在德国科尔伯基金会的演讲全文

博科娃总干事2014年争取和平与发展世界科学日致辞第一篇：博科娃总干事2014年争取和平与发展世界科学日致辞中英对照：博科娃总干事2014年争取和平与发展世界科学日致辞the World Science Day for Peace and Development教科文组织总干事伊琳娜·博科娃在争取和平与发展世界科学日的致辞Quality Science Education: securing a sustainable future for all “良好的科学教育：让人人拥有可持续的未来”10 November 2014 2014年11月10日More than ever, in this new age of limited resources, we need to nurture the boundless energy and creativity of young women and men to tackle complex new challenges. Quality science education is vital for this, to lay the foundations for a more sustainable future for all.在这个资源有限的新时代，比以往任何时候都更加需要培养青年男女无尽的能力和创造力，以应对新的复杂挑战。

良好的科学教育是其关键所在，可为人人拥有更加可持续的未来奠定基础。

We need concerted action today to halt the decline of enrolment of young people in science, starting at an early age. It is not enough to put science in the school curriculum – we must build a supportive environment, by crafting educational policies that give equal access to girls and boys and by investing in laboratories and resources where they can take the lead. We must recognize the importance of traditional and indigenous knowledge, while also harnessing new information and communication technologies for innovation and creativity. All of this is essential to foster more equitable and inclusive growth and to improve employability and entrepreneurial opportunities, while strengthening social resilience and health.今天，我们需要齐心协力，从幼童抓起，遏止学习科学的青年人减少的趋势。

IN HIS Jackson Hole speech a year ago, Ben Bernanke wanted to leave no doubt that the Federal Reserve could and would act more aggressively to boost America’s flagging economy. This year he wanted to leave no doubt that the politicians could and should do more.The most highly anticipated central banker’s speech in months gave no hint of bold new initiatives from the Fed. He repeated the mantra that the “Fed has a range of tools that could be used to provide additional monetary stimulus”, but there was no discussion of them and not a whiff of imminent QE3, a third round of bond buying. Mr Bernanke promised that the Fed’s policy-setting committee would have a “fuller discussion” of other tools it could use atits September meeting, which has beenextended a day. But he chose to use thisspeech to give Washington a lecture onfiscal policy, arguing that while Americaurgently needed a credible plan to reducelong-term deficits, it shouldn’t overdothe short-term tightening.For investors who had been hoping for arepeat of August 2010, when MrBernanke’s signaling of QE2 sent stockssoaring, the speech was surely adisappointment. But it was hardlyunexpected. The hints from the Fed inrecent days were well-telegraph ed andunambiguous: Mr Bernanke wouldn’t besignaling new actions in Jackson Hole.From Mr Bernanke’s perspective, there isa clear logic to his reticence. Althoughthere are economic parallels between this year and last (things starting to look a lot worse during the summer), the central bank is in a rather different position. A year ago the Fed had taken relatively little action in response to the weakening economy. This year the central bank has only just signaled that short-term interest rates are likely to stay at zero until at least 2013. Since Mr Bernanke has already laid out other steps the Fed could take (for instance, in last year’s speech), discussing them again in detail now could be tantamount to launching them. That’s why he chose buy time by promising a fuller debate in September. T actically at least, that is understandable. Strategically, given the weakness of the economy, it may be a timid choice.Mr Bernanke’s decision to weigh in on fiscal policy is more obviously right. The Fed’s task is made considerably more difficult by Washington’s fiscal choices. America’s current trajectory—virtually no progress on medium-term deficit reduction and a hefty tightening next year unless temporary tax cuts are extended—is daft. And though he put it far more politely, Mr Bernanke’s basic message was just that. “Although the issue of fiscal sustainability must urgently be addressed, fiscal policymakers should not, as a consequencedisregard the fragility of the current recovery”, he said, adding that “the country would be well served by a better process for making fiscal decisions”.All eminently sensible. Nonetheless there is something a little disconcert ing about the Fed chairman talking to a gathering of the world’s top central bankers at a time of extraordinary uncertainty and focusing on fiscal policy. “Don’t rely on us alone” may be an accurate and important message to send, but given Washington’s recent record on fiscal negotiations, it is hardly a comforting one.Even more unnerving was the dissonance between Mr Bernanke’s focus and tone, and the palpable sense of nervousness amongst the Jackson Hole attendees. The mood in the meeting’s corridors is grim, largely thanks to the mess in the euro-zone (of which more in later posts). It’s not uncommon to hear that today’s situation is more dangerous, and intractable, than 2008. Mr Bernanke said virtually nothing about the financial risks from Europe. “I have confidence that our European colleagues fully appreciate what is at stake in the difficult issues they are now confronting and that, over time, they will take all necessary and appropriate steps to address those issues effectively and comprehensively”, he said. He mig ht just as wel l have said, “It’s a big mess and I’m crossing my fingers that they can sort it out”.。

