- 相關推薦
包容性資本主義大會演講稿（帶翻譯）
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, 2014
倫敦，2014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。12 世紀使用“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世紀被神化。隨著工業(yè)革命的推進，卡爾·馬克思關注生產工具的占有，他預言，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言的應對之策，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、復雜、薪酬等各個方面。這導致價值觀遭到巨大破壞，同時，也導致了高失業(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——對領導者的信任，對機構的信任，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查中，不到五分之一的受訪者相信政府或企業(yè)領導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, “la 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)絡化的世界中，更難贏得信任，更易失去信任�；蛘撸绫壤麜r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.
我來談談這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.
我首先來談談經(jīng)濟包容。當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 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——不僅是通常關注社會公平問題的各種團體關注這一問題，而且政治家、中央銀行和商界領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，我們最終應關注機會的平等，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量的教育和醫(yī)療保健。但鑒于當前的不平等水平，在太多的國家，有太多的人即使能獲得服務，也只能獲得一些最基本的服務。有關證據(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者與無產者對立起來，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——甚至會損害精英治理和民主制度的原則。它可能損害1948年《世界人權宣言》所宣稱的平等權利。
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，這是一個復雜的問題，需要謹慎地做出政策選擇。財政紀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，我們如果希望資本主義發(fā)揮應有的作用——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，金融部門在觀點調查中的得分最低�？紤]到觸發(fā)了全球金融機構的一些行為，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險，導致了這樣一種狀況——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。
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負債表擴張了兩到四倍。在規(guī)模擴大的同時，風險也在上升——體現(xiàn)在資本減少、融資穩(wěn)定性下降、復雜度上升、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整——這是其于這樣一種認識，即金融部門的職能是服務于實體經(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”.
正如溫斯頓·丘吉爾曾說過的，“我寧可看到金融位謙而產業(yè)位尊”。
The good news is that the international community has made progress on the reform agenda. This is especially true for banking regulation under the auspices of the Basel Committee, where we are moving forward with stronger capital and liquidity requirements. This should make the system safer, sounder, and more service oriented.
好消息是，國際社會在改革議程上已經(jīng)取得一定進展。巴塞爾委員會領導下的銀行監(jiān)管改革尤其如此，資本和流動性要求正在增強。這會使金融體系更加安全、更加穩(wěn)健、更加以服務為導向。
The bad news is that progress is still too slow, and the finish line is still too far off. Some of this arises from the sheer complexity of the task at hand. Yet, we must acknowledge that it also stems from fierce industry pushback, and from the fatigue that is bound to set in at this point in a long race.
壞消息是，進展仍然太慢，我們距離終點線還是太遠。這在一定程度上是因為這項任務非常復雜。但我們必須承認這也是因為我們面臨巨大的行業(yè)阻力，并且在漫長的過程中已經(jīng)產生疲勞情緒。
A big gap is that the too-big-to-fail problem has not yet been solved. A recent study by IMF staff shows that these banks are still major sources of systemic risk. Their implicit subsidy is still going strongly—amounting to about $70 billion in the US, and up to $300 billion in the Euro Area.
一個重要缺口是，“太大而不能倒”問題尚未得到解決�；鸾M織工作人員最近開展的一項研究顯示，這些銀行仍是系統(tǒng)性風險的重要來源。它們的隱性補貼依然很高——在美國約為 700億美元，在歐元區(qū)高達 3000億美元。
So clearly, ending too-big-to-fail must be a priority. That means tougher regulation and tightersupervision.
所以，解決“太大而不能倒”問題顯然是一個優(yōu)先任務。這意味著需要實行更嚴格的監(jiān)管。
Here, I believe that the new capital surcharges for systemic banks can work. We estimated that increasing the capital ratio on these banks by 2½ percent, beyond the Basel III standard, can reduce the systemic risk of a trillion dollar bank by a quarter. This is a big deal.
