点评G20会议 - 金融英语速读训练

商业训练营 > 金融英语速读 > 点评G20会议

每天一篇《金融时报》

在全球化日益激烈的金融行业中，能迅速地阅读英文的专业文献，把握全球金融趋势，和海外的金融业者交流，已经成为每个金融业者必备的技能。如果你能坚持每天阅读一篇《金融时报》精选的文章，并不断提高阅读速读和理解准确率，你的专业水平和英文水平，必将令人刮目相看。

准备好了吗？开始吧。

为什么要每天阅读《金融时报》？
- 对于全球的金融业从业人员来说，阅读《金融时报》是每天必须进行的修炼。要想把握金融业的趋势，提高自己的“金融智慧”，和全球的金融业者站在同一高度，《金融时报》是你的首选。
为什么要训练阅读速度？
- 在信息爆炸的今天，能够迅速地阅读和理解大量资料，已成为金融业者必不可少的技能。著名的投资家股神巴菲特曾表示，他每天都会阅读大量报刊和年报，这也是他多年来始终能做出正确的投资决策的基础。
训练阅读速度的小工具
- 自动滚屏助你提高速度。点击该按钮后，屏幕就开始滚动，迫使你改掉向回看的习惯，加快速度。默认为每分钟140字（朗读速度）。随着你的技能提升，你可以挑战更高的速度，直到达到1000。

速度：+ -

阅读以下文章

By Clive Crook

Published: November 16 2008 18:29 | Last updated: November 16 2008 18:29

David Bromley

One of the fears expressed about the weekend Group of 20 summit in Washington was that expectations might soar too high. All the talk of a new Bretton Woods was worrying, many observers reckoned. It would most likely come to nothing and, when it did, that would be another setback to confidence.

The fears were a little overstated – not because the summit achieved much but because, in the US at least, this climactic moment came and went without anyone really noticing.

You might have thought that an emergency gathering of leaders from the world’s 20 main rich and emerging economies, with the global economy poised for its worst slump since the Great Depression, would have aroused some interest. The event was deemed unworthy of the main section of Saturday’s New York Times. (Room was found on the front page for a story about how hard it is to open the “clamshell” packaging of toys and electronic gadgets. The summit, “A crisis in finance”, made page 3 of the business section.) On television news, world leaders’ efforts to stave off disaster were displaced by speculation about Hillary Clinton’s next job and by fires in California (four firemen injured).

For most Americans, and doubtless for many summit participants as well, the meeting did not matter for the simple reason that the president-elect was not there. Barack Obama sent representatives, choosing not to attend himself. For Americans, that made it a non-event. Had the summit been held at the end of January, with the new president in office, it would have been seen as a world-historic moment. Timing is everything.

Expectations will have a second chance to get out of hand in April. Another meeting has been called for then. The new president will be in charge and by that time a lot of the preparatory work on financial regulation set in train last week will have been completed. Something concrete could happen – but between now and then the limits to what this kind of international co-operation can achieve will not be removed.

The president-elect’s absence disguised the most important of these limits. Even a president with four or eight years still to serve is circumscribed in the commitments he can make to such a venture – far more so than Gordon Brown, say, or Nicolas Sarkozy.

Think what a struggle it was for the administration to get its ever-evolving troubled asset relief programme first enacted. Look at the current US debate over a second fiscal stimulus. Congress writes the laws; Congress passes the appropriations. The president can ask and entreat – and at least to begin with Mr Obama can expect to have great sway with Democrats on Capitol Hill – but in the end these are not his decisions. Having the right man turn up at the next summit will make less difference than you might suppose.
<img src=http://media.ft.com/cms/2355dac2-b3e3-11dd-8e35-0000779fd18c.jpg border=0>
Moreover, neither the new president nor the Congress will seriously contemplate anything that might be seen as a surrender of sovereignty to international bodies. Desirable though it may be in principle to create some kind of supranational financial regulator, for example, this is not going to happen. In the regulatory sphere, as with fiscal and monetary policy, US policymaking will remain national for the foreseeable future.

One can hope for a new meeting of minds on basic principles, including broadening regulation to close gaps (especially as far as non-banks are concerned) and increased emphasis on disclosure of information. Closer ad hoc macroeconomic policy co-ordination would be good. Better international monitoring of regulatory standards to vouch for compliance with agreed minimum standards – a job for the International Monetary Fund or the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) – would be most desirable. The governments promised to look at all this. That is about it: the rest is a matter of getting national policies right.

The most valuable thing about the summit was more broadly geopolitical: it was a meeting of the G20, as opposed to the G7 or G8, a point emphasised by President George W.Bush. The governments’ closing statement also underlined the importance of bringing China, India, Brazil and other big emerging economies to the table. More to the point, it called for an “expanded FSF” (whose membership hitherto has been based on that of the G7). It would be good if Saturday’s declaration proved to be the old G7’s death certificate – even better if the G20 could be made into a more compact and efficient replacement, partly by giving the European Union just one seat instead of the four held by the big European economies at present. Mr Brown is keen to show leadership: he can best do it by surrendering Britain’s place.

