評論
打印
The Goliaths,The Economist,June 22ed,2013
巨頭，經(jīng)濟學人，2013年6月22日
In December 2004 Microsoft paid a massive $33 billion dividend to its shareholders.
2004年12月，微軟向股東支付了高達330億美元的股息。
The largest payment of its kind, it made up 6% of the increase in Americans' personal income that year.
這在此類分紅中算是最大額度的，在那年，占美國個人收入增加值的6%。
Examples of how big firms can have a big impact do not come much starker.
關(guān)于大公司如何產(chǎn)生強烈影響的例子并不明顯。
These kinds of firm-specific shocks are typically excluded from economists' models,
這些公司特有的危機通常被排除在經(jīng)濟學家的模型之外，
which assume that individual businesses' ups and downs tend to cancel each other out.
這些模型會假定個體工商戶的收支往往會平衡。
Yet to understand how things like trade and GDP evolve, tracking the biggest companies is essential.
然而，了解貿(mào)易和GDP的發(fā)展，尋跡最大的企業(yè)是至關(guān)重要的。
At first sight, the numbers seem to justify taking a top-down view.
乍一看，這個數(shù)字似乎證明了一個普遍的觀點。
The business world is huge: America has around 27m firms, Britain 4.8m.
商業(yè)世界是巨大的：美國有大約2.7千萬家公司、英國4.8百萬家。
Each country trades with hundreds of other countries across hundreds of industries, producing thousands of country-industry trade links.
每個國家同其他成百個國家，在成百個行業(yè)進行交易，創(chuàng)造出數(shù)千條國家工業(yè)貿(mào)易鏈。
The global network runs to the millions.
全球網(wǎng)絡(luò)運行達數(shù)百萬個。
Because economies are built of millions of firms and trading relationships,
因為經(jīng)濟由百萬家公司及貿(mào)易關(guān)系所創(chuàng)造，
each seems like a speck of dust:individual companies and export channels should not matter.
每一條關(guān)系都類似于一粒灰塵：個人企業(yè)和出口渠道顯得微不足道。
This suggests that only common shocks can explain aggregate fluctuations：
這表明，只有共同沖擊可以解釋總體波動：
a workers' strike at one firm is not enough, but a general strike is.
一個工人在一個公司罷工是不夠的，但是總罷工就可以。
Yet aggregate shocks do not explain volatility very well.
然而總沖擊同樣也解釋不了波動。
A 2007 Bank of Spain paper studies OECD countries' trade balances.
一家2007西班牙銀行報社研究經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織中成員國的貿(mào)易平衡。
Common shocks (to whole countries or global industries) explain only 45% of the variations.
常見的沖擊（整個國家或全球產(chǎn)業(yè)）只能解釋45%的變化。
Hunting for the cause of the other 55% of trade fluctuations,
為了尋找其他的55%的貿(mào)易波動的原因，
the authors used finer data on 8260 country-industry "flows"（59 industries and 140 trading partners) for each OECD member.
作者用每個成員國8260的國家產(chǎn)業(yè)"現(xiàn)金流量"(59個產(chǎn)業(yè)和140個貿(mào)易伙伴）更精確的數(shù)據(jù)。
The data show that the picture of trade as millions of links is inaccurate;
數(shù)據(jù)顯示，數(shù)以百萬計的貿(mào)易聯(lián)系前景是不準確的；
in fact, flows are extremely concentrated. Most links are unimportant.
事實上，流動非常集中。大部分的鏈接并不重要的。
For America 99% of trade flows accounted for just 25% of trade.
美國99%的貿(mào)易流動僅占貿(mào)易總額的25%。
But a few are vital: for the average OECD country
但有少部分是至關(guān)重要：在對普通的經(jīng)合組織國家來說，
the 25 main country-industry flows explain two-thirds of trade, and the 100 largest 85%。Thank you.
25個主要國家工業(yè)流動可以解釋三分之二的貿(mào)易，最大可達85%。謝謝。
