English learning website：
www.24en.com/
www.wwenglish.com/
www.hao123.com/campuseng.htm/
www.com10.cn/
www.ncu.edu.tw/~eng/site/learn.htm
www.hao360.com/
www.ebigear.com/
www.putclub.com/
www.hxen.com/
www.ewstudy.com/
http://www.speak2me.cn/main/home/cn/default.php
Monday, June 1, 2009
Whether to save failing banks by government?
"It's our view that regulators are expecting 100 to 200 banks to fail over the next 12 to 24 months.” says Jaret Seiberg, a research analyst for the Stanford Group. Since the advent of recession, a plenty of banks have suffered from failures. Even the prestige banks such as City-Bank cannot escape from the plight. This brutal fact not only triggers people’s intense worry about the current economy, but also deteriorates the recession situation. Furthermore, various fields will be affected by the failing banks to a certain extent, which even may cause social unrest. To revive the economy, it is imperative for the government to take measures to save the failing banks.(Bowen)
Banks must be saved. As we know, people all deposit their money in banks, if the bank which holds their money bankrupts, part of their money is gone. Can you imagine you are told that your money in bank is gone while the economic crisis is getting worse and worse? Moreover, banks are not only the place where people deposit money, but also the resource of money for almost entire industries. Banks give loans to people to consume, which prompts economic development; banks invest companies to help them extend their business, which helps all industries carry on. What if banks are gone? The consumption will decrease at a considerable pace while all industry will face horrible problems since they can’t get enough money to carry on their business, which will not only destroy the financial market but also destroy the real economy. What’s more, when banks go bankrupt, confidence will be gone for an enormously long period of time. One thing you should know is that confidence is the most effective medicine during economic crisis.(Haiyuan)
I will take the City Bank as an example for our further illustration that failing banks must be saved by the government. As we know the City Bank is the second largest commercial bank of the whole America. It owns such a quite enormous amount of money and credits that the government of America cannot wait to save it. It is related to many ceilings’ accounts and many investors’ interest all over the world. Also, quite a large number of companies and enterprises need money flow through City Bank which is very reliable for them. Once City Bank failed, the whole financial system of the world would be severely affected and the whole market would be collapsed. That would be a terrible situation which cannot restore any more. And the government must protect the interest of the citizens and the whole financial system. It is their duty to save City Bank not only because of its great reputation, but also because it has an effect on the others fields and the whole world. Furthermore, the government has truly tried to save it. Government injected 20 billion dollars to rescue City Bank which has more than 350,000 clerks and over 200 million ceilings all over the world. We can see the good effect of the event. America alleviated the depressed situation of the market and citizens began to have their normal life. Saving some great failing banks must be done by the government if necessary.(Mi Yang)
Critics of my position may think that we should believe in the law of the jungle, i.e. we should let the market decide whether the bank survive or not. They may say that if the government interfere, although the banks can be saved temporarily, it will not change the whole economic situation. However, they are wrong. Firstly, market is not the only factor to decide whether a bank survives. As the development of banks will affect the economic trend of a country, the government who should assume the responsibility to control macro-economic of the whole country should save banks. Secondly, saving banks can help reviving the economy. For example, in 2008, during the recession, U.S government spent 20,000,000,000 dollars saving City Bank, which is the second largest commercial bank in U.S.A. After that, the economy of U.S.A began to revive. If the government let City Bank run its course, the whole economy of America will be pounded. Therefore, U.S government made great efforts to save City Bank and thus helped the economy to revive.（Xixian）
In conclusion, it is high time for the government to take actions to save the failing banks. Since the failing banks would trigger off so many serious consequences, it calls for urgent efforts to help those failing banks survive. However, it is almost unpractical to expect the failing banks to bounce back by themselves especially in the current severe situation. The failing banks cannot survive depending on their own capability. To survive in the recession, they need both the policy support and the finance support from the government. Only by the concerted efforts of government and those banks themselves can we expect the coming spring of the failing banks and the coming spring of the global economy.(Bowen)