比尔盖茨演讲慈善无关钱多少This morning, Microsoft man and the second richest man in the world, Bill Gates, gave a speech at Peking University in Beijing to reach out to students about the important of charity.It’s no surprise that Bill Gates would choose such a high calibre educational institution to give a speech about giving. Peking University, amongst Tsinghua and Fudan University rank in the top three schools in China, thereby often producing the most successful and powerful people in China’s future. Bill Gates is also a trustee of Peking University.Since leaving the helm of Microsoft, Bill Gates has devoted himself to the role of Chairman of the Gates Foundation. The foundation’s belief is that “all lives have equal value” and seeks to help people live healthy and productive lives and lift themselves out of poverty. The foundation has already funded initiatives totalling US$24.8 billion from 1994.In his speech, Gates encouraged students to start thinking about charity and giving early. Gates believes that the young generation play a pivotal role in making the world a better place by leading social trends. He also talked about theimportance of innovation, noting breakthrough may take a long time but it is what is needed to “promote the development of m ankind.”。

2015年国家公务员考试《行政职业能力测验》真题省级以上（含副省级）综合管理类第一部分常识判断根据题目要求，在四个选项中选出一个最恰当的答案。

1．下列哪种情形最可能实行一审终审（）A．基层人民法院审理被告提出反诉的买卖合同纠纷案件B．基层人民法院审理夫妻双方争夺子女抚养权的离婚案件C．中级人民法院审理在本辖区有重大影响的合同纠纷案件D．基层人民法院审理权利义务关系明确的租赁合同纠纷案件2．下列说法错误的是（）A．成语“南橘北枳”是与晏婴出使楚国有关B．苏武牧羊的地点在今天的贝加尔湖一带C．东汉使者班超同时也是《汉书》的作者D．西汉张骞与唐代鉴真出行的方向不同3．根据生产要素在各产业中的相对密集度，可以将产业划分为不同类型。

下列对应错误的是（）A．土地密集型产业——畜牧业、采掘业B．劳动密集型产业——钢铁业、化工业C．技术密集型产业——微电子工业、现代制药业D．资本密集型产业——重型机械工业、电力工业4．关于我国政府信息公开，下列说法错误的是（）A．行政机关对政府信息不能确定是否可以公开时，应不公开B．公民可以根据自身生产、生活和科研等特殊需要申请政府信息公开C．行政机关逾期不答复公民申请信息公开的，公民可依法提起行政诉讼D．县级以上各级人民政府的办公厅（室）可以作为本级政府信息公开工作的主管部门5．关于我国农村三级卫生服务网络，下列说法正确的是（）A．主要承担预防保健、基本医疗、健康教育、计生指导等任务B．包括乡镇卫生院、村卫生室和家庭自我保健C．以让农民“看病不出乡镇”为发展目标D．以乡镇卫生院为基础6．关于现代武器，下列说法错误的是（）A．迫击炮通常配属装甲兵使用B．陆军航空兵以直升机为主要装备C．洲际弹道导弹是目前射程最远的导弹D．驱逐舰具有防空、反潜和对地攻击的综合作战能力7．下列语句按出现时间先后排序正确的是（）①劳心者治人，劳力者治于人②少年富则国富，少年强则国强③苟全性命于乱世，不求闻达于诸侯④业精于勤，荒于嬉；行成于思，毁于随A．③①④②B．③②①④C．①③④②D．①②③④8．下列哪组成语反映了同一种人际关系（）A．琴瑟和鸣破镜重圆B．负荆请罪载舟覆舟C．结草衔环青梅竹马D．相濡以沫舐犊情深9．下列唐诗所描写的内容与对应的体育项目不相符的是（）A．御马牵来亲自试，珠球到处玉蹄知——马球B．杨桴击节雷阗阗，乱流齐进声轰然——游泳C．壮徒恒贾勇，拔拒抵长河——拔河D．上弦明月半，激箭流星远——射箭10．一跨国企业计划7月份在全球两个大城市同期举办大型室外活动。

2014年国家公务员面试之如何看待“没有调查就没有发言权”每日一练（9月23日）一、单选题(每题1分，以下备选项中，只有一项符合题目要求，不选、错选均不得分)1、随着我国对外开放深化和世界经济全球化加速，国际经济环境因素对我国宏观经济运行稳定性的影响越来越大，需要我们密切关注，谨慎对待。

目前国际市场石油价格、粮食和食用油价格上涨对我国国内市场价格的影响越来越大，成为造成国内市场相关商品价格上涨的不可忽视的因素。

这种输入型成本推动造成的价格上涨的影响，将随着我国对国外石油等重要资源性商品依赖程度的上升，而变得越来越大，可能成为推动价格上涨的长期因素，对此我们必须更加重视。

