包容性資本主義大會演講稿（帶翻譯）
演講稿可以提高演講人的自信心，有助發(fā)言人更好地展現(xiàn)自己。在生活中，我們都可能會用到演講稿，如何寫一份恰當(dāng)?shù)难葜v稿呢？以下是小編整理的包容性資本主義大會演講稿（帶翻譯），僅供參考，大家一起來看看吧。
Economic Inclusion and Financial Integrity—an Address to the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism
經(jīng)濟包容與金融穩(wěn)健——在“包容性資本主義大會”上的講話
Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
國際貨幣基金組織總裁克里斯蒂娜·拉加德
London, May 27, 20xx
倫敦，20xx年5月27日
Good morning. What a great privilege to be here among such illustrious guests to discuss such an important topic.
上午好。很榮幸能夠在這里與各位尊貴的來賓討論這一重要的問題。
Let me thank Lady Lynn de Rothschild and the Inclusive Capitalism Initiative for convening today’s event. I would also like to recognize the great civic leaders here today—His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales; President Clinton, and Fiona Woolf, Lord Mayor of the City of London.
我感謝林恩·羅斯柴爾德夫人和“包容性資本主義倡議”舉辦今天的活動。我還想向今天在座的偉大的公民領(lǐng)袖——查爾斯王子殿下、克林頓總統(tǒng)，以及倫敦市長菲奧娜·伍爾夫——致以敬意。
We are all here to discuss “inclusive capitalism”—which must be Lynn’s idea! But what does it mean? As I struggled with the answer to that, I turned to etymology and to histo
ry.
我們今天在這里討論“包容性資本主義”——這肯定是林恩的主意!但這是什么意思呢?為了回答這一問題，我求助于詞源和歷史。
Capitalism originates from the Latin “caput”, cattle heads, and refers to possessions. Capital is used in the 12th century and designates the use of funds. The term “capitalism” is only used for the first time in 1854 by an Englishman, the novelist William Thackeray—and he simply meant private ownership of money.
資本主義來自拉丁文“Caput”，即牲口的頭，指擁有的財產(chǎn)。12世紀(jì)使用“資本(Capital)”一詞，指資金的使用。“資本主義(Capitalism)”一詞在1854年才被英國小說家威廉·薩克雷第一次使用，僅指錢財?shù)乃饺藫碛小?/p>
The consecration of capitalism comes during the 19th century. With the industrial revolution came Karl Marx who focused on the appropriation of the means of production—and who predicted that capitalism, in its excesses, carried the seeds of its own destruction, the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, mostly focused on the accumulation of profits, leading to major conflicts, and cyclical crises.
資本主義一詞在19世紀(jì)被神化。隨著工業(yè)革命的推進，卡爾·馬克思關(guān)注生產(chǎn)工具的占有，他預(yù)言，在經(jīng)濟過剩狀態(tài)下，資本主義播下了自身毀滅的種子，造成了資本在少數(shù)人手中積累(主要是利潤的累積)，從而導(dǎo)致重大沖突和周期性危機。
So is “inclusive capitalism” an oxymoron? Or is it the response to Marx’s dire prediction that will lead to capitalism’s survival and regeneration—to make it truly the engine for shared prosperity?
所以，“包容性資本主義”的提法是不是矛盾的?或者，作為對馬克思可怕預(yù)言的應(yīng)對之策，它是否能使資本主義生存下去并獲得新生——使它真正成為人類共享繁榮的引擎?
If so, what would the attributes of inclusive capitalism be? Trust, opportunity, rewards for all within a market economy—allowing everyone’s talents to flourish. Certainly, that is the vision.
如果是這樣，包容性資本主義應(yīng)該具備哪些特征呢?在市場經(jīng)濟中，所有人都獲得信任、機會和回報——使每個人的才能得到充分發(fā)揮。當(dāng)然，這只是美好的愿景。
Most recently, however, capitalism has been characterized by “excess”—in risk-taking, leverage, opacity, complexity, and compensation. It led to massive destruction of value. It has also been associated with high unemployment, rising social tensions, and growing political disillusion – all of this happening in the wake of the Great Recession.