Banks must be saved. As we know, people all deposit their money in banks, if the bank which holds their money bankrupts, part of their money is gone. Can you imagine you are told that your money in bank is gone while the economic crisis is getting worse and worse? Moreover, banks are not only the place where people deposit money, but also the resource of money for almost entire industries. Banks give loans to people to consume, which prompts economic development; banks invest companies to help them extend their business, which helps all industries carry on. What if banks are gone? The consumption will decrease at a considerable pace while all industry will face horrible problems since they can’t get enough money to carry on their business, which will not only destroy the financial market but also destroy the real economy. What’s more, when banks go bankrupt, confidence will be gone for an enormously long period of time. One thing you should know is that confidence is the most effective medicine during economic crisis.(Haiyuan)
I will take the City Bank as an example for our further illustration that failing banks must be saved by the government. As we know the City Bank is the second largest commercial bank of the whole America. It owns such a quite enormous amount of money and credits that the government of America cannot wait to save it. It is related to many ceilings’ accounts and many investors’ interest all over the world. Also, quite a large number of companies and enterprises need money flow through City Bank which is very reliable for them. Once City Bank failed, the whole financial system of the world would be severely affected and the whole market would be collapsed. That would be a terrible situation which cannot restore any more. And the government must protect the interest of the citizens and the whole financial system. It is their duty to save City Bank not only because of its great reputation, but also because it has an effect on the others fields and the whole world. Furthermore, the government has truly tried to save it. Government injected 20 billion dollars to rescue City Bank which has more than 350,000 clerks and over 200 million ceilings all over the world. We can see the good effect of the event. America alleviated the depressed situation of the market and citizens began to have their normal life. Saving some great failing banks must be done by the government if necessary.(Mi Yang)
Critics of my position may think that we should believe in the law of the jungle, i.e. we should let the market decide whether the bank survive or not. They may say that if the government interfere, although the banks can be saved temporarily, it will not change the whole economic situation. However, they are wrong. Firstly, market is not the only factor to decide whether a bank survives. As the development of banks will affect the economic trend of a country, the government who should assume the responsibility to control macro-economic of the whole country should save banks. Secondly, saving banks can help reviving the economy. For example, in 2008, during the recession, U.S government spent 20,000,000,000 dollars saving City Bank, which is the second largest commercial bank in U.S.A. After that, the economy of U.S.A began to revive. If the government let City Bank run its course, the whole economy of America will be pounded. Therefore, U.S government made great efforts to save City Bank and thus helped the economy to revive.（Xixian）
In conclusion, it is high time for the government to take actions to save the failing banks. Since the failing banks would trigger off so many serious consequences, it calls for urgent efforts to help those failing banks survive. However, it is almost unpractical to expect the failing banks to bounce back by themselves especially in the current severe situation. The failing banks cannot survive depending on their own capability. To survive in the recession, they need both the policy support and the finance support from the government. Only by the concerted efforts of government and those banks themselves can we expect the coming spring of the failing banks and the coming spring of the global economy.(Bowen)
WangChao,YangXiao,WuLingxue,JinYiping,QiaoLiang
Developing countries should join globalization. Do you agree?
Globalization, by its literary meaning, is the state of different countries’ joining in the economics activities. The concept of “global village” has long been raised by economists, and it remains to be the most heated issue ever since. For the developed countries, globalization is with no doubt profitable. On the other hand, for the developing countries, hazardous as it is, globalization still can do more good than bad to the local economy in the long run.
Those who are against the act of developing countries joining in the trend of globalization may argue that as underdeveloped countries, they can barely be on the equal footing while cooperating with developed countries and being exploited seems unavoidable. However, they neglect the fact that this kind of cooperation is a win-win deal which benefits both sides. Developing countries do not have to beg for the capital and cutting-edge technology from developed countries, since they have advantages which developed countries are longing for, e.g. land, raw material, cheap labors and far-unsaturated domestic market. Hence, to the satisfaction of one and all, cooperation will be formed on the base of equality and both sides will get what they want. For developing countries, particularly, they will benefit from the trend of globalization. Thus, by no means should they shut themselves up and reject the cooperation.
First, economic globalization for developing countries can attract more investment and capital investment opportunities from foreign countries especially from the developed countries. In 1996, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development published the "World Investment Report 1997," pointed out that in 1996, developing countries received 129 billion U.S. dollars from foreign direct investment. The sum of capital inflows that the 48 least developed countries have received has also increased 56% in 1996.
