国际经贸高级英语精读第4单元课文翻译及答案

1、Unit FourUnited We Stand?S. Eric WangTEXT IN DECEMBER 1991, 12 EUROPEAN nations signed the historic Maastricht Treaty and, in so doing, created the single currency trading region now known as the European Monetary Union (EMU). The Maastricht Treaty outlines the process by which the EMU nations will

2、replace their individual currencies with a single currency, the euro, that will be controlled by a single European central bank. In January of 1999, exchange rates between national currencies and the euro are supposed to be irrevocably fixed, and by January 2002, national currencies are supposed to

3、be phased out entirely. However, while Germany, France, and a few other EMU nations are in position to meet this timeline, many other nations have been delayed by difficulties concerning Maastricht Treaty requirements and may not be able to fix exchange rates on time. Though the majority of European

4、 government officials are currently optimistic, the difficulties that have been experienced do not bode well for the future of the EMU in its present form. While current problems center on controlling government deficits to meet Maastricht conditions, the exchange rate crises of the recent past call

5、 into question the basic desirability of the project. Until these issues are addressed, national economies should not be forced to fit Maastricht conditions and arbitrary deadlines, as such action will only create unnecessary economic turmoil. The current delays in monetary unification are necessary

6、; more caution would be in the best interest of the people of Europe. Why Monetary UnionWhy Monetary Union In order to properly evaluate the dilemmas facing the EMU, the current system must be carefully analyzed with particular attention to its economic costs and benefits. Presently each nation has

7、a different currency, and relative currency values tend to fluctuate unless constrained by artificial international agreements. Currency fluctuations occur for a number of reasons, the most important being that nations often expand or reduce the amount of currency in circulation. An increase in the

8、money supply forces a devaluation of the currency, and the lower exchange rate increases exports, raising the economys total output. A monetary reduction would result in an opposite effect that also tends to lower inflation. Therefore, the central banks of Europe currently use control of the money s

9、upply to keep national inflation rates low and to expand national economies in recession. The benefits of EMU come from eliminating the economic costs associated with having multiple currencies. The most apparent cost of different currencies involves the resources that must be spent converting from

10、one currency to another. For example, if a German firms earnings are in French francs, it must exchange the francs for German marks in order to pay its employees. Employee time, and therefore the firms money, must be spent making this exchange. However, the European Commission estimates currency exc

11、hange costs to be, on average, only 0.4 percent of the GDP of the European Union. A second cost of numerous currencies comes about when nations allow the relative values of their currencies to fluctuate freely. The uncertainty created by varying exchange rates creates a barrier to trade because the

12、value of the money that people will receive changes when exchange rates change. For instance, a German company expecting payment in French francs will see the value of that payment fall if the franc depreciates against the German mark. The volatility of exchange rates is, in effect, a cost that inte

13、rnational firms must take into account when estimating profits. However, under the system in place before the beginning of the present monetary unification process, this cost was also quite small. Under that system, nations set the exchange rates that their central banks used for conversion between

14、currencies. Then, whenever a nation increased the money supply, the market exchange rate would fall a bit, but the banks exchange rate would remain stable. Arbitraguers would not take advantage of small differences between the central banks pegged rates and market rates because regulations on capita

15、l flow made such moves very costly. Only when the difference became very large did arbitrage activity become significant, forcing the central bank to revise its exchange rate. With small exchange rate fluctuations and only occasional exchange rate realignments, firms were able to use futures and swa

16、ps, among other financial instruments, to hedge against the risk. This system, however, also created an economic cost because regulations on capital flow made capital markets inefficient. However, removal of regulations would have resulted in intolerably volatile exchange rates. The best solution to

17、 this dilemma appeared to be the adoption of a single European currency. Maastricht and Modifications Maastricht and Modifications The Maastricht Treaty, in detailing the path towards monetary unification, included an important exchange rate condition which takes advantage of the European Exchange R

18、ate Mechanism (ERM). This mechanism stated that exchange rates between participating currencies would not be allowed to fluctuate beyond plus or minus 2.25 percent of certain set rates. The Maastricht Treaty nations agreed to stay within this band without utilizing devaluations for the two years bef

19、ore joining the EMU. However, a number of crises soon forced the ERM to change. In 1992, Germany was in an economic boom with an inflation rate of four percent. Accordingly, Germany was very cautious about increasing its money supply, and the other EMU nations, which were in recession, were forced t

20、o follow with stringent monetary policies of their own. According to a study by Paul De Grauwe, the other nations of the EMU, on average, should have increased their money supply by five percent more than they actually did. However, these tight monetary policies were apparently not tight enough; the

21、 British pound and the Italian lira both plummeted against the German mark. In September 1992, pressure from speculators forced both the United Kingdom and Italy to devalue their currencies, and the two nations temporarily left the EMU. In August of 1993, the ERM of the Maastricht Treaty had to be c