然而，近年來資本主義的`特征是“過度”——體現(xiàn)在冒險、杠桿、不透明、復(fù)雜、薪酬等各個方面。這導(dǎo)致價值觀遭到巨大破壞，同時，也導(dǎo)致了高失業(yè)、不斷加劇的社會緊張局勢以及人們對政治的日益失望——這些都是在“大衰退”之后發(fā)生的。
One of the main casualties has been trust—in leaders, in institutions, in the free-market system itself. The most recent poll conducted by the Edelman Trust Barometer, for example, showed that less than a fifth of those surveyed believed that governments or business leaders would tell the truth on an important issue.
受到最嚴重損害的一個方面是信任——對領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的信任，對機構(gòu)的信任，對自由市場體系本身的信任。例如，在愛德曼公司開展的一項最新調(diào)查中，不到五分之一的受訪者相信政府或企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者在重要問題上會說實話。
This is a wakeup call. Trust is the lifeblood of the modern business economy. Yet, in a world that is more networked than ever, trust is harder to earn and easier to lose. Or as the Belgians say, “l(fā)a confiance part à cheval et revient à pied” (“confidence leaves on a horse and comes back on foot”).
這向我們發(fā)出了警鐘。信任是現(xiàn)代商業(yè)經(jīng)濟的命脈。但在比以往任何時候都更加網(wǎng)絡(luò)化的世界中，更難贏得信任，更易失去信任。或者，正如比利時的一句格言：“在馬上失去信心，但是得徒步找回信心。”
So the big question is: how can we restore and sustain trust?
所以，一個重要問題是：我們能夠恢復(fù)和維持信任嗎?
First and foremost, by making sure that growth is more inclusive and that the rules of the game lead to a level playing field—favoring the many, not just the few; prizing broad participation over narrow patronage.
首先是確保經(jīng)濟增長更具包容性，游戲規(guī)則保證公平的競爭環(huán)境——有利于很多人，而不是少數(shù)人;鼓勵廣泛的參與，而不是狹窄的惠顧。
By making capitalism more inclusive, we make capitalism more effective, and possibly more sustainable. But if inclusive capitalism is not an oxymoron, it is not intuitive either, and it is more of a constant quest than a definitive destination.
通過使資本主義更加包容，我們就能使資本主義更加有效，并且可能更可持續(xù)。但如果包容性資本主義不是一種矛盾的提法，它也同樣不是一種憑直覺的。它是不斷的探索和追求，而不是必然的結(jié)果。
I will talk about two dimensions of this quest—more inclusion in economic growth, and more integrity in the financial system.
我來談?wù)勥@一探索追求過程中的兩個方面——讓經(jīng)濟增長更加包容，讓金融體系更加穩(wěn)健。
Inclusion in economic growth
經(jīng)濟增長的包容性
Let me begin with economic inclusion. One of the leading economic stories of our time is rising income inequality, and the dark shadow it casts across the global economy.
我首先來談?wù)劷?jīng)濟包容。當(dāng)今時代的最重要的經(jīng)濟問題之一就是收入不平等的日益加劇及其對全球經(jīng)濟的不利影響。
The facts are familiar. Since 1980, the richest 1 percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data.
事實是我們所熟悉的。1980年以來，在我們掌握數(shù)據(jù)的26個國家中，有24個國家，其最富有的1%的人的收入份額繼續(xù)增大。
In the US, the share of income taken home by the top one percent more than doubled since the 1980s, returning to where it was on the eve of the Great Depression. In the UK, France, and Germany, the share of private capital in national income is now back to levels last seen almost a century ago.
在美國，最富有的1%的人的實得收入份額自上世紀(jì)80年代以來上升了一倍多，回到了“大蕭條”前夕的水平。在英國、法國和德國，私人資本在國民收入中所占份額現(xiàn)在也回到了近一個世紀(jì)前的水平。
The 85 richest people in the world, who could fit into a single London double-decker, control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population– that is 3.5 billion people.
全球最富有的85個人，雖然只能塞滿一輛倫敦雙層巴士，但他們控制的財富卻相當(dāng)于全球窮困的一半人口(35億人)的所有身家。
With facts like these, it is no wonder that rising inequality has risen to the top of the agenda—not only among groups normally focused on social justice, but also increasingly among politicians, central bankers, and business leaders.
