Thirteen years ago, we set ourselves a goal to end poverty. After some success, we've hit a big hurdle. The aftermath of the financial crisis has begun to hit aid payments, which have fallen for two consecutive years. My question is whether the lessons learned from saving the financial system can be used to help us overcome that hurdle and help millions. Can we simply print money for aid?

十三年前 我們設了一個目標， 要結束貧困 在取得一些小成功后 我們遇到了瓶頸 財政危機的后果 開始沖擊救助款項 而且連續兩年都在減少 我的問題就是， 從挽救財政系統中 得到的這些教訓 能否用來幫助我們克服這瓶頸 也幫助數以百萬的人民 我們是否能直接印鈔以提供救助呢？

"Surely not." It's a common reaction. (Laughter) It's a quick talk. Others channel John McEnroe. "You cannot be serious!"

“當然不可以。” 這是人們正常的反應 （笑聲） 這是一個短對話 人們和約翰·麥肯羅的對話 “你開玩笑的吧！”

Now, I can't do the accent, but I am serious, thanks to these two children, who, as you'll learn, are very much at the heart of my talk. On the left, we have Pia. She lives in England. She has two loving parents, one of whom is standing right here. Dorothy, on the right, lives in rural Kenya. She's one of 13,000 orphans and vulnerable children who are assisted by a charity that I support. I do that because I believe that Dorothy, like Pia, deserves the best life chances that we can afford to give her. You'll all agree with me, I'm sure. The U.N. agrees too. Their overriding aim for international aid is to strive for a life of dignity for all.

我沒辦法模仿他的口音， 但我是認真的 多虧了這兩個孩子 等下你們就會知道， 他們是我這個演講 的中心 左邊這個女孩，名叫皮婭 她住在英格蘭 她的雙親都很和藹可親 其中一個，就站在這里 桃樂茜，右邊的孩子 住在肯尼亞農村 她是一萬三千孤兒 和弱勢兒童中的一員 她在接受我所資助的 一個慈善機構的幫助 我這么做，是因為我相信 桃樂茜，像皮婭一樣 值得擁有我們能給予她的 最好的生活條件 我相信你們會同意我的話的 聯合國也這么認為 他們對于國際援助 的最高目標 就是為所有人爭取生命的尊嚴

But -- and here's that hurdle -- can we afford our aid aspirations? History suggests not. In 1970, governments set themselves a target to increase overseas aid payments to 0.7 percent of their national income. As you can see, a big gap opens up between actual aid and that target. But then come the Millennium Development Goals, eight ambitious targets to be met by 2015. If I tell you that just one of those targets is to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty, you get a sense of the ambition. There's also been some success. The number of people living on less than $1.25 a day has halved. But a lot remains to be done in two years. One in eight remain hungry. In the context of this auditorium, the front two rows aren't going to get any food. We can't settle for that, which is why the concern about the eighth goal, which relates to funding, which I said at the beginning is falling, is so troubling.

但，這兒出現了瓶頸 我們能負擔得起這樣的援助渴望嗎？ 歷史告訴我們，不能 在1970年，政府們給自己定了個目標 要增加海外的救助款項 增加到占國民收入 的0.7% 在這里你能看到， 在實際救助和目標之間 出現了一個大的空缺 接著，出來了“千年發展目標” 要在2015年前 要完成八大目標 如果我告訴你們，其中一個目標 就是要消除極度饑餓和貧困 你們會覺得這雄心勃勃 還是取得一些成功的 每天生活費低于1.25美金的人數 已經減少了一半 當然未來的兩年還有很多的事要做 還有八分之一的人口處于饑餓的水平 拿這個講廳打個比方 前兩排的觀眾將得不到任何食物 這點我們沒法滿足 這就是為什么第八個目標 是如此的麻煩 因為它涉及到資金 就是我開頭說的開始在減少的資金

So what can be done? Well, I work in financial markets, not development. I study the behavior of investors, how they react to policy and the economy. It gives me a different angle on the aid issue. But it took an innocent question from my then-four-year-old daughter to make me appreciate that.

那么，我們能做什么呢？ 嗯，我從事金融市場工作 不是發展研究 我研究投資者的行為 研究他們如何應對政策和經濟 這在救助問題上給我新的啟迪 但是當時我年僅四歲的女兒 問的一個童真的問題 讓我對此心有感激

Pia and I were on the way to a local cafe and we passed a man collecting for charity. I didn't have any change to give him, and she was disappointed. Once in the cafe, Pia takes out her coloring book and starts scribbling. After a little while, I ask her what she's doing, and she shows me a drawing of a £5 note to give to the man outside. It's so sweet, and more generous than Dad would have been. But of course I explained to her, "You can't do that; it's not allowed." To which I get the classic four-year-old response: "Why not?" Now I'm excited, because I actually think I can answer this time. So I launch into an explanation of how an unlimited supply of money chasing a limited number of goods sends prices to the moon.