Economic globalization also has promoted the establishment and development of transnational corporations in developing countries and made them adapt to the world market gradually. Some very rapidly developed multinational companies even transformed from trading activities to the field of high-technology and began to participate in international competition in the world market.
Globalization contributes to developing countries’ economy by transferring advanced technology from developed countries to developing countries. For example, technology played a role from the 1950s through the 1970s in the development of a comprehensive (albeit, not technically progressive) industrial economy and an extensive research and development (R&D) system. By the late 1970s, however, the Chinese were prepared to acknowledge that many problems with their industrial and R&D systems were inhibiting the further development of the nation’s technical capabilities. By the pursuit of modern technology from abroad, China’s economy got a ever fast developing. Thus, technology transfer along with the globalization helps developing countries’ economy.
Under the trend of globalization, countries all around the world get benefits, so do the developing countries. With the funds and technology of the developed countries, developing countries use their manpower and resources to develop their economy and narrow the gap between the developed countries and them. Globalization provides a good chance for all the countries in the world to help others and develop themselves at the same time. Choosing to join the globalization is the choice of many developing countries and it is also the best choice for them to make.
Globalization, by its literary meaning, is the state of different countries’ joining in the economics activities. The concept of “global village” has long been raised by economists, and it remains to be the most heated issue ever since. For the developed countries, globalization is with no doubt profitable. On the other hand, for the developing countries, hazardous as it is, globalization still can do more good than bad to the local economy in the long run.
Those who are against the act of developing countries joining in the trend of globalization may argue that as underdeveloped countries, they can barely be on the equal footing while cooperating with developed countries and being exploited seems unavoidable. However, they neglect the fact that this kind of cooperation is a win-win deal which benefits both sides. Developing countries do not have to beg for the capital and cutting-edge technology from developed countries, since they have advantages which developed countries are longing for, e.g. land, raw material, cheap labors and far-unsaturated domestic market. Hence, to the satisfaction of one and all, cooperation will be formed on the base of equality and both sides will get what they want. For developing countries, particularly, they will benefit from the trend of globalization. Thus, by no means should they shut themselves up and reject the cooperation.
First, economic globalization for developing countries can attract more investment and capital investment opportunities from foreign countries especially from the developed countries. In 1996, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development published the "World Investment Report 1997," pointed out that in 1996, developing countries received 129 billion U.S. dollars from foreign direct investment. The sum of capital inflows that the 48 least developed countries have received has also increased 56% in 1996.
Economic globalization also has promoted the establishment and development of transnational corporations in developing countries and made them adapt to the world market gradually. Some very rapidly developed multinational companies even transformed from trading activities to the field of high-technology and began to participate in international competition in the world market.
Globalization contributes to developing countries’ economy by transferring advanced technology from developed countries to developing countries. For example, technology played a role from the 1950s through the 1970s in the development of a comprehensive (albeit, not technically progressive) industrial economy and an extensive research and development (R&D) system. By the late 1970s, however, the Chinese were prepared to acknowledge that many problems with their industrial and R&D systems were inhibiting the further development of the nation’s technical capabilities. By the pursuit of modern technology from abroad, China’s economy got a ever fast developing. Thus, technology transfer along with the globalization helps developing countries’ economy.
Under the trend of globalization, countries all around the world get benefits, so do the developing countries. With the funds and technology of the developed countries, developing countries use their manpower and resources to develop their economy and narrow the gap between the developed countries and them. Globalization provides a good chance for all the countries in the world to help others and develop themselves at the same time. Choosing to join the globalization is the choice of many developing countries and it is also the best choice for them to make.
Monday class!!
Government should save failing banks, do you agree?
Last year, a nightmare happened. Financial crisis happened. It affects the economy of the whole. The biggest bank in America declared bankruptcy. The global market got a decline period. To save the market, the US government save the failing banks by giving the banks millions of dollars which has already become a heated issue. Hence, we hold the position that government should save banks.