这段文字意在说明（）A．我国输入型成本将随全球化程度的加深不断增高B．我国对外依赖型经济模式是价格上涨的原因之一C．国际市场价格对我国国内市场价格的影响很大D．要重视国际经济因素对我国经济稳定性的影响2、输血本质上是一种移植，必然会伴随一系列可能发生的免疫反应，移植物抗宿主病就是其中之一，其发病原因简单说来就是供血者体内的免疫活性淋巴细胞在患者体内迁移、增殖，反客为主，进而攻击患者的免疫系统。

正常情况下，受血者会把供血者淋巴细胞识别为“异己”而加以排斥，这样供血者淋巴细胞就不能在受血者体内存在。

而当受血者与供血者有血缘关系时，两者一部分遗传基因相同，受血者免疫功能低下，不能识别供血者的淋巴细胞，使得供血者的淋巴细胞在受血者体内植活并增殖，导致发病。

所以，。

填入划横线部分最恰当的一项是（）A．采用严格规范的临床输血技术至关重要B．没有经过病原体检验的血液是不安全的C．直系亲属之间不能相互献血D．血型相同者也存在输血风险3、随着我国对外开放深化和世界经济全球化加速，国际经济环境因素对我国宏观经济运行稳定性的影响越来越大，需要我们密切关注，谨慎对待。

目前国际市场石油价格、粮食和食用油价格上涨对我国国内市场价格的影响越来越大，成为造成国内市场相关商品价格上涨的不可忽视的因素。

第一讲：反身性概论【注：本篇演讲浓缩了索罗斯一生智慧结晶，蕴含巨大的商业价值与社会价值。

】几十年前，为了保卫开放社会，卡尔波普尔将批判的炮火对准了马克思主义。

然而几十年之后，声称是波普尔学生的索罗斯为了保卫开放社会，却把炮火对准了资本主义。

但那些想把索罗斯对资本主义的批判拉来为社会主义和权威主义张目的人却失望了，即便索罗斯批判资本主义，也只是认为它不够纯粹，而不是转向另一种更糟糕的制度。

2009年 10月 26日至 30日，索罗斯在布达佩斯中欧大学发表了一系列演讲，共五部分，系统地阐述了他的反身性理论，以及该理论在金融和社会科学方面的应用，并对未来之路做出了自己的见解。

按照他的说法，此次的金融危机使他许多看法发生了变化，特别是在社会学领域。

他注意到，资本主义是有缺陷的，缺陷就表现在反身性，当政客们学会了操纵而不是去理解社会的时候，他们的确可以做得非常成功，然而实际上，却损害了开放社会的真谛。

在经济上，他利用反身性原理分析了经济危机的形成，认为此次危机是一次超级大泡沫，是从 70年代以来一次反身性的大爆发。

并提出了加强监管。

从某种程度上说，索罗斯对金融危机的批判，其离经叛道程度比之克鲁格曼有过之而无不及，而且更加实际和靠谱。

但在索罗斯思想充满了独创性和真理因素的同时，反而是他对于加强监管的呼吁反而显得危险和空洞，缺乏具体的措施。

该系列演讲其中第一讲是历史和原理部分，着重谈到了卡尔波普尔的影响。

第二讲是反身性在金融上的应用，以及对于此次超级泡沫的解释。

第三讲谈到了开放社会，并谈了两种谬误，启蒙性谬误和后现代谬误，他对于布什政府的恶评也很有意思。

第四讲，则着重谈到了资本主义对开放社会的威胁，以及金融等利益集团对于政治的反身性。

第五讲，谈到了现在的局势和未来的走向，并谈到了中国崛起的问题。

这个系列演讲作为一个完整的整体，对于了解索罗斯社会、经济、哲学思想有很大的帮助。

第一讲：反身性概论在我的一生中，我制定了一个概念框架帮助我既作为一个对冲基金经理去挣钱，也作为一个政策导向的慈善家去花钱。

经典常谈好战必亡，忘战必危涂光社战争严重地威胁和影响人类的生存和发展。

《刘子·阅武》开篇就说：《司马法》曰：“国虽大，好战必亡；天下虽安，忘战必危。

”亟战则民凋，不习则民怠。

凋非保全之术，怠非拟寇之方。

故兵不妄动，而习武不辍，所以养民命而修戎备也。

“好战必亡，忘战必危”是国人在春秋战国时代就有的历史经验总结：陷于战争则民生凋敝，所以不可任意挑起战端，更不能为掳掠财物人口、开疆拓土而妄施征伐；若自恃“国大”而“好战”，必然导致国家的败亡。

