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

游客2023-08-24  41

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] The primary purpose of launching TARP is to______.

选项 A、ease the employment pressure
B、help banks survive the crisis
C、improve people’s living standards
D、remove taxpayers’ anxiety

答案 B

解析 细节辨认题。由定位句可知,对银行实施救助是问题资产纾解计划发起的首要目的,题干中的primary是对定位句中first and most important的同义转述,故答案为B)。A)“减轻就业压力”,第一段提到该计划在某种程度上降低了失业率,但这是它的作用之一,并不是主要目的,故排除;C)“提高人们的生活水平”,原文没有提及,故排除;D)“消除纳税人的忧虑”,第二段末句提到了纳税人认为投入7 000亿美元却什么也没得到,但这是该计划实施后美国人的反应,不是当初发起该计划的目的,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2953413.html
最新回复(0)