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2024-04-24  3
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 did TARP’s $ 245 billion investment in banks bring about?
选项 A、Numerous practical problems remained unsolved.
B、The government suffered a severe economic loss.
C、More thoughtless risk-taking appeared in financial firms.
D、Banks got trust again and began to take on a new look.
答案 D
解析 细节辨认题。定位段主要讲述问题资产纾解计划对银行的救助。第三、四句提到，问题资产纾解计划向银行投资2 450亿美元，这额外的资金帮助银行恢复了信用。第六句提到，银行恢复了彼此之间的交易，因为它们重拾信守承诺的信心。由此可见，由于2 450亿美元的救助资金，银行又得到了信任，开始呈现出新面貌，因此答案为D)。A)“许多实际问题仍然没得到解决”，由定位段前两句可知，如果当时实施另一种选择一——银行的普遍国有化的话，花费会高很多，实际问题也非常多，故A)错误；B)“政府遭受了严重的经济损失”，原文指出在向银行投资的2 450亿美元当中，财政部已经收回约2 440亿美元，对银行的救助大体上达到了收支平衡，该选项与原文意思不符，故排除；C)“在金融公司中出现了更多不计后果的冒险行为”，从第四段倒数第二句可知，这是人们对该计划作用的担心，并不是对银行救助的真正结果，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3569678.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)