在這方面，我認為，新的針對系統(tǒng)性銀行的資本附加要求能夠發(fā)揮作用。我們估計，在巴塞爾 III標準的基礎上，將對這些銀行的資本比率要求進一步提高 2.5個百分點，能夠使規(guī)模達到萬億美元的銀行的系統(tǒng)性風險下降四分之一。這種改善相當顯著。
Yet the problem will not go away without steps to reduce the potential for contagion. First on the agenda should be an agreement on cross-border resolution of megabanks—providing a framework to unwind them in an orderly way in case of failure. This is a gaping hole in the financial architecture right now, and it calls for countries to put the global good of financial stability ahead of their parochial concerns.
不過，如果不采取步驟降低發(fā)生波及效應的可能性，問題還是得不到解決。首先應就大型銀行的跨境破產處置達成一致——提供一個框架，在這些銀行經(jīng)營失敗時，能夠有序地關閉它們。這個問題是目前金融架構中的一個重要漏洞，在這方面，各國應將全球金融穩(wěn)定目標置于本國考慮因素之上。
And we should not give up just because it is hard. Let me quote John Fitzgerald Kennedy here, who famously said that “we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard”.
我們不應僅僅因為難而放棄。我想引用約翰·肯尼迪說過的一句著名的話：“我們想登上月球，不是因為這很容易，而且因為這很難。”
We also need more vigor across the rest of the reform agenda—better rules for nonbanks, better monitoring of shadow banks, and better safety and transparency over derivatives, an area that is still today excessively obscure and complex. To reduce the scope for contagion, I would like to see much more progress on cross-border issues, for example, in the mutual recognition of rules for derivatives markets.
我們也需更有力地推進其他改革——改善針對非銀行機構的規(guī)則，對影子銀行進行更好的監(jiān)控，提高衍生產品的安全性和透明度(這一領域目前仍然過于模糊和復雜)。同樣，為了降低產生波及效應的可能性，跨境問題需要取得更多進展，例如，共同確定衍生產品市場的規(guī)則。
Again, this is complex, and we need to be mindful of the risks of fragmenting the global financial system and hampering the flow of credit to finance investment. But complexity is not an excuse for complacency and delay.
同樣，這很復雜，我們需要考慮到分割全球金融體系以及阻礙投資信貸流動的風險。但不能因為這個問題復雜，就安于現(xiàn)狀和拖延不前。
Changing behavior and culture
改變行為和文化
As well as regulation, we need stronger supervision. Rules are only as good as their implementation. This calls for greater resources, and independence, for the supervisors who perform such a vital public duty, day in and day out.
除了改革監(jiān)管規(guī)定之外，我們還需要加強監(jiān)督。規(guī)則只有被執(zhí)行才有效。因此，對于執(zhí)行這種重要公共職能的監(jiān)督機構，必須增加其資源，提高其獨立性。
Yet regulation and supervision by themselves are still not enough. Rules can certainly affect behavior—think of compensation practices, for example. But people who want to skirt the rules will always find creative ways of doing so.
但是，監(jiān)管本身并不夠。規(guī)則顯然會影響行為——例如，想一想薪酬方面的做法。但想要逃避規(guī)則的人總是能找到新的辦法。
So we also need to turn our attention to the culture of financial institutions, and to the individual behavior that lies beneath. Incentives must be aligned with expected behavior and be made transparent.
所以，我們需要把注意力轉到金融機構的文化，以及根本的個人行為。激勵機制必須與預期行為相協(xié)調，并且必須是透明的。
Here, the work of the FSB on Principles for Sound Compensation Practices, commissioned by the G20, is instrumental to realign incentives with actual performance. We must push on with implementation.
在這方面，二十國集團委托金融穩(wěn)定委員會在“穩(wěn)健薪酬做法原則”方面開展的工作是有益的，這一措施能夠促進激勵機制與實際業(yè)績之間的重新協(xié)調。我們必須推進這項工作的落實。
Why is this so important? Because the behavior of the financial sector has not changed fundamentally in a number of dimensions since the crisis. While some changes in behavior are taking place, these are not deep or broad enough. The industry still prizes short-term profit over long-term prudence, today’s bonus over tomorrow’s relationship.
