2013年上外高翻会议口译试题

201320135%1.Clinton's Global Initiative2.Elysee Palace3.Palace of Westminster4.Department of Interior5.lead from the behind6.bank run7.Libor8.Sequester9.Korean Armistice Agreement10.Muslim Brotherhood11.Lean In12.Troika13.Air Force One14.PM2.515.Anonymous (an organisation)16. China Railway Corporation5%1.2.3.4.5. .6. 5007.8.9.10.11. 5+112.13.14.Global Markets' Time Factor21 March 2013BARCELONA – In recent months, the dichotomy between booming financial markets, on the one hand, and sluggish economies and dysfunctional politics, on the other, has loomed large. Yet insufficient attention is being devoted to a critical factor – time, and who controls it – that could well mean the difference between an orderly global resolution of today’s growing inconsistencies and a return to a more troubled phase.Markets have been understandably buoyant in the first quarter of 2013. Most economic data confirm that, after the trauma caused by the global financial crisis, the United States’ economy is healing, and doing so in an accelerated fashion.The sequence is now well established. It started with large multinational companies, which are on as solid a financial footing as I can remember. Smaller firms are gradually recuperating; banks have rebuilt their capital cushions and reduced their dubious assets; the housing sector has stabilized; and a growing number of households are reestablishing healthier balance sheets, especially as employment gradually picks up.This private-sector recovery is helping government finances. The US budget deficit has been on a downward trend for now, helped by both higher revenues and lower pressure on spending (for example, payments to the unemployed have fallen as joblessness has declined).The healing process is also evident in Europe, though, unfortunately, it is effectively limited only to sovereign-bond markets. The real economy remains under enormous pressure in several countries, as economies contract and unemployment remains alarmingly high.After flirting with disaster last July, interest-rate spreads for eurozone bonds have generally been subdued, and financial segmentation has been slowly reversed (that is, at least before European officials embarked on the controversial path of trying to impose losses on guaranteed bank deposits in Cyprus). Moreover, as Ireland’s highlysuccessful €5 billion ten-year bond issue in mid-March demonstrated, some countries are in the process of restoring normal access to capital markets.The impact on markets of these trends has been turbocharged by central banks, which are risk markets’ best friends. This is not because they wish to play that role; rather, it is because higher asset prices are essential if central bankers stand any chance of delivering the desired economic outcomes of higher growth and stronger job creation.This is most evident in the US, where markets love the Federal Reserve’s trifecta of near-zero policy interest rates (negative in real terms), aggressive forward policy guidance, and asset purchases – all of which push investors to take more risk. Markets also welcome the fact that the Fed’s hyperactive experimentation is forcing other central banks around the world to pursue more expansionary policies.Indeed, from the Bank of Japan’s dramatic policy U-turn to the Bank of Mexico’s surprise interest-rate cuts, the Fed’s approach is affecting central banks in a growing number of countries. Pushed further away from best-case scenarios, they are unable to ignore the global liquidity impact of the Fed’s policies, yet they lack the right policy tools to address it.The mix of endogenous healing and strong central-bank tailwinds, including from a “whatever it takes” European Central Bank, has also helped markets shrug off troubling political uncertainties. Be it the US Congress’s paralyzing polarization or Italy’s protest vote against the established political order, politicians are being given time to overcome their dysfunction, thereby minimizing any immediate disruptive impact.Understandably, investors have interpreted all of this as a green light to take more risk. And with the hype this month over eight successive records for the Dow Jones index (and many other records around the world), excitement induces more investors to enter riskier asset markets.The excitement is not anxiety-free, however, and rightly so. Investors worry about the longer-term consequences of political dysfunction, another year of Europeaneconomic contraction, disastrously high unemployment, unprecedented – and thus untested – central bank policies, and increasing global tensions. And the recent bungling of the Cyprus rescue does not help. No wonder some have called the recent market rally “one of the most unloved” in history.This mix of excitement and anxiety is, in fact, a sign of the looming crossroads that faces investors. One road, involving a relatively orderly handoff from policy-assisted recovery to self-sustaining growth, offers the possibility of even greater financial rewards, as rapidly improving economic and political conditions validate current artificial pricing and drive it higher.The other road is a lot less attractive. With insufficient endogenous healing and no economic escape velocity, the effectiveness of central banks’ policies wanes and political dysfunction increases, leading to financial losses, volatility spikes, and huge risk-management challenges.Given current policy and political uncertainties – and the multiple equilibria that they entail – it is difficult to predict with a high degree of confidence which road eventually will be taken and when. Those who claim otherwise may well fail to appreciate fully the exceptional nature of the current situation.In these circumstances, timing may not be everything, but it may prove to be a key determinant of the probabilities. If the journey to the crossroads is accelerated by a large geopolitical shock (originating in, say, the Middle East or North Korea) and/or a serious political breakdown in Europe (for example, a meltdown in Cyprus or prolonged political paralysis in Italy), the probability of taking the adverse path rises to an uncomfortably high level. If, however, central banks can contain domestic and global inconsistencies long enough, the combination of endogenous healing and eventual political progress would significantly improve the probability distribution.Have no doubt: today’s markets rely heavily on the old adage that “time heals all wounds.” The timekeepers are central banks. But their control of the clock is less than perfect; and it will become increasingly ineffective if economic improvement faces additional political headwinds in the months ahead.20%Think carefully about the issue presented in the following excerptand the assignment below.Nowadays nothing is private: our culture has become tooconfessional and self-expressive. People think that to hide one’sthoughts or feelings is to pretend not to have those thoughts orfeelings. They assume that honesty requires one to express everyinclination and impulse.Adapted from J. David Velleman, “The Genesis of Shame”Assignment: Should people make more of an effort to keep some things private?Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue.Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading,studies, experience, or observations.2013201325%)The Crumbling BRICSNew Delhi-In 2001, when Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs coined the acronym BRIC to refer to Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the world had high hopes for the fouremerging economies, whose combined gross domestic product was expected to reach$128.4 trillion by 2050, dwarfing the United States’ projected GDP of $38.5 trillion. When the four countries’ leaders gather tomorrow in South Africa – which joined their ranks in 2010, contributing the ‘ S ’ – for the fifth BRICS summit, their progress and potential will be reassessed.The summit ’ s hosts have set ambitious goals, reflected in the summit ’ s theme:“ BRICS and Africa – a partnership for development, integration, andindustrialisation.” They seek to advance national interests, further the African agenda,and realign the world’s financial, political, and trade architecture – an agenda that encompasses objectives from previous summits, while reflecting South Africa’s goal of harnessing its membership to benefit all of Africa.But, while strengthening ties with African countries might seem like the kind of pragmatic development issue that should bring consensus, the seeds of doubt are already being sown. Lamido Sanusi, the governor of Nigeria ’ s central bank, has called for Africans to recognise that “their romance with China” has helped to bring about “a new form of imperialism”.Moreover, the central item on the summit ’ s agenda, a proposed “ BRICS development bank”, is one that has gone nowhere at previous summits. This time, armed with a “feasibility study” put together by the five BRICS finance ministers,some progress may at last be made. With trade, both among the BRICS countries and between the BRICS and the rest of Africa, expected to increase from roughly $340 billion in 2012 to more than $500 billion in 2015, there is also much to discuss on the commercial front.So far, the goal of “global realignment” away from the advanced countries has catalysed these five very disparate countries’ efforts to forge their own bloc. But the primacy given to“advancing national interests” has always precluded real concerted action, at least until now.This is why the idea of establishing a BRICS development bank has taken on such importance. And the recently conducted feasibility study might spur long-awaited progress. But toward what end?According to China ’ s official news agency, the development bank ’ s primary objective would be “to direct development in a manner that reflects the BRICS’priorities and competencies”. Once the bank is established, a working group will be tasked with building the necessary technical and governance capacity.But this stock rhetoric fails to address the discrepancies between the BRICS ’interests, or to define the bank’s role in reconciling and advancing them.The fact that China is already Africa ’ s top trading partner, for example, invites questions about the proposed bank’s potential contributions. And China’s answer –that the bank would foster the “development of more robust and inter-dependent tiesbetween the BRICS” – provides little substance. Is the bank supposed to serve as acounterweight to global multilateral development financiers such as the World Bank,or to reduce American and European dominance over the Bretton Woods institutions?Whatever the underlying objective, it must be identified, and its concomitant risks addressed, if the BRICS are to make genuine progress. For example, if the proposed bank is simply an additional funding institution aimed at supporting the BRICS ’s development agenda, the participating countries’ leaders must establish how it will interact with national institutions, such as the Brazilian Development Bank, the China Development Bank, and the Export-Import Bank of India.But the problem of aligning the BRICS’ interests is a much deeper one. Consider India ’ s need for massive investments in infrastructure, made evident in itsjust-proposed 2013-14 budget. Some hopeful Indians see a BRICS bank as a way to channel China’s surplus funds – as well as its expertise and experience – to such investments (especially railways), as well as to strengthen Sino-Indian ties. But given the two countries ’ many serious bilateral problems, will either government really want to bind itself so closely to the other? Although Wen Jiabao, in his final address as prime minister, highlighted the enduring obstacles to China ’ s economic development (many of which its fellow BRICS share), China’s new president, Xi Jinping, insists that his country will not sacrifice its “ sovereignty, security, ordevelopment interests” for the sake of more trade.Meanwhile, Russia’s impaired democracy and resource-driven economy are a poor example for its fellow BRICS – and, in fact, could serve as a warning to the others about the risks of excessive reliance on the state. And Brazil, like India a genuine democracy, also seems sui generis. Despite the commodities boom of the last decade,its industrial output relative to GDP is no higher than it was when the effort to create aBRICS bloc began.The BRICS’ ambitions – and the world’s expectations for them – may yet be fulfilled. But shared potential does not translate into collaborative action. On the contrary, each of the BRICS will have to pursue its goals, and confront its challenges, individually.25%30 “ ” “” “ ”10 38.9%1970-1980 10.5% 2001-2010 57.7%30 1.44-3 1.4-2.6 ;20“ ”“ ”。