另一方面，也必须居安思危，绝不可“忘战”，充分而周全的武备是国家民族生存发展的保证。

因为战争常常是被外部侵略者强加的，武备不修如何对付入侵和掠夺？所以不懈习武、加强防务，护卫国家和人民的生命财产，又是完全必要的。

“好战必忘，忘战必危”是对统治者的警示，也是执掌国柄者制定基本国策的指针。

穷兵黩武至少是妄兴杀戮、制造仇恨，更不用说那流血漂杵、生灵涂炭的严重后果。

古今中外的历史证明了这一点。

古代那些喜好征战杀伐的当权者给自己国家人民带来的只是灾难和毁灭，而非恒长的兴盛和安宁。

二战中德国和日本法西斯曾分别在欧洲和亚太猖獗一时、不可一世，自以为“武运长久”，其国破民残、迅速败降的结局正是“好战必亡”的佐证。

和平安宁是世人的普遍愿望，然而在历史进程中它常常不能持久，在某些阶段甚至是一种潜藏着危机或险恶阴谋的表面现象。

“天下虽安，忘战必危”的警示告诫人们：世界上只要阴谋扩张的掠夺者、觊觎他国权益者犹存，战争的因素就存在，就不能不防患未然。

国家若武备不修，没有居安思危的意识和对国际形势、政治军事动向的透彻了解，以恰当的举措正确应对，潜在战争阴谋就有可能得逞；或许就会有那么一天，毁灭性的袭击和战乱突然降临，给国家人民带来无法挽回的灾难。

充分的武备足以震慑来犯之敌，化解战争于无形。

曾有人如此评说：山海关如此雄伟，号称“天下第一关”，建成以来却从未受到真正的攻击，看不出有何重大的战略意义。

Liebe Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger,亲爱的同胞们，Anfang dieses Jahres begannen die Menschen in Nordafrika und Nahost, in ihrer Region die politische Ordnung entscheidend zu verändern. Im März wurde Japan von einem gewaltigen Erdbeben, einer furchtbaren Flutwelle und in der Folge einer verheerenden Reaktorkatastrophe heimgesucht. Im Herbst wurde der siebenmilliardste Erdenbürger geboren – dies sind nur ganz wenige Ausschnitte aus dem zurückliegenden Jahr.今年年初，北非和中东地区的人们开始给自己的政治制度带来决定性的改变。

而3月份，日本遭遇了严重的地震和海啸灾害，以及随之而来的核事故。

秋天，第70亿个世界公民诞生了。

而这些仅仅是刚刚过去的一年中的几个重要片段。

2011 war ohne Zweifel ein Jahr tiefgreifender Veränderungen.毫无疑问，2011年是充满了深刻变革的一年。

Das gilt auch für uns in Europa. Hier hält uns unverändert die Schuldenkrise der Staaten in Atem.对于我们欧洲人来说也是如此。