The summit was expected to affirm the importance of liberal trade, and it did, after a fashion. “We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions or implementing [illegal] measures to stimulate exports.” A whole year of no new trade barriers! Of course, the next administration and Congress are not bound by that promise, and a measure that violates its spirit if not its letter – the proposed bail-out of the big three US-owned carmakers – stands at the top of the agenda.

The financial crash and the economic crisis it provoked attest to the importance of global linkages: the response must be internationally co-ordinated. But down the years, economic summits have been a waste of time for a reason, and some things even Barack Obama cannot change.

Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com

选择正确答案

Which of the following would be the best title of the article?

It happens to be the author's choice.

G20 and Beyond
Expectations come down to earth
Why G20 is better than G7
The End of Capitalism

选择正确答案

Which of the following would the author agree?

That's why the author uses NYT as an example.

Had Obama attended the G20 meeting, the outcome would be totally different.
Hillary Clinton's next job is more important than G20 meeting.
New York Times' choice of coverage reflects the mainframe media attitude toward issues.
G20 meeting is totally a waste of time.

选择正确答案

According to the author, people shouldn't expect too much from G20 meeting because:

Check out from here: "Think what a struggle it was for the administration to get its ever-evolving troubled asset relief programme first enacted..."

Barake Obama, the most important person, didn't attend the meeting.
There's a limit of what the US government and congress can do.
The financial crisis is so serious that nothing can stop it now.
Other coutries don't want to help US, who caused the crisis in the first place.

选择正确答案

Which of the following is the most important outcome from the G20 meeting, according to the author?

Check out: "The most valuable thing about the summit was more broadly geopolitical: it was a meeting of the G20, as opposed to the G7 or G8, a point emphasised by President George W.Bush. "

It brought up the concept of G20, as opposed to G7 or G8.
It paved the way for a new financial order.
Europe is reduced to one seat from the previous four.
It boosts people's confidence that the world government is taking action.

放松与总结

今天的训练暂告一段落，FT中文网还将陆续推出更多的训练项目，欢迎您来信建议。(电子邮件：customer.service@ftchinese.com)

记分卡

您的得分:
平均分: 2
最高分: 4 下一题：不要忘了非洲

更多测试

金融英语速读：

......更多

趣味测试：

街头智慧

更多资源

<<后退

开始>>

您的正确率太低，在目前这个阶段，对你来说最重要的是提高英文水平和金融专业水平，而不是速度。请您点击后退仔细查看您答错的题目，并和原文对照。对原文中所有不懂的句子和知识点，也请一一查明。建议您：
1. 在进行下一次训练的时候，将滚屏速度保持在100以下。
2. 您可以找一些有声读物，如《经济学人》的audio edition，帮助你提高英文水平。

看得出你是非常认真来进行这次训练的，如果你坚持的话，你会获得非常大的提高。目前你的阅读速度偏低，可能是因为英文不是你的母语。不过，请不要放慢阅读速度。研究表明，阅读速度越快的人，其理解的正确率反而越高。因此，您可以同时提高您的阅读速度和理解能力。给你一点建议：
1. 一定要改掉默念的习惯
2. 不要一个词一个词的看，要学会把一个语义群当作一个整体来看。比如“an emergency $180bn injection of dollar”这个语义群，你要学会把他当作一个整体来看。
3. 看DVD的时候，切换到英文字幕。

用正常语速来朗读一篇文章，平均速度是每分钟140词。这说明你的阅读速度比朗读还要慢。建议您：1. 每一段的第一句话往往是最重要的。
2. “速读”最忌讳的就是“读”，不要一边看一边默念。
3. 在下一个训练中将滚屏速度设为140，迫使自己不能回头去看已经读过的部分。

您的阅读速度已经超过了正常语速，说明你已经开始有些速读的感觉了。美国大学生的最低阅读速度为每分钟250词，加把劲你就可以赶上了。建议您：
1. 养成习惯，读过的部分不要回头去看，这样会影响速读。
2. 加强“扫描”的训练，让自己的眼睛能“一目一行”。

您的阅读速度已经达到了美国大学生的水平，可喜可贺。不过作为金融从业人员，每天需要阅读数不清的中英文研究报告、公司年报、报刊杂志等，您还需要向每分钟350字进军。建议您：
1. 加强“扫描”的训练，让自己的眼睛能“一目两行”。
2. 对中英文的数字，尤其是大数字(million, billion)的转换进行总结和练习。

厉害，您的阅读速度已经超过了美国大学生的水平。不过，要成为巴菲特那样的金融专家，您需要锻炼出“一目十行”的火眼金睛。建议您在每次的训练中注意三个要点：
1. 您已经学会了将文章分成语义群，而非词来阅读，现在，你需要扩大每一个语义群中的词数。
2. 加快阅读每个语义群的速度。
3. 看过的内容尽量不要回看。

这就是传说中的“一目十行”吗？难以置信！

世界纪录才每分钟416,250字，居然被你破了！无语...