評論
打印
As things stand now, the financial system of each country is being sustained and supported by its own government. The governments are primarily with their own economies. This tends to give rise to financial protectionism, which threatens to disrupt and perhaps destroy global financial markets. British regulators will never again rely on the Icelandic authorities and countries at the periphery will be reluctant to be entirely dependent on foreign-owned banks.
照目前的情況來看，每個國家的金融體系都是由本國政府來維持和保障的。政府主要關注本國的經濟，這就助長了金融保護主義，有擾亂甚至有可能破壞全球金融市場的危險。英國的監管部門再也不會依賴冰島當局，邊緣國家也不愿完全依賴外資銀行。
The point I am trying to make is that regulations must be international in scope. Without it, financial markets cannot remain global; they would be destroyed by regulatory arbitrage. Business would move to the countries where the regulatory climate is the most benign and this would expose other countries to risks they cannot afford to run. Globalization was so successful because it forced all countries to remove regulations but, the process does not work in reverse. It will be difficult to get countries to agree on uniform regulations. Different countries have different interests which drive them towards different solutions.
我想說明的是，從范圍來講，規則必須是國際性的。沒有這一點，金融市場就不會是全球性的，并且會被監管套利所破壞。商業就會轉移到監管環境最好的國家，使其他國家面臨無法承受的風險。全球化之所以成功，是因為它使所有的國家都摒棄了本國的規則，否則全球化過程就無法運行。讓所有的國家認同統一的規則是非常困難的。不同國家有不同的利益要求，因此它們會采取不同的應對措施。