欧元区一些国家的债务危机仍然让我们提心吊胆。

For release on delivery3:45 p.m. EDTJune 7, 2011The U.S. Economic OutlookRemarks byBen S. BernankeChairmanBoard of Governors of the Federal Reserve Systemat theInternational Monetary ConferenceAtlanta, GeorgiaJune 7, 2011I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to participate once again in the International Monetary Conference. I will begin with a brief update on the outlook for the U.S. economy, then discuss recent developments in global commodity markets that are significantly affecting both the U.S. and world economies, and conclude with some thoughts on the prospects for monetary policy.The Outlook for GrowthU.S. economic growth so far this year looks to have been somewhat slower than expected. Aggregate output increased at only 1.8 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter, and supply chain disruptions associated with the earthquake and tsunami in Japan are hampering economic activity this quarter. A number of indicators also suggest some loss of momentum in the labor market in recent weeks. We are, of course, monitoring these developments. That said, with the effects of the Japanese disaster on manufacturing output likely to dissipate in coming months, and with some moderation in gasoline prices in prospect, growth seems likely to pick up somewhat in the second half of the year. Overall, the economic recovery appears to be continuing at a moderate pace, albeit at a rate that is both uneven across sectors and frustratingly slow from the perspective of millions of unemployed and underemployed workers.As is often the case, the ability and willingness of households to spend will be an important determinant of the pace at which the economy expands in coming quarters. A range of positive and negative forces is currently influencing both household finances and attitudes. On the positive side, household incomes have been boosted by the net improvement in job market conditions since earlier this year as well as from the reduction in payroll taxes that the Congress passed in December. Increases in household wealth--largely reflecting gains in equity values--and lower debt burdens have also increased consumers’ willingness to spend. On the negative side, households are facing some significant headwinds, including increases in food and energy prices, declining home values, continued tightness in some credit markets, and still-high unemployment, all of which have taken a toll on consumer confidence.Developments in the labor market will be of particular importance in setting the course for household spending. As you know, the jobs situation remains far from normal. For example, aggregate hours of production workers--a comprehensive measure of labor input that reflects the extent of part-time employment and opportunities for overtime as well as the number of people employed--fell, remarkably, by nearly 10 percent from the beginning of the recent recession through October 2009. Although hours of work have increased during the expansion, this measure still remains about 6-1/2 percent below its pre-recession level. For comparison, the maximum decline in aggregate hours worked in the deep 1981-82 recession was less than 6 percent. Other indicators, such as total payroll employment, the ratio of employment to population, and the unemployment rate, paint a similar picture. Particularly concerning is the very high level of long-term unemployment--nearly half of the unemployed have been jobless for more than six months. People without work for long periods can find it increasingly difficult to obtain a job comparable to their previous one, as their skills tend to deteriorate over time and as employers are often reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed.Although the jobs market remains quite weak and progress has been uneven, overall we have seen signs of gradual improvement. For example, private-sector payrolls increased at an average rate of about 180,000 per month over the first five months of thisyear, compared with less than 140,000 during the last four months of 2010 and less than 80,000 per month in the four months prior to that. As I noted, however, recent indicators suggest some loss of momentum, with last Friday’s jobs market report showing an increase in private payrolls of just 83,000 in May. I expect hiring to pick up from last month’s pace as growth strengthens in the second half of the year, but, again, the recent data highlight the need to continue monitoring the jobs situation carefully.The business sector generally presents a more upbeat picture. Capital spending on equipment and software has continued to expand, reflecting an improving sales outlook and the need to replace aging capital. Many U.S. firms, notably in manufacturing but also in services, have benefited from the strong growth of demand in foreign markets. Going forward, investment and hiring in the private sector should be facilitated by the ongoing improvement in credit conditions. Larger businesses remain able to finance themselves at historically low interest rates, and corporate balance sheets are strong. Smaller businesses still face difficulties in obtaining credit, but surveys of both banks and borrowers indicate that conditions are slowly improving for those firms as well.In contrast, virtually all segments of the construction industry remain troubled. In the residential sector, low home prices and mortgage rates imply that housing is quite affordable by historical standards; yet, with underwriting standards for home mortgages having tightened considerably, many potential homebuyers are unable to qualify for loans. Uncertainties about job prospects and the future course of house prices have also deterred potential buyers. Given these constraints on the demand for housing, and with a large inventory of vacant and foreclosed properties overhanging the market, construction of new single-family homes has remained at very low levels, and house prices havecontinued to fall. The housing sector typically plays an important role in economic recoveries; the depressed state of housing in the United States is a big reason that the current recovery is less vigorous than we would like.Developments in the public sector also help determine the pace of recovery. Here, too, the picture is one of relative weakness. Fiscally constrained state and local governments continue to cut spending and employment. Moreover, the impetus provided to the growth of final demand by federal fiscal policies continues to wane.The prospect of increasing fiscal drag on the recovery highlights one of the many difficult tradeoffs faced by fiscal policymakers: If the nation is to have a healthy economic future, policymakers urgently need to put the federal government’s finances on a sustainable trajectory. But, on the other hand, a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile recovery. The solution to this dilemma, I believe, lies in recognizing that our nation’s fiscal problems are inherently long-term in nature. Consequently, the appropriate response is to move quickly