男女69视频免费|国产久日综合视频|国产伊人Av韩一级黄片|欧美一级在线播放|日韩国产另类欧美在线观看|亚洲无无码成人网站是|青草免费视频在线观看视频|美女黄色一级A片播放|国产一a毛一a毛a|极品少妇Av欧无码中出

　　Freddie and Fannie have changed that equation only slightly. Their importance lies in what their rescue says about the financial system. At Fannie and Freddie-and, shockingly, at the investment banks-the profits were privatised, but the risks were socialised. One Republican senator complained that he thought he had “woken up in France”. Mr Paulson was still right to intervene: the collapse of Fannie and Freddie would have been a catastrophe. But by not formally nationalising them, he has let down taxpayers and made the same deeply uncapitalist mistake the British government initially made with Northern Rock, a failed mortgage bank it tried to prop up.
　　二房危機輕微地打破了這種平衡。這兩家機構(gòu)的重要性，從政府救市對于金融體系的意義中就可見一斑。房地美和房利美——以及投資銀行（這讓人觸目驚心）——利潤私有化，但風(fēng)險卻社會化了。一位共和黨參議員抱怨說，他以為自己當(dāng)時是“在法國醒來。”保爾森插手干預(yù)仍是明智之舉：二房的倒閉將會釀成一場災(zāi)難?？墒牵茨軐⒅絿谢?，因而辜負(fù)了納稅人，犯了和英國同樣嚴(yán)重的非資本主義的錯誤——英國政府之前力圖挽救瀕臨倒閉的北巖抵押房貸銀行。

　　Mark to market, or market to Marx?
　　市場還是計劃？

　　The debt is what matters with Fannie and Freddie, but the shares were the trigger. When investors realised they would eventually need more money to cover their looming losses, there was a run on the stock. This rapidly became a test of a tacit government pledge to back their debt. Had the government hinted that it wanted to wriggle free from its vague promises, the debt would have crashed; the banking system would have been crippled by new losses; foreign investors would have fled a country that broke its word; and the housing market, a trifle short of lenders just now, would have lost its main backers. Mr Paulson vowed to lend Fannie and Freddie money and buy their shares if necessary. They could also borrow from the Fed. The next day investors queued up to buy Freddie’s bonds.
　　二房的債務(wù)是關(guān)鍵所在，但股價乃為誘因。投資人在意識到最終需要更多的資金才能彌補迫在眉睫的損失時，便在股市上狂拋撤資。這很快成為了檢測政府是否暗中允諾插手紓困的手段。如果政府此前暗示要轉(zhuǎn)變曖昧的態(tài)度，便宜行事，那么高舉的債務(wù)早已崩塌，銀行系統(tǒng)業(yè)已陷入新的虧損，外國投資者業(yè)已然逃離這個言而無信的國家；而之前貸方略顯不足的房市，也已失去了主要的支撐者。保爾森先生誓言要貸款給二房，并在必要的時候收購其股票。兩家機構(gòu)也可從聯(lián)儲會借款。翌日，投資人排起長龍，爭購房地美的債券。

　　That is plainly not the end of it for the taxpayer. It seems quaint that critics once complained that finance was all about untrammelled markets and deregulation. On July 11th regulators took over IndyMac Bancorp, a Californian thrift, after the second-biggest bank failure in American history. After the rescue of Bear Stearns in March, the Fed agreed to back investment banks with its balance sheet. Congress is chewing over a small subsidy to troubled mortgage owners. If another large bank became vulnerable, more rescues would beckon.
　　對于納稅人來說，這還不是真正的結(jié)束。批評家曾經(jīng)抱怨金融業(yè)務(wù)都在圍繞著不受制約的市場和違規(guī)行為打轉(zhuǎn)，眼下這倒顯得奇怪。7月11日，在印地麥克（IndyMac）這一美國歷史上第二宗最大規(guī)模的銀行倒閉案后，監(jiān)理機構(gòu)接管了這家位于加州的存貸公司。繼今年3月援手貝爾斯登之后，聯(lián)儲會此次同意直接注資支持投行。國會正反復(fù)考慮向身陷困境的抵押人提供小額補貼。如果再有一家大型銀行撐不住了，更多的援救計劃也指日可待。

　　Capitalism rests on a clear principle: those who get the profits should take the pain. For the system to work, bankers sometimes need to lose their jobs and investors their shirts. Yet were a collapsing Bear Stearns or Fannie Mae to sow destruction for the sake of a principle, it would impose a terrible price in lost jobs and output on everyone else. The unpalatable truth is that by the time a financial crisis hits, the state often has to compromise-to impose as much pain as it can, of course, but to shoulder a large part of the losses nonetheless.
　　資本主義建基于一個清晰的原則，即獲利者應(yīng)付出代價。為了讓這一體系運轉(zhuǎn)下去，銀行家有時要丟掉飯碗，投資人可能會傾家蕩產(chǎn)。但是，如果搖搖欲墜的貝爾斯登或房利美為了一個原則而走向滅亡，那么由此導(dǎo)致的失業(yè)和經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)量下跌等極高的代價都將平攤到其他所有人身上。這正是令人不快的真相：金融危機來襲之時，國家常常不得不妥協(xié)——盡可能多地讓人付出代價，但也承擔(dān)起一大部分的損失。

　　That formula comes at a heavy price. Fannie and Freddie were supposed to help Americans buy their own homes, by making the mortgage market work better. But it has been an awful deal for the taxpayer-a Fed economist calculated the implicit debt-guarantee was worth a one-off sum of between $122 billion and $182 billion. Because Fannie and Freddie barely lowered the cost of borrowing, little of this subsidy went towards boosting home ownership. Instead, just over half-about $79 billion-went straight to their shareholders.
　　這么做代價不小。二房本該幫助美國人購置房產(chǎn)，保持房貸市場的健康運轉(zhuǎn)，但事實上，這對納稅人來說卻是一筆糟糕的交易——根據(jù)聯(lián)儲會一名經(jīng)濟學(xué)家的計算，二房暗中持有的債務(wù)擔(dān)保，其一次性總額價值在1220到1820億美元之間。由于兩家企業(yè)幾乎沒怎么降低借貸的成本，這些補貼中只有很少的一部分用于促進房貸業(yè)務(wù)，而超過一半——大約790億美元——直接由其股東收益。