因此，毫不奇怪，不平等加劇問題已成為首要議題——不僅是通常關(guān)注社會公平問題的各種團體關(guān)注這一問題，而且政治家、中央銀行和商界領(lǐng)的也越來越重視這一問題。
Many would argue, however, that we should ultimately care about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The problem is that opportunities are not equal. Money will always buy better-quality education and health care, for example. But due to current levels of inequality, too many people in too many countries have only the most basic access to these services, if at all. The evidence also shows that social mobility is more stunted in less equal societies.
然而，很多人會說，我們最終應(yīng)關(guān)注機會的平等，而不是收入的平等。問題是，機會不是平等的。例如，金錢總是能買來更高質(zhì)量的教育和醫(yī)療保健。但鑒于當(dāng)前的不平等水平，在太多的國家，有太多的人即使能獲得服務(wù)，也只能獲得一些最基本的服務(wù)。有關(guān)證據(jù)還顯示，在平等程度較低的社會里，社會階層流動性受到較大阻礙。
Fundamentally, excessive inequality makes capitalism less inclusive. It hinders people from participating fully and developing their potential.
從根本上說，過度不平等降低了資本主義的包容性。它阻礙人們充分參與，阻礙他們實現(xiàn)自己的潛能。
Disparity also brings division. The principles of solidarity and reciprocity that bind societies together are more likely to erode in excessively unequal societies. History also teaches us that democracy begins to fray at the edges once political battles separate the haves against the have-nots.
差距也帶來了分化。在極度不平等的社會中，將社會凝聚在一起的團結(jié)和互惠原則更有可能被侵蝕。歷史告訴我們，一旦政治斗爭將有產(chǎn)者與無產(chǎn)者對立起來，民主就開始受到損害。
A greater concentration of wealth could—if unchecked—even undermine the principles of meritocracy and democracy. It could undermine the principle of equal rights proclaimed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
更大程度的財富集中——如果不加以控制——甚至?xí)䲟p害精英治理和民主制度的原則。它可能損害1948年《世界人權(quán)宣言》所宣稱的平等權(quán)利。
Pope Francis recently put this in stark terms when he called increasing inequality “the root of social evil”.
教皇弗朗西斯最近用了一個旗幟鮮明的術(shù)語——他把不平等加劇稱作“社會罪惡的根源”。
It is therefore not surprising that IMF research—which looked at 173 countries over the last 50 years—found that more unequal countries tend to have lower and less durable economic growth.
因此，毫不奇怪，我們最近的研究(通過觀察173個國家過去50年的變化)發(fā)現(xiàn)，在不平等程度更高的社會，經(jīng)濟增長更慢、更不持續(xù)。
So much for the diagnosis—what can be done about it? We have done some recent work on this as well. We focused on the fiscal policy dimension—which is part of the IMF’s core business. We found that, in general, fiscal policies have a good record of reducing social disparities—for example, transfers and income taxes have been able to reduce inequality by about a third, on average, among the advanced economies.
這就是對問題的診斷——那么應(yīng)該采取什么行動呢?我們最近在這方面也做了一些工作。我們側(cè)重于財政政策方面——這是基金組織的核心工作之一。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，一般而言，財政政策能夠有效地縮小社會差距——例如，在先進經(jīng)濟體，轉(zhuǎn)移和所得稅平均而言能使不平等程度下降約三分之一。
But it is a complex issue and policy choices need to be made carefully. Fiscal discipline is often the first victim on the political battlefield, and we obviously want to choose measures that do the most good and the least harm.
但是，這是一個復(fù)雜的問題，需要謹慎地做出政策選擇。財政紀(jì)律往往是政治斗爭的第一受害者。我們顯然希望采用益處最大、害處最小的措施。
Some potentially beneficial options can include making income tax systems more progressive without being excessive; making greater use of property taxes; expanding access to education and health; and relying more on active labor market programs and in-work social benefits.
一些可能更為有益的選擇包括：在不過度的情況下，提高所得稅的累進程度;更多采用財產(chǎn)稅;擴大對教育和醫(yī)療的獲得渠道;更多依賴積極的勞動力市場計劃和在職社會福利。
But we must recognize that reducing inequality is not easy. Redistributive policies always produce winners and losers. Yet if we want capitalism to do its job—enabling as many people as possible to participate and benefit from the economy—then it needs to be more inclusive. That means addressing extreme income disparity.