to enact a credible, long-term plan for fiscal consolidation. By taking decisions today that lead to fiscal consolidation over a longer horizon, policymakers can avoid a sudden fiscal contraction that could put the recovery at risk. At the same time, establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence.The Outlook for InflationLet me turn to the outlook for inflation. As you all know, over the past year, prices for many commodities have risen sharply, resulting in significantly higherconsumer prices for gasoline and other energy products and, to a somewhat lesser extent, for food. Overall inflation measures reflect these price increases: For example, over the six months through April, the price index for personal consumption expenditures has risen at an annual rate of about 3-1/2 percent, compared with an average of less than 1 percent over the preceding two years.Although the recent increase in inflation is a concern, the appropriate diagnosis and policy response depend on whether the rise in inflation is likely to persist. So far at least, there is not much evidence that inflation is becoming broad-based or ingrained in our economy; indeed, increases in the price of a single product--gasoline--account for the bulk of the recent increase in consumer price inflation.1 Of course, gasoline prices are exceptionally important for both family finances and the broader economy; but the fact that gasoline price increases alone account for so much of the overall increase in inflation suggests that developments in the global market for crude oil and related products, as well as in other commodities markets, are the principal factors behind the recent movements in inflation, rather than factors specific to the U.S. economy. An important implication is that if the prices of energy and other commodities stabilize in ranges near current levels, as futures markets and many forecasters predict, the upward impetus to overall price inflation will wane and the recent increase in inflation will prove transitory. Indeed, the declines in many commodity prices seen over the past few weeks may be an indication that such moderation is occurring. I will discuss commodity prices further momentarily.1 Through April, personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation over the previous six months was3.6 percent at an annual rate; excluding gasoline, inflation over that period was 2 percent. Over a 12-month span, inflation through April was 2.2 percent; excluding gasoline, it was 1.2 percent.Besides the prospect of more-stable commodity prices, two other factors suggest that inflation is likely to return to more subdued levels in the medium term. First, the still-substantial slack in U.S. labor and product markets should continue to have a moderating effect on inflationary pressures. Notably, because of the weak demand for labor, wage increases have not kept pace with productivity gains. Thus the level of unit labor costs in the business sector is lower than it was before the recession. Given the large share of labor costs in the production costs of most firms (typically, a share far larger than that of raw materials costs), subdued unit labor costs should remain a restraining influence on inflation. To be clear, I am not arguing that healthy increases in real wages are inconsistent with low inflation; the two are perfectly consistent so long as productivity growth is reasonably strong.The second additional factor restraining inflation is the stability of longer-term inflation expectations. Despite the recent pickup in overall inflation, measures of households’ longer-term inflation expectations from the Michigan survey, the 10-year inflation projections of professional economists, the 5-year-forward measure of inflation compensation derived from yields on inflation-protected securities, and other measures of longer-term inflation expectations have all remained reasonably stable.2 As long as longer-term inflation expectations are stable, increases in global commodity prices are unlikely to be built into domestic wage- and price-setting processes, and they should therefore have only transitory effects on the rate of inflation. That said, the stability of2 In the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, the median reading on expected inflation over the next 5 to 10 years was 2.9 percent in May after having averaged 2.8 percent in 2010. In the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the median projection for PCE inflation over the next 10 years was 2.3 percent in May, up from the 2.1 percent average reading last year. The equivalent SPF projection for CPI inflation was 2.4 percent, versus2.3 percent in 2010. The 5-year forward measure of inflation compensation derived from TIPS stood at about 2-3/4 percent in May, down noticeably from the levels observed toward the end of 2010.inflation expectations is ensured only as long as the commitment of the central bank to low and stable inflation remains credible. Thus, the Federal Reserve will continue to closely monitor the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations and will take whatever actions are necessary to keep inflation well controlled.Commodity PricesAs I noted earlier, the rise in commodity prices has directly increased the rate of inflation while also adversely affecting consumer confidence and consumer spending. Let’s look at these price increases in closer detail.The basic facts are familiar. Oil prices have risen significantly, with the spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil near $100 per barrel as of the end of last week, up nearly 40 percent from a year ago. Proportionally, prices of corn and wheat have risen even more, roughly doubling over the past year. And prices of industrial metals have increased notably as well, with aluminum and copper prices up about one-third over the past 12 months. When the price of any product moves sharply, the economist’s first instinct is to look for changes in the supply of or demand for that product. And indeed, the recent increase in commodity prices appears largely to be the result of the same factors that drove commodity prices higher throughout much of the past decade: strong gains in global demand that have not been met with commensurate increases in supply.From 2002 to 2008, a period of sustained increases in commodity prices, world economic activity registered its fastest pace of expansion in decades, rising at an average rate of about 4-1/2 percent per year. This impressive performance was led by the emerging and developing economies, where real activity expanded at a remarkable 7percent per annum. The emerging market economies have likewise led the way in the recovery from the global financial crisis: From 2008 to 2010, real gross domestic product (GDP) rose cumulatively by about 10 percent in the emerging market economies even as GDP was essentially unchanged, on net, in the advanced economies.3 Naturally, increased economic activity in emerging market economies has increased global demand for raw materials. Moreover, the