當時皮婭和我正在去 當地一家咖啡廳的路上 我們經過了一個 為慈善募捐的男人身邊 我當時沒有給他零錢 她就有些失望了 到了咖啡廳， 皮婭拿出她的圖畫本 開始涂畫 過了一會兒， 我問她在干什么 她給我看了她畫的 一張5歐元的鈔票 要給外面的那個男子 非常溫馨 遠比她爸爸要慷慨得多 當然我跟她解釋 “你不能這么做，這行不通得。” 結果我得到的是四歲小孩經典的回答： “為什么啊？” 現在我有點激動了， 因為我覺得 我現在可以回答這個問題了 所以我開始解釋 無限量供應的貨幣 去購買限量供應的商品 是會把價格抬高到離譜的地步的

Something about that exchange stuck with me, not because of the look of relief on Pia's face when I finally finished, but because it related to the sanctity of the money supply, a sanctity that had been challenged and questioned by the reaction of central banks to the financial crisis. To reassure investors, central banks began buying assets to try and encourage investors to do the same. They funded these purchases with money they created themselves. The money wasn't actually physically printed. It's still sort of locked away in the banking system today. But the amount created was unprecedented. Together, the central banks of the U.S., U.K and Japan increased the stock of money in their economies by 3.7 trillion dollars. That's three times, in fact that's more than three times, the total physical stock of dollar notes in circulation. Three times!

這次的交流讓我久久不能忘懷 并不是因為在我快要結束的時候 皮婭臉上露出安心的表情 而是因為 它涉及到貨幣供應的神圣性 這種神圣性一直被中央銀行 對財政危機的反應 所挑戰和質疑 為了使投資方安心 中央銀行開始購置資產 嘗試鼓勵投資者也這么做 他們用他們自己造出來的錢 去投資這些購置 而這些錢并沒有真正被印刷出來 在今天這筆錢仍處于 被“鎖”在銀行系統的狀態 但造出來的這筆錢的數量卻是空前的 各國的中央銀行，美國 英國和日本 都一起增加了各自經濟的貨幣存量 增加了3.7萬億美金 （人民幣約22.2萬億元） 這是三倍，其實不止三倍 實際流通中的美金貨幣存量總和 三倍??！

Before the crisis, this would have been utterly unthinkable, yet it was accepted remarkably quickly. The price of gold, an asset thought to protect against inflation, did jump, but investors bought other assets that offered little protection from inflation. They bought fixed income securities, bonds. They bought equities too. For all the scare stories, the actual actions of investors spoke of rapid acceptance and confidence.

在經濟危機之前 這是完全不能想像的 但它還是非?？炀捅唤邮芰?黃金的價格 黃金是被當作用來抵御通貨膨脹的 確實下跌了 但投資者購買了其他的資產 而這些資產卻基本無法抵制通貨膨脹 他們購買固定收益證券，債卷 他們也買普通股 對于那些嚇人的報道 投資者真正的行為 顯示出快速的接受和信心

That confidence was based on two pillars. The first was that, after years of keeping inflation under control, central banks were trusted to take the money-printing away if inflation became a threat. Secondly, inflation simply never became a threat. As you can see, in the United States, inflation for most of this period remained below average. It was the same elsewhere.

這種信心建立在兩個支柱上 第一個就是 在控制通貨膨脹的多年后 中央銀行被人們所信任 如果通貨膨脹構成威脅時 他們可以停止鈔票的印刷 第二，通貨膨脹單純來說時不會成為威脅的 正如你所見到的，在美國 這個階段大部分時間的通貨膨脹 都低于平均數 在別的地方也一樣

So how does all this relate to aid? Well, this is where Dorothy and the Mango Tree charity that supports her comes in. I was at one of their fundraising events earlier this year, and I was inspired to give a one-off donation when I remembered that my firm offers to match the charitable contributions its employees make. So think of this: Instead of just being able to help Dorothy and four of her classmates to go through secondary school for a few years, I was able to double my contribution. Brilliant.

那么所有的這一切是怎么 和救助這個事兒掛鉤的呢？ 這就是桃樂茜 和資助她的芒果樹慈善機構 開始出現 在今年年初的時候 我在一個募捐活動上 我當時受到了鼓舞，捐了一筆捐款 然后我想起我的公司 答應會根據自己員工捐款的數額 再捐同樣的數額 所以這么想： 我不單能幫助到桃樂茜 還有她的四個同學 幫助他們完成中學幾年的學業 我能夠讓我的貢獻翻倍 這真是太棒了

So following that conversation with my daughter, and seeing the absence of inflation in the face of money-printing, and knowing that international aid payments were falling at just the wrong time, this made me wonder: Could we match but just on a much grander scale? Let's call this scheme "Print Aid." And here's how it might work. Provided it saw little inflation risk from doing so, the central bank would be mandated to match the government's overseas aid payments up to a certain limit. Governments have been aiming to get aid to 0.7 percent for years, so let's set the limit at half of that, 0.35 percent of their income. So it would work like this: If in a given year the government gave 0.2 percent of its income to overseas aid, the central bank would simply top it up with a further 0.2 percent. So far so good.