------Wangweibin
Furthermore, bank industry is a symbol of a country. As national economic courage, bank industry definitely leads local economy. Hence, if these optimus collapse, it only bring the country discourage and depression. Though some believe that it is banks themselves that bring them bankrupt because of the greed and lust, government should save banks, concerning the potential effect on the increasing of various industries. Buffet said that, stability and strength of banks are cardiac to not only individuals but also other factories and financial corporations. Therefore, there is no doubt that government should save the banks and make them run stably.
-------Fanxinyu
Bank plays an important role in people’s life. Government should save falling banks for the sake of its people. Bank’s situation can influence people’s money and moods. It is undeniable that almost everyone has a bank account. If we didn’t have banks where would people save their money? It’s the only place to save money, unless it’s an amount which one can put in the locker in his/her home. Of course, people can’t leave the money at home and increase the chances of it getting robbed. If banks are falling, people will lose money. Just like America, people lose a lot of money in the recession. Without any help, people will lose much money, even all. Government should take this responsibility to save its people. Banks can also influence people’s mood. If banks are falling, people will be negative and disappointed for the future. In a long run, the whole nation will face a series of problems. If our government does nothing for the falling banks, citizens will lose courage to overcome these economic problems. The whole country may get into trouble. October 24, 1929, the US suffered the greatest economic crisis. March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the thirty-second President of the United States. He used a series of policies to save the economy. It was reform, recovery and relief. In this case, we can see that it is crucial for government to save the falling banks.
----------Ningchao
Critics against my position may say that the market show live on its own. So they think that it is unfair for the market. However things are not that easy. Banks are financial institutions licensed by governments. In other words they are playing a supporter’s role in the economy. Thus, one bank fail may occur many people and companies. For example, Lehman Brothers causes many companies like real estate companies to bankrupt, because Lehman lend much money to people who invest these companies. These real estate companies cannot get any money as soon as Lehman failed. Therefore, saving failing is fair for most companies. On the other hand, banks are related, because different banks have different functions. Therefore, would suffer a lot if the government refused to save large banks. For example, if people’s bank of China which is the centre bank of China failed, other banks in china could hardly work. As a result, government should safe banks to stabilize the economy and prevent large scale bankrupts.
--------ZhangHaoqiang
Banks really play an important role in the economy. The failing of banks will leave the economy mess and out of order. Meanwhile, it will also delay the revilement of economy. Obviously, the action that the government takes is really acceptable. In the end, we believe that government should save failing banks.
------Wangweibin
Last year, a nightmare happened. Financial crisis happened. It affects the economy of the whole. The biggest bank in America declared bankruptcy. The global market got a decline period. To save the market, the US government save the failing banks by giving the banks millions of dollars which has already become a heated issue. Hence, we hold the position that government should save banks.
------Wangweibin
Furthermore, bank industry is a symbol of a country. As national economic courage, bank industry definitely leads local economy. Hence, if these optimus collapse, it only bring the country discourage and depression. Though some believe that it is banks themselves that bring them bankrupt because of the greed and lust, government should save banks, concerning the potential effect on the increasing of various industries. Buffet said that, stability and strength of banks are cardiac to not only individuals but also other factories and financial corporations. Therefore, there is no doubt that government should save the banks and make them run stably.
-------Fanxinyu
Bank plays an important role in people’s life. Government should save falling banks for the sake of its people. Bank’s situation can influence people’s money and moods. It is undeniable that almost everyone has a bank account. If we didn’t have banks where would people save their money? It’s the only place to save money, unless it’s an amount which one can put in the locker in his/her home. Of course, people can’t leave the money at home and increase the chances of it getting robbed. If banks are falling, people will lose money. Just like America, people lose a lot of money in the recession. Without any help, people will lose much money, even all. Government should take this responsibility to save its people. Banks can also influence people’s mood. If banks are falling, people will be negative and disappointed for the future. In a long run, the whole nation will face a series of problems. If our government does nothing for the falling banks, citizens will lose courage to overcome these economic problems. The whole country may get into trouble. October 24, 1929, the US suffered the greatest economic crisis. March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the thirty-second President of the United States. He used a series of policies to save the economy. It was reform, recovery and relief. In this case, we can see that it is crucial for government to save the falling banks.