heavy emphasis on industrial development in many emerging market economies has led their growth to be particularly intensive in the use of commodities, even as the consumption of commodities in advanced economies has stabilized or declined. For example, world oil consumption rose by 14 percent from 2000 to 2010; underlying this overall trend, however, was a40 percent increase in oil use in emerging market economies and an outright decline of4-1/2 percent in the advanced economies. In particular, U.S. oil consumption was about 2-1/2 percent lower in 2010 than in 2000, with net imports of oil down nearly 10 percent, even though U.S. real GDP rose by nearly 20 percent over that period.This dramatic shift in the sources of demand for commodities is not unique to oil. If anything, the pattern is even more striking for industrial metals, where double-digit percentage rates of decline in consumption by the advanced economies over the past decade have been overwhelmed by triple-digit percentage increases in consumption by the emerging market economies.4 Likewise, improving diets in the emerging market economies have significantly increased their demand for agricultural commodities.3 The GDP data cited here are from the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook database. The difference between the advanced and emerging market economies is also evident in the statistics on industrial production, which is perhaps more directly relevant to the demand for commodities. According to the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, from March 2009 to March 2010, industrial production rose 26 percent in the emerging market economies and 11 percent in the advanced economies.4 A portion of commodity use in the emerging market economies serves as inputs to the production of exports, some of which are ultimately consumed in advanced economies.Importantly, in noting these facts, I intend no criticism of emerging markets; growth in those economies has conferred substantial economic benefits both within those countries and globally, and in any case, the consumption of raw materials relative to population in emerging-market countries remains substantially lower than in the United States and other advanced economies. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the tremendous growth in emerging market economies has considerably increased global demand for commodities in recent years.Against this backdrop of extremely robust growth in demand, the supply of many commodities has lagged behind. For example, world oil production has increased less than 1 percent per year since 2004, compared with nearly 2 percent per year in the prior decade. In part, the slower increase in the supply of oil reflected disappointing rates of production in countries that are not part of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). However, OPEC has not shown much willingness to ramp up production, either. Most recently, OPEC production fell 1.3 million barrels per day from January to April of this year, reflecting the disruption to Libyan supplies and the lack of any significant offset from other OPEC producers. Indeed, OPEC’s production of oil today remains about 3 million barrels per day below the peak level of mid-2008. With the demand for oil rising rapidly and the supply of crude stagnant, increases in oil prices are hardly a puzzle.Production shortfalls have plagued many other commodities as well. Agricultural output has been hard hit by a spate of bad weather around the globe. For example, last summer’s drought in Russia severely reduced that country’s wheat crop. In the United States, high temperatures significantly impaired the U.S. corn crop last fall, and dryconditions are currently hurting the wheat crop in Kansas. Over the past year, droughts have also afflicted Argentina, China, and France. Fortunately, the lag between planting and harvesting for many crops is relatively short; thus, if more-typical weather patterns resume, supplies of agricultural commodities should rebound, thereby reducing the pressure on prices.Not all commodity prices have increased, illustrating the point that supply and demand conditions can vary across markets. For example, prices for both lumber and natural gas are currently near their levels of the early 2000s. The demand for lumber has been curtailed by weakness in the U.S. construction sector, while the supply of natural gas in the United States has been increased by significant innovations in extraction techniques.5 Among agricultural commodities, rice prices have remained relatively subdued, reflecting favorable growing conditions.In all, these cases reinforce the view that the fundamentals of global supply and demand have been playing a central role in recent swings in commodity prices. That said, there is usually significant uncertainty about current and prospective supply and demand. Accordingly, commodity prices, like the prices of financial assets, can be volatile as market participants react to incoming news. Recently, commodity prices seem to have been particularly responsive to news bearing on the prospects for global economic growth as well as geopolitical developments.As the rapid growth of emerging market economies seems likely to continue, should we therefore expect continued rapid increases in the prices of globally-traded commodities? While it is certainly possible that we will see further increases, there are 5 As natural gas is difficult to transport overseas, the increased supplies of natural gas in North America have not translated into significantly lower prices abroad. In the first quarter of 2011, natural gas prices in the United States were less than half of those in Germany.good reasons to believe that commodity prices will not continue to rise at the rapid rates we have seen recently. In the short run, unexpected shortfalls in the supplies of key commodities result in sharp price increases, as usage patterns and available supplies are difficult to change quickly. Over longer periods, however, high levels of commodity prices curtail demand as households and firms adjust their spending and production patterns. Indeed, as I noted earlier, we have already seen significant reductions in commodity use in the advanced economies. Likewise, over time, high prices should elicit meaningful increases in supply, both as temporary factors, such as adverse weather, abate and as investments in productive capacity come to fruition. Finally, because expectations of higher prices lead financial market participants to bid up the spot prices of commodities, predictable future developments bearing on the demands for and supplies of commodities tend already to be reflected in current prices. For these reasons, although unexpected developments could certainly lead to continued volatility in global commodity prices, it is reasonable to expect the effects of commodity prices on overall inflation to be relatively moderate in the medium term.While supply and demand fundamentals surely account for most of the recent movements in commodity prices, some