2010年中共中央黨?？疾┯⒄Z(yǔ)真題(問(wèn)答)

希賽網(wǎng)為考生們整理了2010年中共中央黨?？疾┯⒄Z(yǔ)問(wèn)答題真題，供考生們備考復(fù)習(xí)。

The US administration has switched hesitancy for populism in proposing size and activity limits on America's largest banks. While details are still missing, possibly because no one really knows how to implement size limits or curbs on proprietary trading, the intent is clear—bankers must pay. It is hard to have much sympathy for the bankers, who have brought the public's ire on themselves through incompetence and then through an outrageous haste to pay themselves. Yet outrage is a poor guide to public policy. Beyond being punitive, will the administration's proposals help reduce financial system risk?

Consider size limit first. The idea is to ensure institutions are no longer too big to fail. But how to define size? Whether you use assets, capital or profits there will be problems—banks will try to economize on whatever measure is limited. Crude asset size limits, for example, would probably ensure a lot of financial activity is hidden from the regulator, only to come back to light (and to balance sheets) at the worst of times. There are many legal ways to mask size. Banks can offer guarantees to assets placed in off-balance sheet vehicles, much like the conduits of the recent crisis. If, instead, capital is the measure, then we will be pushing banks to economize on it as much as possible, hardly a recipe for safety. And if it is profits, we will be inviting healthy banks to park profits elsewhere, while rewarding sickly ones by allowing them to expand indefinitely.

Even if we do settle on a definition, it is not clear that being large is necessary or sufficient for an entity to be a systemic risk. Bear Stems would not be "large" by most calculations, though it was considered connected enough to be saved. But Vanguard, the mutual fund group, manages more than $l, 000bn in assets and would probably not qualify as systemic. Not all large financial entities are equally troubling; would we include the mutual funds operated by a bank in its size?

Also, being big has its virtues. Some larger banks are better at diversifying and attracting managerial talent (including risk managers). While a poorly managed $2,000bn bank creates immense problems for the system, the problems could be even greater with 100 banks of $20bn in size, each of which has taken similar risks. What is important is not size per se but the concentration and correction of risk in the system as well as the size of exposure relative to capital.

Instead of imposing a blanket ban on institutions growing beyond a certain size, regulators should use more subtle mechanisms such as prohibiting mergers of large banks or encouraging the break-up of large banks that seem to have a propensity for getting into trouble. While there are always concerns about whether regulators will use these sorts of powers arbitrarily, they are no more difficult for legislators and courts to oversee than are powers based on anti-competitive considerations.

問(wèn)題內(nèi)容：

1.What does the passage mainly discuss?

2.How does the public think of big banks in the US? Why?

篇幅原因，更多真題內(nèi)容，請(qǐng)下載附件查看。 

更多中共中央黨校博士考試英語(yǔ)真題，點(diǎn)擊中共中央黨?？?/span>博英語(yǔ)歷年真題匯總(2007-2015)