評論
打印
The job of capital marketsis to process information so that savings flow to the best projects and firms.That makes high finance sound simple; in reality it is dynamic andintoxicating. It reflects a changing world. Today’s markets, for instance, are grapplingwith a trade war and low interest rates. But it also reflects changes withinfinance, which constantly reinvents itself in a perpetual struggle to gain acompetitive edge. As our Briefing reports, the latest revolution is in fullswing. Machines are taking control of investing—not just the humdrum buying andselling of securities, but also the commanding heights of monitoring theeconomy and allocating capital.
資本市場的工作是處理信息，使儲蓄流向最好的項目和公司。這使得高級金融聽起來很簡單;實際上，它是動態(tài)的，令人陶醉的。它反映了一個不斷變化的世界。例如，如今的市場正努力應對貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)和低利率。但它也反映了金融內(nèi)部的變化，在不斷的競爭中不斷重塑自己，以獲得競爭優(yōu)勢。正如我們的簡報所報道的，最新的革命正在全面展開。機器正在控制投資——不僅僅是單調(diào)的證券買賣，也是監(jiān)管經(jīng)濟和資本配置的制高點。
Funds run by computersthat follow rules set by humans account for 35% of America’s stockmarket, 60%of institutional equity assets and 60% of trading activity. Newartificial-intelligence programs are also writing their own investing rules, inways their human masters only partly understand. Industries from pizza-deliveryto Hollywood are being changed by technology, but finance is unique because itcan exert voting power over firms, redistribute wealth and cause mayhem in theeconomy.
由遵循人類規(guī)則的計算機運行的基金占美國股市的35%，機構(gòu)股票資產(chǎn)的60%，交易活動的60%。新的人工智能程序也在以人類主人只能部分理解的方式，編寫自己的投資規(guī)則。從披薩外賣到好萊塢的各個行業(yè)都在被技術(shù)所改變，但金融業(yè)是獨一無二的，因為它可以對企業(yè)施加投票權(quán)，重新分配財富，并在經(jīng)濟中造成混亂。
The obvious fix will be unpalatable to many. The UN’s climate talks treat 193 countries as equals, providing a forum in which all are heard. But three-quarters of emissions come from just 12 economies. In some of those, including the United States, it is possible to imagine younger voters in liberal democracies demanding a political realignment on climate issues—and a new interest in getting others to join in. For a club composed of a dozen great and middling-but-mucky powers to thrash out a “minilateral” deal would leave billions excluded from questions that could shape their destiny; the participants would need new systems of trade preference and other threats and bribes to keep each other in line. But they might break the impasse, pushing enough of the world onto a steeper mitigation trajectory to benefit all—and be widely emulated.
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學習交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