----------Ningchao
Critics against my position may say that the market show live on its own. So they think that it is unfair for the market. However things are not that easy. Banks are financial institutions licensed by governments. In other words they are playing a supporter’s role in the economy. Thus, one bank fail may occur many people and companies. For example, Lehman Brothers causes many companies like real estate companies to bankrupt, because Lehman lend much money to people who invest these companies. These real estate companies cannot get any money as soon as Lehman failed. Therefore, saving failing is fair for most companies. On the other hand, banks are related, because different banks have different functions. Therefore, would suffer a lot if the government refused to save large banks. For example, if people’s bank of China which is the centre bank of China failed, other banks in china could hardly work. As a result, government should safe banks to stabilize the economy and prevent large scale bankrupts.
--------ZhangHaoqiang
Banks really play an important role in the economy. The failing of banks will leave the economy mess and out of order. Meanwhile, it will also delay the revilement of economy. Obviously, the action that the government takes is really acceptable. In the end, we believe that government should save failing banks.
------Wangweibin
Classwork by YuanYi Zhenlei Zhaokun LuanBo
Government should carry out the macroeconomic control, do you agree?
--Zhou Yuanyi, LuanBo, YangZhenlei, Zhaokun
A highly controversial issue has been put forward since China introduced the macroeconomic control policy in 1993 about whether government should carry out the macroeconomic control policy or not? In the point of view of our group, we agree that government should carry out the macroeconomic control policy. The reasons are as follows: firstly, structural macroeconomic control aims to effective allocation of industrial resources, which helps to reduce the margin between the poor and the rich; Secondly, government can completely control the economic trend of the whole country and put an effort in the production that their people need most.
one point that we consider is the distribution of resources. This kind of matter may destroy the balance of the resources’ distribution. Just take China for example. The economy in the west part of China is completely different from the east part of China. There are many impoverished areas like Yun Nan in the West. However, the east part of China like Shanghai shows a very flourishing economy. The San Xia power station, which is the largest power station in China, provides more times of electricity for Shanghai than other areas. That may influence other areas’ development and stagnate the economy of the whole country.
Besides, another function of macro-control is to control the development of all the important industries that closely related with people’s lives. Through this policy, the government can not only guarantee the normal operation of some vital and indispensable industries like telecommunication industries and energy industries, but also prevent the excessive growth of some industries and reasonably boost other industries. For example, in 1993, Chinese government used the macro-control policy to strengthen transport and communication infrastructure to speed up the energy and important raw materials industries, with a focus on coal, electricity, iron and steel, building materials and the development of the petrochemical industry. The results were significant. In 2003, the investment in some industries was overheated and Gasoline Shortages and tension electricity supply were appeared. The government gave priority to ensuring the focus of urban and rural residents living, fully tapped the potential of coal, electricity and oil production, and strived to protect the important material transport. Then the problems are basically resolved.
But some people will say, because the market is the foundation of the economy, so economic regulation should be carried on with the help of the market, rather than relying too much on macroeconomic-control by the government. We cannot say it is wrong, what we want to emphasis is that market regulation needs a long time to change the structure of economy gradually. But in some certain time, such as the economic crisis happened recently, the economic crisis burst out and the economy in American suddenly changed. If at this time, American waits for the market regulation to recover the economy, it will take a long time and at the same time people in American will suffer. So it is a must for government to come out and put up with some policy to help the economy recover. As a result, the economy will recover.
Since government carry out the macroeconomic control policy, the economy and resource can be appropriately distributed and allocated. Government can decide where aspect to focus on in order to develop the economy. It is true that decisive decisions will be made when government faced with urgent issues rather than waiting for the principle of market to adjust. Also carrying out the macroeconomic control will play an important part in decreasing the distinction between the rich and the poor, which, as a result promote the stability of society.
--Zhou Yuanyi, LuanBo, YangZhenlei, Zhaokun
A highly controversial issue has been put forward since China introduced the macroeconomic control policy in 1993 about whether government should carry out the macroeconomic control policy or not? In the point of view of our group, we agree that government should carry out the macroeconomic control policy. The reasons are as follows: firstly, structural macroeconomic control aims to effective allocation of industrial resources, which helps to reduce the margin between the poor and the rich; Secondly, government can completely control the economic trend of the whole country and put an effort in the production that their people need most.
one point that we consider is the distribution of resources. This kind of matter may destroy the balance of the resources’ distribution. Just take China for example. The economy in the west part of China is completely different from the east part of China. There are many impoverished areas like Yun Nan in the West. However, the east part of China like Shanghai shows a very flourishing economy. The San Xia power station, which is the largest power station in China, provides more times of electricity for Shanghai than other areas. That may influence other areas’ development and stagnate the economy of the whole country.