為什么這非常重要?這是因為在很多方面，金融部門的行為自危機以來沒有發(fā)生根本變化。盡管行為有所變化，但這種變化不夠深或不夠廣。金融行業(yè)依然更加重視短期利潤，而不是長期審慎;更加重視今天的獎金，而不是明天的關系。
Some prominent firms have even been mired in scandals that violate the most basic ethical norms—LIBOR and foreign exchange rigging, money laundering, illegal foreclosure.
一些知名的公司甚至陷入違背最基本道德原則的丑聞——操縱 LIBOR和外匯，洗錢，非法取消贖回權。
To restore trust, we need a shift toward greater integrity and accountability. We need a stronger and systematic ethical dimension.
為了恢復信任，我們需要加強誠信和問責。我們需要更強、更系統(tǒng)的道德因素。
In grappling with this, it helps to go back to the ancient philosophers. They would have raised the most basic question—what is the social purpose of the financial sector? Or, as Aristotle would have asked: “what is its telos?”
在這方面，我們可以請教古代哲人。他們會提出最基本的問題——金融部門的社會目的是什么?或者，正如亞里士多德會問的：“它的最終目的是什么?”
He answered his own question: “Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else”. Or as Oscar Wilde put it, “the true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is”.
亞里士多德是這樣回答自己提出的問題的：“財富顯然不是我們所追求的，因為財富只是有用而已，只是為了達到別的目的。”或者，正如奧斯卡·王爾德所說的：“人的真正完善不在與他擁有什么，而在于他是怎樣的人。”
From this perspective, we can identify the true purpose of finance. Its goal is to put resources to productive use, to transform maturity, thereby contributing to the good of economic stability and full employment—and ultimately, to the wellbeing of people. In other words—to enrich society.
從這一角度，我們可以確定金融的真正目的。其目標是將資源投入生產性用途，轉換資金期限，從而促進經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)定和充分就業(yè)，最終，使人們生活得更好。換句話說——增進社會繁榮。
In Aristotle’s framework, once we know the purpose, we can identify the virtues needed to fulfill it. It becomes a matter of every person doing the right thing.
在亞里士多德的框架中，一旦我們知道了目的，我們就能確定達到這一目的所需的美德。這就是，每個人要做正確的事。
When we think about finance, surely one of these core virtues is prudence—which is about stewardship, sustainability, and safeguarding the future. Prudence has long been a byword of banking, and yet has been sorely missing in action in recent times.
說到金融，顯然，核心美德之一是審慎——管理、可持續(xù)、對未來的保障。長期以來，“審慎”一直是銀行業(yè)的格言，而近些年卻完全缺失了。
We know that regaining virtues like prudence will not happen overnight. Aristotle teaches us that virtue is molded from habit, from developing and nurturing good behavior over time. As with anything worth doing, practice makes perfect.
我們知道，重新找回審慎這樣的美德不是一朝一夕的事。亞里士多德告訴我們，美德是從習慣、從長期培養(yǎng)良好行為而形成的。正如做所有事情一樣，熟能生巧。
Getting back on the right path requires education and leadership that is sustained over many years. It requires alert watchdogs, including from civil society.
為了回到正確的道路，需要多年持續(xù)的教育和領導，需要警覺的監(jiān)督，包括來自民間社會的監(jiān)督。
Most importantly of all, it requires investors and financial leaders taking values as seriously as valuation, culture as seriously as capital.
最重要的是，投資者和金融領導者必須像重視價格一樣重視價值，像重視資本一樣重視文化。
As Mark Carney pointed out in an admirable speech in Canada last year, the financial sector needs to be grounded in strong connections to clients and to communities—to the people served by the financial industry.
