2. 职称英语
  3. One lesson of the financial crisis is this: when the entire financial system

One lesson of the financial crisis is this: when the entire financial system

游客2023-08-24  63
问题     One lesson of the financial crisis is this: when the entire financial system succumbs(屈服)to panic, only the government is powerful enough to prevent a complete collapse. Panics signify the triumph of fear. Troubled Assets Relief Program(TARP)was part of the process by which fear was overcome. It wasn’t the only part, but it was an essential part. Without TARP, we’d be worse off today. No one can say whether unemployment would be 11% or 14% ; it certainly wouldn’t be 8.9%.
    That benefited all Americans. TARP, says Douglas Elliott of the Brookings Institution, "is the best large federal program to be despised by the public." The source of outrage is no secret. Bankers are blamed for the crisis and reviled. The bank bailout—TARP’s first and most important purpose—was unpopular. Most Americans, says Elliott, "believe that taxpayers spent $ 700 billion and got nothing in return."
    What this ignores is that an alternative being promoted at the time was widespread nationalization of banks. The cost would have been many times higher; the practical problems would have been enormous. As it was, TARP invested $ 245 billion in banks. The extra capital helped restore trust. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve increased its lending; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. guaranteed $ 350 billion of bank borrowings. Banks resumed dealing with each other because they regained confidence that commitments would be honored. Of the $245 billion invested in banks, the Treasury has already recovered about $244 billion, including interest payments, dividends(红利), and cash from sold bank stock warrants. So the bank rescue has roughly broken even. When TARP’s remaining bank investments are closed, the Treasury expects an overall profit of about $ 20 billion.
    Almost all of TARP’s activities have been distasteful. This was surely true of the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler. But the automakers’ collapse would clearly have worsened already gloomy unemployment. Did we really want these companies to shut down, with some plants sold to foreign automakers? We need to remember that TARP was a desperate program for desperate times. But some criticisms are broad generalities that, on inspection, are highly suspect. One common assertion is that TARP will encourage more reckless risk-taking because big financial firms know they’ll be bailed out if their gambles backfire. Bankers keep profits but are protected against losses, which are assumed by the public.
    This is a serious issue, but TARP’s legacy is actually the opposite. During the crisis, investors in banks and financial institutions suffered huge losses. It wasn’t predictable which institutions would survive and which wouldn’t—or on what terms. The same would be true in the future. Indeed, TARP’s extreme unpopularity compounds uncertainty, because it suggests that politicians will recoil(退缩)from more bailouts. The moral hazard is more imagined than real. [br] What can we infer from the last paragraph?
选项 A、TARP won’t effectively solve the major problem faced by US economy.
B、Politicians’ decision on bailouts may be subject to public opinions.
C、It’ll be fairly easy to predict which bank would survive with TARP.
D、The lack of the federal bailout program will not lead to more losses.
答案 B
解析 细节推断题。作者在文章中多次提及问题资产纾解计划不受人欢迎，在末段倒数第二句提到该计划的不得人心加重了金融危机中存在的不确定性，因为这暗示政客们将不会实施更多的救助计划。由此推断，政客们对救助计划的决策可能受到公众观点的影响，即答案为B)。A)“问题资产纾解计划不会有效解决美国经济面临的主要问题”，原文没有提及．故排除；C)“可以很容易预料哪家银行可以利用问题资产纾解计划幸存”，末段第三句明确指出在金融危机中哪些机构会幸存、哪些会破产或者在什么条件下幸存都是不可预料的，故排除；D)“缺少联邦政府的救助计划不会造成更多的损失”，与文章意思不符，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2953416.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)