Besides, another function of macro-control is to control the development of all the important industries that closely related with people’s lives. Through this policy, the government can not only guarantee the normal operation of some vital and indispensable industries like telecommunication industries and energy industries, but also prevent the excessive growth of some industries and reasonably boost other industries. For example, in 1993, Chinese government used the macro-control policy to strengthen transport and communication infrastructure to speed up the energy and important raw materials industries, with a focus on coal, electricity, iron and steel, building materials and the development of the petrochemical industry. The results were significant. In 2003, the investment in some industries was overheated and Gasoline Shortages and tension electricity supply were appeared. The government gave priority to ensuring the focus of urban and rural residents living, fully tapped the potential of coal, electricity and oil production, and strived to protect the important material transport. Then the problems are basically resolved.
But some people will say, because the market is the foundation of the economy, so economic regulation should be carried on with the help of the market, rather than relying too much on macroeconomic-control by the government. We cannot say it is wrong, what we want to emphasis is that market regulation needs a long time to change the structure of economy gradually. But in some certain time, such as the economic crisis happened recently, the economic crisis burst out and the economy in American suddenly changed. If at this time, American waits for the market regulation to recover the economy, it will take a long time and at the same time people in American will suffer. So it is a must for government to come out and put up with some policy to help the economy recover. As a result, the economy will recover.
Since government carry out the macroeconomic control policy, the economy and resource can be appropriately distributed and allocated. Government can decide where aspect to focus on in order to develop the economy. It is true that decisive decisions will be made when government faced with urgent issues rather than waiting for the principle of market to adjust. Also carrying out the macroeconomic control will play an important part in decreasing the distinction between the rich and the poor, which, as a result promote the stability of society.
The government should rescue failing banks when necessary
Till May 23rd 2009, 34 of American banks have collapsed in only one year’s time. Some of the collapsed banks such as Washington Mutual Bank, Integrity Bank are big banks in the world, while because of the economic recession more and more banks will collapse in the following years. Should government rescue these banks? It becomes a very hot topic these days. Our group thinks that government should rescue these banks when it is necessary.
(Wu Bo)
Firstly, the government is responsible for national financial system while saving the bank is an active measure to execute its responsibility. It may be argued whether the banks are worth being rescued and if we should follow the market force. However, the government cannot risk suffering the result of breakdown of the whole financial system caused by the collapse of banks. In this sense, government should take every effort to save the bank in certain cases because if the banks collapse, the national economy may breakdown without the healthy financial system. Take Iceland for example, as we know the currency of Iceland collapse because of the collapse of banks of Iceland and the whole nation is suffering the result of it. The Icelandic government did not take any measures to save the banks when there were already some evidences suggesting the danger of the collapse of banks. When the banks collapsed, they began to realize the danger and try to save them. However, it was too late. The failure of national economy is owing to the government. Hence, the government should save the banks to execute its responsibility and it cannot risk the collapse of the banks.
(By Zhou Bin)
Furthermore, the government should rescue banks when necessary to guarantee the benefits of its citizens. As bank is the most important part of financial chain, its collapse will definitely exert great influence on the individuals who have deposit in the bank or have some other financial relations with it. For example, the City Bank was on verge of bankrupt. As one of the greatest banks with branches all over the world, its collapse would have far-reaching impact and would make its customers suffer. Hence, the American government came to rescue the City Bank, which can prevent the recession from running worse and can guarantee more people’s basic benefits. If the government does nothing and leaves all failing banks on its own, it will cause disorder and chaos to society as more and more people are losing money. Actually they are paying for the failure of the banks which should be the government’s responsibility. In short, ensuring the interests of the whole people far overweighs other factors we can consider. It is necessary for the government to rescue some failing banks.