正如馬克·卡尼去年在加拿大發(fā)表的一篇出色講話中所說的，金融部門需要扎根于與客戶和社會的緊密聯(lián)系——與金融業(yè)所服務的人民的緊密聯(lián)系。
Ultimately, we need to ingrain a greater social consciousness—one that will seep into the financial world and forever change the way it does business.
最終，我們需要確立更牢固的社會意識——能夠滲入金融世界、永遠改變金融業(yè)運作方式的社會意識。
The good news is that we are seeing some positive signs. The Inclusive Capitalism Initiative is one such example—pursuing practical ways to make capitalism an engine of economic opportunity for all.
好消息是，我們已經(jīng)看到一些積極的跡象。“包容資本主義倡議”就是其中一例——探索實用的方法，使資本主義為所有人創(chuàng)造經(jīng)濟機會。
We can draw some parallels here with our expanding environmental consciousness. Not so long ago, we had much higher levels of pollution, and littering was commonplace. Today, we are more educated about these issues, and more in the habit of respecting the planet.
我們可以用我們不斷增強的環(huán)境意識作個類比。并不太久以前，我們的污染水平比現(xiàn)在高得多，亂丟垃圾的行為隨處可見。今天，我們更了解這些問題，更注意保護我們的星球。
By comparison, the equivalent kind of awareness in the financial sector—the idea that private misbehavior can have a broader social cost—is only in its early stages. It is akin to the initial period of environmental consciousness, which focused on the banning of lead from petroleum products.
相比而言，對金融部門的同樣意識——私人行為不當可能帶來更廣泛的社會代價——只是處在初期階段。這類似于環(huán)境意識的初期階段，那時的重點是禁止石油產品含鉛。
Just as we have a long way to go to reduce our carbon footprint, we have an even longer way to go to reduce our “financial footprint”.
正如我們在減少“碳足跡”方面有很長一段路要走，我們在減少“金融足跡”方面更加任重道遠。
Yet we must take those steps.
但我們必須邁出步子。
I realize that these are deeper questions than economists and policymakers are normally comfortable talking about. Yet I also believe the link is clear—ethical behavior is a major dimension of financial stability.
我意識到，比起經(jīng)濟學家和政策制定者通常愿意討論的問題，這些問題更加深入。但我相信這種聯(lián)系是清晰的——道德行為是金融穩(wěn)定的一個主要方面。
Conclusion
結語
Let me conclude. The topic of inclusive capitalism is obviously a vast one. I could have talked about many different aspects: women’s exclusion, disregard for the environment, corporate social responsibility.
我來作個總結。包容性資本主義顯然是一個巨大的論題。我可以講很多不同方面：女性被排斥，對環(huán)境的漠視，公司的社會責任。
Yet I wanted to focus my remarks today on the behavior that continues to deplete the treasury of trust and could again destabilize the global economy.
但是，我想把今天講話的重點放在那些繼續(xù)損害信任、可能再次破壞全球經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)定的行為。
This is why the work of your Initiative is so important. It needs to infuse the consciousness of all economic leaders, across all sectors and countries.
這就是為什么“包容資本主義倡議”的工作如此重要。它需激發(fā)所有部門和國家的所有經(jīng)濟領導者的意識。
At the end of the day, when the global economy is more inclusive, the gains are less elusive. The market is more effective, and a better future—for everyone—is more likely.
最終，當全球經(jīng)濟更加包容，我們就更能取得進展。市場更有效，每個人更有可能享受更美好的未來。
Thank you very much.
十分感謝。
【包容性資本主義大會演講稿帶翻譯】相關文章：
英語作文帶翻譯07-29
放生英語作文帶翻譯03-31
the first time作文帶翻譯04-08
sharing ideas作文帶翻譯04-07
英語名言警句帶翻譯07-19
英語諺語帶翻譯大全06-30
關于春雨的英語作文帶翻譯03-31
關于狐貍的英語作文帶翻譯04-06
關于太湖的英語作文帶翻譯04-06
保護鯊魚的英語作文帶翻譯04-06