但我們必須認識到，減輕不平等并不容易。再分配政策總是有利于一些人而不利于另一些人。然而，我們?nèi)绻ＭY本主義發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的作用——使盡可能多的人參與到經(jīng)濟生活中來，從中受益——那么就需要提高其包容性。這意味著，要解決收入差距極度嚴重的問題。
Integrity in the financial system
金融體系的健全性
Let me now turn to the second dimension of inclusive capitalism that I have chosen to address—integrity in the financial system.
現(xiàn)在來談一談包容性資本主義的第二個方面——金融體系的穩(wěn)健。
In this age of diminished trust, it is the financial sector that takes last place in opinion surveys. This might not be surprising in light of some of the behavior that triggered the global financial crisis. But it is nevertheless disturbing. As many have pointed out, the very word credit derives from the Latin word for trust.
在這個信任度下降的時代，金融部門在觀點調(diào)查中的得分最低。考慮到觸發(fā)了全球金融機構(gòu)的一些行為，這也許并不令人奇怪。但這仍令人煩惱。正如許多人已經(jīng)指出的，“信用”一詞恰恰來自拉丁文的“信任”。
We are all familiar with the factors behind the crisis—a financial sector that nearly collapsedbecause of excess. A sector that, like Icarus, in its hubris flew too close to the sun, and then fell back to earth—taking the global economy down with it.
我們都了解危機背后的一些因素——金融部門由于發(fā)展過度，幾乎坍塌。就像伊卡羅斯傲慢地飛向太陽，然后落回到地球——帶著全球經(jīng)濟一起下落。
We can trace the problems to the evolution of the financial sector before the crisis. Financial actors were allowed to take excessive risks, leading to a situation whereby the profits on the upside went to the industry—and the losses on the downside were picked up by the public.
我們可以將問題追溯到危機之前金融部門的演變。我們讓金融部門冒了太多風(fēng)險，導(dǎo)致了這樣一種狀況——經(jīng)濟上行時期的利潤被金融行業(yè)納入腰包，而經(jīng)濟下滑時期的損失由公眾來承擔(dān)。
Some of the greatest problems, still outstanding today, lay with the so-called too-big-to-fail firms. In the decade prior to the crisis, the balance sheets of the world’s largest banks increased by two to four-fold. With rising size came rising risk—in the form of lower capital, less stable funding, greater complexity, and more trading.
最嚴重的一些問題來自所謂的“太大而不能倒”的問題，其至今尚未解決。在危機之前的十年里，世界最大銀行的資產(chǎn)負債表擴張了兩到四倍。在規(guī)模擴大的同時，風(fēng)險也在上升——體現(xiàn)在資本減少、融資穩(wěn)定性下降、復(fù)雜度上升、交易量增大。
This kind of capitalism was more extractive than inclusive. The size and complexity of the megabanks meant that, in some ways, they could hold policymakers to ransom. The implicit subsidy they derived from being too-big-too-fail came from their ability to borrow more cheaply than smaller banks—magnifying risk and undercutting competition.
這種資本主義在更大程度上是選擇性的，而不是包容性的。大型銀行的規(guī)模和復(fù)雜性意味著，政策制定者可能會被它們“綁架”。這些銀行因“太大而不能倒”而獲得隱性補貼，這是因為它們能夠以比小銀行更低的成本借款，而這會加劇風(fēng)險、損害競爭。
Completing the financial reform agenda
完成金融部門議程
Thankfully, the crisis has prompted a major course correction—with the understanding that the true role of the financial sector is to serve, not to rule, the economy. Its real job is to benefit people, especially by financing investment and thus helping with the creation of jobs and growth.
幸好，危機促成了重大的方向調(diào)整——這是其于這樣一種認識，即金融部門的職能是服務(wù)于實體經(jīng)濟，而不是支配實體經(jīng)濟。它的真正作用是為投資提供資金，從而促進創(chuàng)造就業(yè)和經(jīng)濟增長，以此造福于人民。
As Winston Churchill once remarked, “I would rather see finance less proud and industry more content”.
【包容性資本主義大會演講稿（帶翻譯）】相關(guān)文章：
1.帶翻譯英語作文