(By Du Fang)
Some critics may mislead that the responsibility of the government is to rescue the financial system instead of some particular institutions. Critics think that the US government has taken enough measures so far, and it should let the weak institutions be eliminated from competition. In this case, the entire system will continue running. However, it may work but more problems will follow. If the government thinks that the financial system will return to normal by itself so that it does not rescue the failing banks, it will result in terrible consequences. For example, during the 1929 US economy crisis, if the government had not taken emergency measures to rescue the failing banks, millions of citizens would suffer from the financial loss. Worse still, the whole US would also fall back and might never flourish. Hence, the government must rescue the failing banks instead of letting it be.(by Zhang Jiao)
In conclusion, maintaining the well-working financial system and ensuring the people’s interests overweigh other factors and government should rescue these banks when it is necessary.
(Wu Bo)
(Wu Bo)
Firstly, the government is responsible for national financial system while saving the bank is an active measure to execute its responsibility. It may be argued whether the banks are worth being rescued and if we should follow the market force. However, the government cannot risk suffering the result of breakdown of the whole financial system caused by the collapse of banks. In this sense, government should take every effort to save the bank in certain cases because if the banks collapse, the national economy may breakdown without the healthy financial system. Take Iceland for example, as we know the currency of Iceland collapse because of the collapse of banks of Iceland and the whole nation is suffering the result of it. The Icelandic government did not take any measures to save the banks when there were already some evidences suggesting the danger of the collapse of banks. When the banks collapsed, they began to realize the danger and try to save them. However, it was too late. The failure of national economy is owing to the government. Hence, the government should save the banks to execute its responsibility and it cannot risk the collapse of the banks.
(By Zhou Bin)
Furthermore, the government should rescue banks when necessary to guarantee the benefits of its citizens. As bank is the most important part of financial chain, its collapse will definitely exert great influence on the individuals who have deposit in the bank or have some other financial relations with it. For example, the City Bank was on verge of bankrupt. As one of the greatest banks with branches all over the world, its collapse would have far-reaching impact and would make its customers suffer. Hence, the American government came to rescue the City Bank, which can prevent the recession from running worse and can guarantee more people’s basic benefits. If the government does nothing and leaves all failing banks on its own, it will cause disorder and chaos to society as more and more people are losing money. Actually they are paying for the failure of the banks which should be the government’s responsibility. In short, ensuring the interests of the whole people far overweighs other factors we can consider. It is necessary for the government to rescue some failing banks.
(By Du Fang)
Some critics may mislead that the responsibility of the government is to rescue the financial system instead of some particular institutions. Critics think that the US government has taken enough measures so far, and it should let the weak institutions be eliminated from competition. In this case, the entire system will continue running. However, it may work but more problems will follow. If the government thinks that the financial system will return to normal by itself so that it does not rescue the failing banks, it will result in terrible consequences. For example, during the 1929 US economy crisis, if the government had not taken emergency measures to rescue the failing banks, millions of citizens would suffer from the financial loss. Worse still, the whole US would also fall back and might never flourish. Hence, the government must rescue the failing banks instead of letting it be.(by Zhang Jiao)
In conclusion, maintaining the well-working financial system and ensuring the people’s interests overweigh other factors and government should rescue these banks when it is necessary.
(Wu Bo)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
A Magic Mirror
I have a magic mirror, which is just like the one in white snow. Whenever I come up with a question, it can search the answer for me.
One day, confused about what kind of person I was, I opened my mouth to the mirror. “Mirror, mirror, what kind of person am I?”
Paused for a while, it answered me “Well, first, I think you are investigative.” At its words, reflected on the mirror was the scene when I was alone in the computer lab doing my programming tasks. At a very early age, when I entered junior high school, I began to learn Pascal, one of the almost outdated computer languages. At the very beginning, there were more than fifty students in the class. We sacrificed every Saturday to fulfill our interest. However, as time went on, the programming tasks became tougher and tougher. Sometimes, we had to spend a whole day sitting in front of a computer doing one exercise. Thus, learning turned boring and boring. One after another, some classmates dropped their classes and enjoyed their regained happy Saturday. Though as a youngster, I was fond of playing with peers too; as you may guess, it almost formed my habit to go to computer lab every Saturday. Though the process to work on a problem was bitter, the joy when a problem was finally solved grasped my heart tightly. Sometimes, I thought of quite as well, however, even though I forced myself not to go to computer lab occasionally, I could not help my brain running while sleeping, eating even talking. The more I try to leave it, the more I find I can not live without it. Therefore, after a year, only one classmate and I kept on going to computer lab regularly and learning Pascal by ourselves.
