四月翻译比赛已於二ＯＯ八年五月三日完成评审。 得奖名单如下： ┌───┬───────┬──────┬────┬──────┐ │名　次│　得　奖　者　│最低得分标准│实际得分│奖金（P 币）│ ├───┼───────┼──────┼────┼──────┤ │第一名│　从　　　缺 │ 90 + │ ─ │ 11,840 │ ├───┼───────┼──────┼────┼──────┤ │第二名│　从 缺 │ 80 + │ ─ │ 6,500 │ ├───┼───────┼──────┼────┼──────┤ │第三名│　cefy │ 70 + │ 72 │ 4,500 │ ├───┼───────┼──────┼────┼──────┤ │佳　作│　vivaadante │ 60 + │ 64 │ 1,500 │ └───┴───────┴──────┴────┴──────┘ 在此恭喜所有得奖者。 活动名称：四月翻译小比赛 活动内容：翻译指定文章，由英文翻译至正体中文 参赛资格：除我以外之人皆可参加。 参赛方式：以回覆到作者信箱之方式，将应答内容回覆到我的信箱，请勿回到板上。 　须由本人自行作答，一人限作答一次，重复提交答案者丧失参赛资格。 　提交答案後不得来信请求更改答案，违者丧失参赛资格。 截止期日：民国九十七年四月三十日二十三点五十九分五十九秒。 评审方式：在截止期日後三日内我会将所有参赛者的答案以不记名方式公布於本板供 　大家评论。比赛最後结果由我决定，我会参酌大家的意见，不过大家的意 　见对我不具拘束力。 奖励办法：(2008/04/16 修订) 第一名一名 P 币 7000 第二名一名 P 币 4500 第三名一名 P 币 2500 　佳　作二名 P 币 1000 　　　注：如品质未达本人认可之标准者，奖项可从缺 税金负担：(2008/04/16 增订) 给付奖金时，其税金由得奖人负担，并自给付金额中预先扣除 赞 助：(2008/04/16 增订) 1)板友可赞助本比赛 2)板友赞助金额将全额反应於奖金金额 3)板友暂助金额宜於评审结果公布日以前寄给本人，以利统筹分配 　4)因奖项从缺而未使用之赞助金额，以将扣除税金後之余额返还原赞助人 为原则，但原赞助人表示续供未来类似比赛使用者，得不返还而供未来 类似比赛使用 　5)应返还予各赞助人之金额，以其赞助金额占总奖金金额之比例计算之 评审结果公布日：民国九十七年五月十日二十三点五十九分五十九秒以前 给奖条件：参赛人数不足五人时，评审照常进行，但所有奖项得全部从缺。 资料来源：Economist (Apr. 10th 2008) ------------------------ (作答时请将本行以上内容删除) ---------------------- 翻译段落： Foreign capital ought to be good for countries that have profitable ventures that lack funding because of low savings at home. But Messrs Rodrik and Subramanian argue that for many countries, it is not low savings but a shortage of good investments that is the binding constraint. Weak property rights, poorly enforced contracts and the fear that profits will be siphoned away make it hard to conceive of ventures that might generate a reliable return. When investment opportunities are scarce, capital inflows simply displace domestic savings and encourage consumption. Whatever their misgivings about cosmopolitan capital, the authors do not deny that deeper financial markets in general help to foster prosperity. Even in economies short of good investment projects, a sturdier channel connecting domestic savers and borrowers will help growth. The more domestic savings can be put to work, the less need is there for foreign capital, and using local funds helps keep the exchange rate down and promotes export growth. By contrast, encouraging foreign capital to flood in can put upward pressure on the exchange rate, making exports less competitive. In some circumstances, capital controls may be justified if they keep the currency cheap and promote growth. Why do the authors make such a strong case for export-led growth as a means to development in poor countries, even if it is at the expense of more open capital markets? First, they believe, exports are a force for institutional reform. A firm making clothes to sell abroad demands consistent state regulation, reliable transport links and enforceable contracts with suppliers to a degree that a barbershop serving the domestic market does not. Second, exporters foster skills, technology and expertise that can fruitfully spill over to other enterprises. Messrs Rodrik and Subramanian conclude that with the benefits of liberalised finance under the microscope in rich countries, it is time for more subtle thinking about the global picture. “Depending on context and country,” they write, “the appropriate role of policy will be as often to stem the tide of capital flows as to encourage them.” That bold conclusion leaves some troubling issues unresolved. As China's experience suggests, keeping the exchange rate weak in support of export-led growth becomes harder to sustain over time. Nor is it easy to keep foreign capital out. Capital controls can be evaded by adjusting trade invoices: exporters can bring funds in secretly by over-invoicing for foreign sales. The authorities can use sterilised intervention to stop inflows pushing the exchange rate up, but this imposes its own costs on the economy—in terms of higher interest rates or a distorted allocation of credit. It is possible too that over time capital inflows are becoming less risky and the collateral benefits more tangible. And more stable direct investments account for an increasing share of capital inflows. Countries will ultimately have to come to terms with global capital and the choice is not only whether to embrace or resist it. There is a third option: find ways to manage it. After all, few would now argue that financial progress should not be policed at all. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.218.0.48 ※ 编辑: TheRock 来自: 59.124.10.88 (04/16 12:15) ※ 编辑: TheRock 来自: 61.218.0.48 (05/04 02:43)