国的经济发展。而稳健的银行业或许妨碍了加拿大的经济发展。” 换句话说，金融体系过于稳定，实际上可能降低经济增长，因为这会限制资源转移到财富创造者手中。这并不是说所有鲁莽的银行业行为都是好的。无疑，我们很难看出过去10年间美国金融体系中的房产繁荣和衍生品滥用有什么价值。20世纪80年代日本银行过于鲁莽，从长期来看，很难说在经济上有什么好处。 不管怎样，按照明斯基的逻辑，我们不应浪费时间试图设计出一套从不会出问题的稳定金融体系。任何金融体系，不管设计是否精良，似乎都会通过不良投资来应对流动性过剩以及利率过低的问题。明斯基不相信监管机构能够消除风险。监管机构所能做的是通过自动逆周期政策，减轻实体经济所受的损害。 事实上，他指出，监管机构所强加的稳定性具有破坏稳定的效果。当损失过于严重时，让整个社会承担损失是稳定银行体系的唯一终极途径，但会鼓励更加冒险的行为。对于这种形式的稳定，银行的回应往往是更多地实施冒险活动，直到某个时刻，如2007-08年，银行资产负债表扭曲得太严重了，无法再阻止危机爆发，其对经济的冲击很难轻易抵消。 相反，我们应该设计这样一套金融体系：在“正常”时期，它能够聪明地把资金分配给创造财富的企业和政府项目，即便这意味着会有周期性危机。我们应该允许更加频繁地发生本地化、但可控的银行业危机。令人遗憾的是，美国在后危机时代的金融体系不是明斯基可能会提议的那种。美国有一些大型、全能型机构，控制着金融资产中日益庞大的份额。如果是明斯基的话，他会选择更加碎片化的体系，这套体系中有更多“可移动部件”，这些部件常常会损毁并被替换掉。大型银行更愿意维持稳定，从而牺牲快速发展。当前美国一些银行的规模如此之大，可以把自己的偏好凌驾于美国整体经济之上。然而事实上，对美国以及全世界来说，最理想的情境或许是有更多、更小的银行，更加残酷甚至致命的竞争，更加频繁地破产，金融机构更加多样，此外还要有一家这样的监管机构：其主要职责是执行与透明度相关的要求，采用逆周期措施应对周期性危机。我们甚至可能还会喜欢带有19世纪风格的“鲁莽银行”。感想读完这篇文章，我们对经济的发展有了一些新的想法，同时对银行这一金融领域有了一些别样的看法，就像地球在不停的转动一样，经济的发展怎么可能会一直处于绝对稳定的状态呢？所谓的稳定只能是相对的，经济的向前发展也就成为一种人类社会进步的必然的选择。经济的发展是一种过程，这其中，显而易见，前进中包涵着冒险，而冒险又推动着前进的步伐。我一直以为银行是最为稳定的投资，老百姓将钱存进银行是非常安全，稳定的，虽然在高中的政治课本中也知道银行只是风险相对比较小的投资，但对于我们广大人民来看，这种投资的风险为零，连“几乎”这个词都不用，我也读了货币战争这本书，虽然只读了很少一部分，但里面罗斯柴尔家族通过银行财富积累的如此之快，我想写这篇文章的作者，或者应该叫作杰出的思想家，经济学家，也一定认真研究过真本书，正想作者得出的结论世界需要冒险的银行家，他们可以推动经济更好的发展。在对这篇文章的阅读过程中，我们发现了一些新的经济学名词，比如“次贷危机，盎格鲁-撒克逊模式等等”正因为这些名词的存在，通过查阅相关资料信息，我们对经济学有了一个新的认识和感悟。 撒克逊模式又称新美国模式,该模式信奉尽量少的政府干预、鼓励自由竞争、推动贸易自由化和资本流动的盎格鲁便利化。在过去的20年中,这一模式推动了整个美国经济保持了相对较快的增长速度,受到了政治家和学者们的大力推崇。世界银行和国际货币基金组织推动的“华盛顿共识”,实质就是在推广这一发展模式。上世纪九十年代亚洲金融危机之后,盎格鲁-撒克逊模式更是成为广大发展中国家学习的教材,没想到的是,学生尚未毕业,老师出了问题。“新美国模式”和“莱茵模式”的差别，可以从宏观经济、中观经济和微观经济三个方面分析。从宏观经济看，美国赋税水平低，欧洲赋税水平高（两者的税收收入大约各占GNP的30和40）；从中观经济看，两种模式对企业的投资方式不同，美国企业主要是金融市场融资（约占80），欧洲企业主要是通过银行贷款（约占6065）；从微观经济看，企业的领导方式不同，美国是股东领导企业，欧洲则是合作管理制。“新美国模式”体现了新保守主义所倡导放弃管制、削弱国家作用的所谓“国家最小化，市场最大化”原则，“莱茵模式”则是社会民主主义思潮的产物，德国奉行的社会市场经济是“莱茵模式”的典型。次贷危机：又称次级房贷危机，也翻译为次债危机。它是指一场发生在美国，因为次级抵押贷款机构破产、投资基金