After mirror’s words, I closed my eye and pictured the old time, trying to pick up the lost feelings again. I found I really enjoy the feeling that a tough question keeps my brain working subconsciously. I like to solve challenging problems. That may be why mirror said I am investigative.
“Secondly,” the mirror continues, ‘you are curious.”
“New knowledge and new experiences are always attractive to you. It is you who followed teachers after class to their offices most frequently. It is you who were so happy when encountering a terrible flood in Yunnan Province. It seems that anything new can please you, no matter good or bad.”
Hearing mirror talking, I recalled those pieces in my life. If they were not mentioned by mirror, I almost forget them. Actually I did not really heed them until mirror emphasized them.
“Besides, you are also independent.”
“Remember three years ago, you went to Japan alone. And you could take good care of yourself. Remember you made your won decision to go to Singapore though your father prefer you to study in China.”
“Investigative, curious and independent. Though they are not the whole of you, I hope my words can give you a better understanding or yourself.”
The magic mirror really exists in my life. It is my twin sister, Wu Lingshuang. When I was confused about choosing my major and asked her what kind of person I was and which major I was fit for. She dissected my character as above. She is the person who knows me even better than myself. She is the person who is always there, getting ready to give me a hand. She really deserves my closest friend.
One day, confused about what kind of person I was, I opened my mouth to the mirror. “Mirror, mirror, what kind of person am I?”
Paused for a while, it answered me “Well, first, I think you are investigative.” At its words, reflected on the mirror was the scene when I was alone in the computer lab doing my programming tasks. At a very early age, when I entered junior high school, I began to learn Pascal, one of the almost outdated computer languages. At the very beginning, there were more than fifty students in the class. We sacrificed every Saturday to fulfill our interest. However, as time went on, the programming tasks became tougher and tougher. Sometimes, we had to spend a whole day sitting in front of a computer doing one exercise. Thus, learning turned boring and boring. One after another, some classmates dropped their classes and enjoyed their regained happy Saturday. Though as a youngster, I was fond of playing with peers too; as you may guess, it almost formed my habit to go to computer lab every Saturday. Though the process to work on a problem was bitter, the joy when a problem was finally solved grasped my heart tightly. Sometimes, I thought of quite as well, however, even though I forced myself not to go to computer lab occasionally, I could not help my brain running while sleeping, eating even talking. The more I try to leave it, the more I find I can not live without it. Therefore, after a year, only one classmate and I kept on going to computer lab regularly and learning Pascal by ourselves.
After mirror’s words, I closed my eye and pictured the old time, trying to pick up the lost feelings again. I found I really enjoy the feeling that a tough question keeps my brain working subconsciously. I like to solve challenging problems. That may be why mirror said I am investigative.
“Secondly,” the mirror continues, ‘you are curious.”
“New knowledge and new experiences are always attractive to you. It is you who followed teachers after class to their offices most frequently. It is you who were so happy when encountering a terrible flood in Yunnan Province. It seems that anything new can please you, no matter good or bad.”
Hearing mirror talking, I recalled those pieces in my life. If they were not mentioned by mirror, I almost forget them. Actually I did not really heed them until mirror emphasized them.
“Besides, you are also independent.”
“Remember three years ago, you went to Japan alone. And you could take good care of yourself. Remember you made your won decision to go to Singapore though your father prefer you to study in China.”
“Investigative, curious and independent. Though they are not the whole of you, I hope my words can give you a better understanding or yourself.”
The magic mirror really exists in my life. It is my twin sister, Wu Lingshuang. When I was confused about choosing my major and asked her what kind of person I was and which major I was fit for. She dissected my character as above. She is the person who knows me even better than myself. She is the person who is always there, getting ready to give me a hand. She really deserves my closest friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)