所以想著我和女兒的對話 看著面臨鈔票印刷時 消失的通貨膨脹 以及知道國際救助款項 在不恰當的時間被減少了 這讓我好奇： 我們能否 在規模上提高一個等級？ 讓我們把這個計劃成為“印救” 下面解釋一下它的運作 假設這樣做基本沒什么通貨膨脹的風險 中央銀行需被強制采取措施 以達到政府的海外救助款項 所設定的一個限度 政府這幾年來都試圖 讓救助款項達到0.7%的數額 那么我們就把限制定在一半吧 就是收入的0.35% 所以它會這樣運作：如果在某一年 政府把收入的0.2% 撥給海外救助 那么中央銀行只要把它的款項 提高多0.2％就可以了 目前感覺還不錯吧

How risky is this? Well, this involves the creation of money to buy goods, not assets. It sounds more inflationary already, doesn't it. But there are two important mitigating factors here. The first is that by definition, this money printed would be spent overseas. So it's not obvious how it leads to inflation in the country doing the actual printing unless it leads to a currency depreciation of that country. That is unlikely for the second reason: the scale of the money that would be printed under this scheme. So let's think of an example where Print Aid was in place in the U.S., U.K. and Japan. To match the aid payments made by those governments over the last four years, Print Aid would have generated 200 billion dollars' worth of extra aid. What would that look like in the context of the increase in the money stock that had already happened in those countries to save the financial system? Are you read for this? You might struggle to see that at the back, because the gap is quite small. So what we're saying here is that we took a $3.7 trillion gamble to save our financial systems, and you know what, it paid off. There was no inflation. Are we really saying that it's not worth the risk to print an extra 200 billion for aid? Would the risks really be that different? To me, it's not that clear. What is clear is the impact on aid. Even though this is the printing of just three central banks, the global aid that's given over this period is up by almost 40 percent. Aid as a proportion of national income all of a sudden is at a 40-year high. Now, we don't get to 0.7 percent. Governments are still incentivized to give. But you know what, that's the point of a matching scheme.

這樣做的風險有多大？ 它其實涉及到制造貨幣 去購買商品，而非資產 聽起來有點通貨膨脹了，對吧 但這里有兩個重要的緩解因素 第一個，就是從定義上說 印制出來的鈔票會被投放到海外 所以印刷鈔票對國內而言 不大可能會導致通貨膨脹 除非它導致了這個國家的貨幣貶值 這也不大可能出現，因為有第二個原因： 取決于在這個計劃下 印刷鈔票的規模 舉個例子 比如“印救”計劃在 美國，英國和日本實施 為了達到政府們在過去四年里 在救助款項達到的數目 “印救”會提供 額外的兩千億美金給救助款項 會出現怎樣的情況？ 當這些國家 為了拯救財政系統 已提高貨幣儲存量 準備好聽答案了嗎？ 在后面你可能會看不清 因為這個空缺很小 所以我們這里說的 是我們拿了3.7萬億美金孤注一擲 去緩解我們的財政系統壓力 結果呢，它見成效了 沒有通貨膨脹 那么，為了救援而額外印多2千億鈔票 這樣的風險真的不值得去承擔嗎？ 這些風險真的會有很大區別嗎？ 對我來說，這是比較模糊的概念 而對救援產生的影響則是清晰的 哪怕印鈔僅僅只是 三家中央銀行的事 但是這個階段給出的國籍援助 也已經上升了接近40個百分點 援助作為國民收入的一部分 突然就上升到了40年來的最高點 那么，假設我們沒有達到0.7%那個點 政府也會被要求付諸行動 但你們知道嗎，那個點就是和計劃匹配的點

So I think what we've learned is that the risks from this money creation scheme are quite modest, but the benefits are potentially huge. Imagine what we could do with 40 percent more funding. We might be able to feed the front row.

所以我覺得，我們了解到的是 這個印鈔計劃中潛在的風險 是相當溫和的 但是收益呢 則是非常龐大 想像一下這多出來的40%的資金， 我們能做多少事情 我們估計可以養得起 前排的觀眾了

The thing that I fear, the only thing that I fear, apart from the fact that I've run out of time, is that the window of opportunity for this idea is a short one. Today, money creation by central banks is an accepted policy tool. That may not always be the case. Today there are universally agreed aims for international aid. That may not always be the case. Today might be the only time that these two things coincide, such that we can afford the aid that we've always aspired to give.

我擔心的事情， 且唯一擔心的事情 除了我已經沒什么時間這個事實外 就是實施這個想法的時間機會 非常短暫 今天，中央銀行的貨幣創造 是一個公認的政策工具 但這并不是一直都這樣 如今在國際援助上 我們有世界普遍認可的目標 但這也并不是一直都這樣 現在可能是這兩種事物 同時被認可實行的唯一時機 這樣我們就能負擔起這些援助 這些我們一直都很想給予的援助

So, can we print money for international aid? I seriously believe the question should be, why not?

所以，我們能為國籍援助而印刷鈔票嗎？ 我堅決相信這是可行的 為什么不呢？

Thank you very much.

非常感謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

更多 英語演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語演講稿 相關文章和資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全