22、hanged as another currency crisis hit. A number of currencies, most notably the French franc, were severely overvalued, and speculators were putting tremendous pressure on the exchange rate. Germany attempted to alleviate the pressure by buying several billion dollars worth of francs, but the effort

23、 was not enough. Instead of forcing France out of the ERM, the ERM itself was revised. The band was widened from 2.25 percent to 15 percent. The French franc devalued immediately, and the pressure from speculators was alleviated. However, these crises raise questions as to how a monetarily integrate

24、d Europe would function. Clearly, nations currently rely tremendously on monetary flexibility to reign in inflation and to boost sagging economies. Unification and the United StatesUnification and the United States The troubles that the EMU has experienced up to now are perhaps merely a glimpse of w

25、hat lies in the future of a single currency Europe. A single European currency means a single European central bank, carrying out a centralized European monetary policy. Individual nations will no longer be able to use monetary policy for their own national economic needs. Furthermore, government sp

26、ending will be similarly constrained. Maastricht rules limit a nations budget deficit to three percent of its GDP. With limited fiscal freedom, the lack of national monetary policy will create enormous dissent and controversy within the Union at times of asymmetric recession. For example, the United

27、 Kingdom could go into a recession and want to expand its money supply at a time when the rest of Europe is in an economic boom, which requires a decrease in the money supply to keep inflation down. If the European central bank were to decrease the money supply, then the United Kingdom would plunge

28、into an even deeper recession. However, if the central bank were to cater to the United Kingdoms needs, the rest of Europe would experience high inflation. The economic consequences of such a situation have already been demonstrated in the crises of 1992 and 1993. The political ramifications of such

29、 a situation after unification are clearly disturbing. To add to the potential for trouble, Europe may see an increase in economic specialization along geographic and political boundaries, a phenomenon that would make Europe even more at risk for asymmetric recessions. Single currency states tend to

30、 become much more economically specialized due to the reduced costs of transportation and communication that a single currency brings. The United States, for example, is more specialized by region than the nations of Europe currently are; there are clusters of high technology firms in the Boston are

31、a and in Silicon Valley, but very few such firms settle anywhere in between.Unit FourUnited We Stand?S. Eric Wang Similar specialization can occur in Europe as well. It may be, for example, that the biggest automotive manufacturers will congregate in a region of Germany, while most gas companies flo

32、ck to the United Kingdom. In such a situation, if oil prices skyrocket, then the United Kingdom would enter into an economic boom while Germany goes into a severe recession. To prevent such harmful specialization, European nations may choose to erect artificial barriers through tariffs and regulatio

33、ns. However, such a move would be in direct contradiction to the goals of monetary unification. The full effects of an asymmetric recession on a specialized Europe would be quite complicated. A rough estimate of the economic ramifications can be done, though, using the United States economy as an ex

34、ample. When a recession hits a region in the United States, the afflicted states cannot exercise monetary policy, and therefore the effects of recessions on specific regions in the United States should be very similar to the effects of recessions on nations in Europe after monetary integration. Acco

35、rding to economist Paul Krugman, US regions in recession tend to lose labor population; wages tend not to fall and few new industries are attracted to the depressed area. This means that a post-recession region in the United States may have lower total output than it did before it went into recessio

36、n, even though the unemployment rate of the region may be back at the natural rate. This boosts the case against deficit spending as a way to end recessions because, at the end of the recession, many of the people who took unemployment benefits will have found work and be paying taxes in a different

37、 region. The debt from their unemployment benefits will either accumulate or be paid off by a smaller population at higher tax rates. For Europe, this implies that once a nation goes into a recession, it should refrain from deficit spending because its GDP may stay low even after its unemployment ra

38、te is back to its natural level. However, the population loss problem is mitigated by the fact that European labor mobility is much lower than US labor mobility. Therefore, European nations in a regional recession will be able to regain higher levels of output at the end of the recession than simila

39、r United States regions. This maintenance of output means a higher level of deficit spending can be used, raising severe questions of fiscal discipline within the EMU that have yet to be resolved. Unfortunately, low labor mobility also means that the amount of time nations will spend at recessionary

40、 levels of unemployment will also be longer than the time spent by a similar US region. There is another crucial difference between the United States single currency area and the EMU. Though individual states cannot exercise much fiscal policy, the United States federal government can and does do so

41、 in the form of social insurance and national taxes. At the federal level, the government can pay out unemployment benefits and then get the money back in the form of taxes when people find work in another part of the nation. However, Europe does not have a continental fiscal policy, and therefore c

42、osts of a national recession will have to be borne by the individual nation. National governments, facing longer recessions than the United States, may not be able to recoup all the unemployment benefits paid out because the unemployed may eventually find work in another part of Europe and emigrate.

