評論
打印
The international financial system, as it was reconstructed after the Second World War, did not create a level playing field; it was lopsided by design. The international financial institutions — the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank — were organized as shareholding companies in which the rich countries held a disproportionate share of the votes and also controlled the boards. This put the countries at the periphery at a disadvantages vis-a-vis those at the center.
第二次世界大戰后重建的國際金融體系并沒有創建一個平衡的競爭環境，而是有意傾向于某—邊。國際金融機構——國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行——按照股份制公司的模式而組建，其中的富有的成員國擁有絕對份額的表決權，他們控制著董事會，而相比之下一些邊緣國家則處于劣勢。
Ever since, the system has been dominated by the United States. And the Bretton Woods conference, Lord Keynes proposed but it was the head of the American delegation, Harry White, who disposed. Since then, we have gone; from an almost completely regulated system to an almost completely deregulated one but the changes were led by the United States and the system has continued to be guided by what has become known as the Washington Consensus.
從那以后，金融體系就一直處于美國的主宰之下。盡管在布雷頓森林會議上，英國凱恩斯勛爵提出了提議，但美國代表團團長哈里·懷特掌握決定權。此后，該體系從一個完全受監督的體系演變成一個幾乎無監管的體系。然而這些變化由美國所主導，而該體系則繼續由被稱之為《華盛頓共識》的文件所引領。
Although the rules laid down by the Washington Consensus are supposed to apply to all countries equally, the United States — as the issuer of the main international currency —is more equal than the others.
雖然《華盛頓共識》所規定的規則本應平等地適用于所有成員國，但對于主要的國際貨幣發行國——美國似乎比其他國家更“平等”。
