上一讲中我们为您介绍了 floating exchange rates 和 fixed exchange rates,浮动汇率与固定汇率。澳广金融节目主持人巴里克拉克介绍说,二十世纪的固定汇率制不仅未能保持汇率的稳定,而且还为投机者提供了机会。; K5 f9 n. P% i) n
: y8 v, H1 S2 G# x
但是实行浮动汇率制也同样有它的不利之处。不断变化的汇率为工商业的运作带来许多不确定因素。 k4 g: T' ^- ?/ }% ~1 L! s9 X0 _
" F K) Z2 P* U2 D; I1 _
不过,澳洲广播电台金融节目主持人巴里克拉克继续介绍说,各国的中央银行或储备银行大都会在关键时刻对市场进行干预,以减缓货币汇率的剧烈动荡。 F: }0 X' G6 m7 R6 P
" H) C9 n7 i% H" \& {4 N6 T巴里克拉克在他的讲话中提到了这样一些词汇:
. |8 m1 [/ s- }0 H C a8 X' X. a( @, f. M$ v
1 Reserve Bank 储备银行
& Y/ ?& l% \$ Y: \) {% @ b5 Q) X8 k2 cushion 缓冲垫,减震器
4 d1 s4 j/ q0 f- t/ L3 intervene 干预& s G% u( e4 \2 g
4 contention 辩论- a& S: ^, c, T- y$ a
5 on balance 总的来说6 o1 W% h" a6 Z; T' z/ @7 b
6overshooting 过火,过激6 @! e* f6 |# n3 x
% z: [* T8 ~' C1 M- x下面我们听一遍巴里克拉克的谈话及中文翻译:2 R* k( V2 d6 d3 y N b
/ n$ R# x ~; n+ d, U
The Reserve Bank tries to play a role in providing a comfort cushion by intervening from time to time in the foreign exchange market with a view to limiting its more extreme fluctuations.: b9 J" o1 _% ? l2 E0 L$ v j
% w# k3 D7 {( p6 I! s
Whether the central bank should be doing this, and whether it actually can influence exchange rates in the face of market forces, are matters of some contention.+ u7 r" E* r+ C! p, U8 u
( Q ~$ d9 V7 {5 N& e( t
From its own analysis, the Reserve Bank is persuaded that, on balance, it plays a useful role in limiting overshooting in the market.3 g8 S" p$ o: ~& k
% I) u8 r7 N7 F, T$ A) j7 D! C& c8 V
巴里克拉克说,储备银行试图在减缓市场冲击力方面发挥作用,对外汇市场不时进行干预,目的是要限制它更剧烈的动荡。
7 c. {" Y* P! a& r- ?- ~! s @7 ]6 G& @ I6 s
中央银行是否应当采取这样的行动,以及它在面对市场力量时是否真能对汇率发挥影响,是需要继续讨论的问题。
! Z5 v- C0 l9 _! v& b( ?+ R
9 t. T1 C0 y. Y储备银行通过它自己的分析,确信它总的来说在限制市场的过激行为方面能够发挥有益的作用。
' G c& d0 a4 ^ B, z
4 o! _% o6 y. q9 { X下面我们再听一遍巴里克拉克的这段谈话。(略)
' y5 B& J6 e( n% c; k
0 i* L% v0 T, F% Y8 u$ M刚才我们谈到了中央银行对外汇兑换市场的干预。许多经济学家对中央银行进行干预的效果持怀疑态度。美国斯坦福大学经济学教授安妮克鲁格就是其中之一。她说:
1 j& {" o& ]5 I' X
+ w# S4 n/ @* E" D2 Z3 q' RThe first question is: can a central bank out-guess the market in terms of where the underlying market forces are taking the exchange rate? More interventiongs than not, I think, historically, have been when the central bank has been betting against the market. You may recall in 1992 when you had the upheavals in the European currencies, where there were a lot of bets against the markets and a lot of money was lost on the part of a lot of countries, including the Bank of England. So that basically, there's a real risk in central bank intervention.
! O5 ]) k" X, e; [! @2 r/ M a3 L# r F) T/ X' y
安妮克鲁格教授说,首先的问题是,中央银行是否能够猜中潜在的市场势力会把市场汇率带向何处。我认为从历史上来看,多数市场的干预都是中央银行逆市场走向下的赌注。可以回想一下1992年欧洲货币的那场大动荡。当时许多人都逆市场而动,投下大批赌注,很多国家都损失了大笔的资金,包括英格兰银行在内。因此基本上来说,中央银行的干预确实存在着危险。9 d' C; W0 e6 e7 D. d/ {
( P% O( J/ p* Q$ U2 v
I think central bank intervention is dangerous. They're betting on one side of the market and then that gives speculators a one-sided bet, because they know that they can't really lose by going on the other side.
. b2 Y! c9 Z* s. [ h4 j/ y) J8 W& t% `5 A
我认为中央银行的干预是危险的。它们就市场的一方打赌,这就给了投机者向另一方下赌注的机会。因为投机者知道投向另一方就肯定不会输。 |