43、 The Need for CautionThe Need for Caution The experience of large, monetarily unified economies, such as that of the United States, and the obstacles that have intervened in Europes monetary unification process to date present a strong argument for caution. The goal of the European Union should be t

44、hat of bettering the lives of Europeans. A single currency Europe may not be in the best interests of the people of Europe. Certainly, capital flow would be less restricted, allowing the economy to become more efficient. Total economic output should rise, and Europe should become more prosperous. Ho

45、wever, with limited labor mobility and an increasing degree of specialization, certain regions may be left behind. Capital may pour into economically expanding regions with specialized labor and technologies as investors see the potential for profit. Other regions, though, would be left in poverty u

46、ntil the wage differential was great enough to warrant Unit FourUnited We Stand?S. Eric Wang expensive relocations on the part of firms and investors. The current disputes over fiscal discipline merely serve to emphasize the differences in the economic needs of different European nations. This does

47、not mean that Europe should not eventually have a single currency. It is merely an indication that the process towards unification, and indeed the characteristics of the unified Europe, need to be revised. The United States has successfully utilized a single currency, so it is clear that large regio

48、ns can share a currency system; the solutions to Europes dilemmas just need time to be found. Without these solutions, though, the current move towards unification appears to be unnecessarily rushed and could potentially harm the European economy and people. (from Harvard International Review, Winte

49、r 1996/1997)Exercises. Translate the following into English, using the words or phrases in the text:1. 严重依赖货币弹性来控制通货膨胀to rely heavily on monetary flexibility to put inflation under control2. 实行紧缩的货币政策to execute tight monetary policy3. 以社会保险和国家税收的形式实行财政政策to implement fiscal policy in the form of soci

50、al insurance and national taxes4. 涌入经济上扩张的地区5. 用单一货币取代它们各自的货币to replace their individual currencies with a single currency6. 预示欧洲货币联盟的美好未来 to bode well for the future of the EMU7. 控制政府赤字以满足马斯特里赫特条约to control government deficits to meet Maastricht conditionsto pour into economically expanding regions

51、8. 成为出口主要障碍的币值高估9. 制止向外国倾销过剩货物to refrain from dumping surplus goods abroad10. 一体化的经济对资本流动的影响 the influence of integrated economy on capital flow11. 使货币当局有理由采取贬值政策的国际收支逆差the balance ofpayments deficit warranting the devaluation policy adopted by the monetary authoritythe overvalued currency as a main

52、 barrier to export12. 消除伴随有多种货币而来的各种经济成本13. 在估计利润时必须被考虑的成本costs that must be taken into account when estimating profits14. 利用中央银行固定汇率与市场汇率之间的微小差异 to take advantage of the small difference between the central banks fixed (exchange) rates and market (exchange) rates15. 规避来自多变的汇率的风险to hedge against ris

53、ks coming from volatile exchange ratesto eliminate the economic costs associated with holding multiple currencies. Translate the following sentences into English:1. 具有讽刺意味的是，伴随着欧洲的一体化进程，欧洲将经历经济专业化的增多。(see) Ironically, Europe will see an increase in economic specialization along with the European uni

54、fication process.2. 当两个成员国都强烈需要某种货币政策来调整其经济，而其需要的政策方向又相反时，欧洲中央银行就面临着一个两难的困境。(dilemma) The European Central Bank will face a dilemma when two member countries both badly need certain monetary policies to regulate their economies but the policies they need are of opposite directions.3. 如果一个人利用不同市场上或同一

55、市场上不同时间点上的不同汇率来获利，他就会被称作“套汇掮客”。(take advantage of) A person will be called an “arbitrageur“ if he takes advantage of the different exchange rates on different markets, or at different times on a same market, to gain profits.4. 近来，许多欧洲国家的国民经济被强制要求符合马斯特里赫特条件和人为的截止日期，而这些行为已产生了不必要的经济混乱。(fit) The nationa

56、l economies of many European countries have recently been forced to fit Maastricht conditions and arbitrary deadlines, and such actions have created unnecessary economic turmoils.5. 作为中央银行，联邦储备体系目前利用对货币供应量的控制来保持低的国家通货膨胀率并在衰退时扩张国民经济。(keep sth.+adj.) As a central bank, the Federal Reserve System curre

57、ntly uses its control over the money supply to keep the national inflation rates low and to expand national economy in recession. Put the following passage into English: 甚至在欧元的建设尚未完成之前，各国政府就能指出它的一个令人注目的成功。在过去的一年中，全球金融市场经历了不同寻常的混乱。富国的证券市场和货币也未能幸免。但是，相比较而言，欧洲一直是一个安全的避风港。欧洲内部各国的汇率变动极小。这正是欧元在11国政府在过去一直努力要做到的，但是，一年以前，他们的成功却不可能是一件理所当然的事。事实是，在一个发生史无前例的金融风暴的时期，外汇市场认为其稳定欧洲各国内部汇率的承诺是可信的。欧洲各国的货币一直保持稳定，各国的利率趋于一致：它预示着向新体系的顺利过渡。 Even before construction of