精華2
威望2
K幣568 元
注冊(cè)時(shí)間2016-12-26
在線時(shí)間0 小時(shí)
最后登錄2024-11-12
中級(jí)戰(zhàn)友
 
- 精華
- 2
- 威望
- 2
- K幣
- 568 元
- 注冊(cè)時(shí)間
- 2016-12-26
|
本帖最后由 五色云與神威 于 2017-3-20 17:34 編輯
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院復(fù)試的筆試部分，占總復(fù)試30分，一篇英文專業(yè)文章翻譯占15分，一篇英文寫作15分。
題外話，本來打算當(dāng)場(chǎng)記一下英文翻譯的出處然后回去搜一下就發(fā)上來的，結(jié)果根本答不完啊！更沒時(shí)間記題目了(一定要提高手速)
結(jié)果今天意外搜到了原文，但是作文題目又都忘了……盡可能回憶一下
==============
一、翻譯題(15分)
這篇文章出自《美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)評(píng)論(American Economic Review》，題目是Monetary Policy and Rational Asset Price Bubbles，作者是Jordi Galí
附全文PDF：
w18806.pdf
(329.39 KB, 下載次數(shù): 49)
2017-3-17 16:42 上傳
點(diǎn)擊文件名下載附件
下載積分: K幣 -2 元
(題目選取了這篇論文的前言部分)
粘一下：
The spectacular rise (and subsequent collapse) of housing prices experienced by several advanced economies over the past decade is generally viewed as a key factor underlying the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, as well as a clear illustration of the dangers associated with speculative bubbles that are allowed to go unchecked.
The role that monetary policy should play in containing such bubbles has been the subject of a heated debate, well before the start of the recent crisis. The consensus view among most policy makers in the pre-crisis years was that central banks should focus on controlling inflation and stabilizing the output gap, and thus ignore asset price developments, unless the latter are seen as a threat to price or output stability. Asset price bubbles, it was argued, are difficult if not outright impossible identify or measure; and even if they could be observed, the interest rate would be too blunt an instrument to deal with them, for any significant adjustment in the latter aimed at containing the bubble may cause serious "collateral damage" in the form of lower prices for assets not affected by the bubble, and a greater risk of an economic downturn.
But that consensus view has not gone unchallenged, with many authors and policy makers arguing that the achievement of low and stable inflation is not a guarantee of finanancial stability and calling for central banks to pay special attention to developments in asset markets. Since episodes of rapid asset price inflation often lead to a financial and economic crisis, it is argued, central banks should act preemptively in the face of such developments, by raising interest rates suffciently to dampen or bring to an end any episodes of speculative frenzy —a policy often referred to as "leaning against the wind." This may be desirable —it is argued— even if that intervention leads, as a byproduct, to a transitory deviation of inflation and output from target. Under this view, the losses associated with those deviations would be more than offset by the avoidance of the potential fallout from a possible future bursting of the bubble, which may involve a fianancial crisis and the risk of a consequent episode of deflation and stagnation like the one experienced by Japan after the collapse of its housing bubble in the 90s.
Independently of oneís position in the previous debate, it is generally taken for granted (a) that monetary policy can have an impact on asset price bubbles and (b) that a tighter monetary policy, in the form of higher short-term nominal interest rates, may help disinflate such bubbles. In the present paper I argue that such an assumption is not supported by economic theory and may thus lead to misguided policy advice, at least in the case of bubbles of the rational type considered here. The reason for this can be summarized as follows: in contrast with the fundamental component of an asset price, which is given by a discounted stream of payoffs, the bubble component has no payoffs to discount. The only equilibrium requirement on its size is that the latter grow at the rate of interest, at least in expectation. As a result, any increase in the (real) rate engineered by the central bank will tend to increase the size of the bubble, even though the objective of such an intervention may have been exactly the opposite. Of course, any decline observed in the asset price in response to such a tightening of policy is perfectly consistent with the previous result, since the fundamental component will generally drop in that scenario, possibly more than offsetting the expected rise in the bubble component.
=======
二、寫作題(15分)
結(jié)合上文翻譯的文章，以及中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)現(xiàn)狀，寫一篇不少于600字的作文來描述你對(duì)中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)泡沫的看法。
可以是房地產(chǎn)泡沫的成因(這里的中文提示忘了)，也可以是政府為解決這一問題的對(duì)策(比如提高首付，提高貸款利率等)，但必須結(jié)合事實(shí)。
=======
以上，最后再不要臉給自己打個(gè)廣告，之前初試的832真題回憶連接，供18屆參考：
http://www.0313v.com/t7583463p1
|
評(píng)分
-
查看全部評(píng)分
|
發(fā)表于 2017-3-17 16:59
收藏
分享
支持
反對(duì)
樓主