observers have attributed a significant portion of the run-up in prices to Federal Reserve policies, over and above the effects of those policies on U.S. economic growth. For example, some have argued that accommodative U.S. monetary policy has driven down the foreign exchange value of the dollar, thereby boosting the dollar price of commodities. Indeed, since February 2009, the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by about 15 percent. However, since February 2009, oil prices have risen 160 percent and nonfuel commodity prices are up by about 80 percent,implying that the dollar’s decline can explain, at most, only a small part of the rise in oil and other commodity prices; indeed, commodity prices have risen dramatically when measured in terms of any of the world’s major currencies, not just the dollar. But even this calculation overstates the role of monetary policy, as many factors other than monetary policy affect the value of the dollar. For example, the decline in the dollar since February 2009 that I just noted followed a comparable increase in the dollar, which largely reflected flight-to-safety flows triggered by the financial crisis in the latter half of 2008; the dollar’s decline since then in substantial part reflects the reversal of those flows as the crisis eased. Slow growth in the United States and a persistent trade deficit are additional, more fundamental sources of recent declines in the dollar’s value; in particular, as the United States is a major oil importer, any geopolitical or other shock that increases the global price of oil will worsen our trade balance and economic outlook, which tends to depress the dollar. In this case, the direction of causality runs from commodity prices to the dollar rather than the other way around. The best way for the Federal Reserve to support the fundamental value of the dollar in the medium term is to pursue our dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability, and we will certainly do that.Another argument that has been made is that low interest rates have pushed up commodity prices by reducing the cost of holding inventories, thus boosting commodity demand, or by encouraging speculators to push commodity futures prices above their fundamental levels. In either case, if such forces were driving commodity prices materially and persistently higher, we should see corresponding increases in commodity inventories, as higher prices curtailed consumption and boosted production relative totheir fundamental levels. In fact, inventories of most commodities have not shown sizable increases over the past year as prices rose; indeed, increases in prices have often been associated with lower rather than higher levels of inventories, likely reflecting strong demand or weak supply that tends to put pressure on available stocks.Finally, some have suggested that very low interest rates in the United States and other advanced economies have created risks of economic overheating in emerging market economies and have thus indirectly put upward pressures on commodity prices. In fact, most of the recent rapid economic growth in emerging market economies appears to reflect a bounceback from the previous recession and continuing increases in productive capacity, as their technologies and capital stocks catch up with those in advanced economies, rather than being primarily the result of monetary conditions in those countries. More fundamentally, however, whatever the source of the recent growth in the emerging markets, the authorities in those economies clearly have a range of fiscal, monetary, exchange rate, and other tools that can be used to address any overheating that may occur. As in all countries, the primary objective of monetary policy in the United States should be to promote economic growth and price stability at home, which in turn supports a stable global economic and financial environment.Monetary PolicyLet me conclude with a few words about the current stance of monetary policy. As I have discussed today, the economic recovery in the United States appears to be proceeding at a moderate pace and--notwithstanding unevenness in the rate of progress and some recent signs of reduced momentum--the labor market has been gradually improving. At the same time, the jobs situation remains far from normal, withunemployment remaining elevated. Inflation has risen lately but should moderate, assuming that commodity prices stabilize and that, as I expect, longer-term inflation expectations remain stable.Against this backdrop, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has maintained a highly accommodative monetary policy, keeping its target for the federal funds rate close to zero and further easing monetary conditions through large-scale asset purchases. The FOMC has indicated that it will complete its purchases of $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of this month while maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. The Committee also continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period.The U.S. economy is recovering from both the worst financial crisis and the most severe housing bust since the Great Depression, and it faces additional headwinds ranging from the effects of the Japanese disaster to global pressures in commodity markets. In this context, monetary policy cannot be a panacea. Still, the Federal Reserve’s actions in recent years have doubtless helped stabilize the financial system, ease credit and financial conditions, guard against deflation, and promote economic recovery. All of this has been accomplished, I should note, at no net cost to the federal budget or to the U.S. taxpayer.Although it is moving in the right direction, the economy is still producing at levels well below its potential; consequently, accommodative monetary policies are still needed. Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established. At the same time, the longer-run health of the economyrequires that the Federal Reserve be vigilant in preserving its hard-won credibility for maintaining price stability. As I have explained, most FOMC participants currently see the recent increase in inflation as transitory and expect inflation to remain subdued in the medium term. Should that forecast prove wrong, however, and particularly if signs were to emerge that inflation was becoming more broadly based or that longer-term inflation expectations were becoming less well anchored, the Committee would respond as necessary. Under all circumstances, our policy actions will be guided by the objectives of supporting the recovery in output and employment while helping ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the Federal Reserve’s mandate.。

在德国科尔伯基金会的演讲（全文）（2014年3月28日，柏林）女士们，先生们，朋友们：古腾塔克！大家好！我很高兴应魏茨泽克前总统和科尔伯基金会的邀请，与大家见面。

首先，我谨对科尔伯基金会在促进中欧相互了解和理解方面作出的努力和贡献，表示诚挚的谢意！5年前，我曾访问过贵国。

当时，国际金融危机影响还在发酵，欧债问题初露端倪，全球经济笼罩在一片不安之中，颇有“黑云压城城欲摧”之感。

那次访问期间，中德决定推动各领域合作向更高层次迈进，以实际行动共克时艰。

5年后，我高兴地看到，欧洲在应对主权债务问题上取得了积极进展，经济复苏迹象明显。

德国作为欧洲经济“稳定锚”和欧洲一体化的推动者，发挥了关键作用，赢得了国际社会赞誉。

我们为中国同德国和欧洲合作应对国际金融危机冲击取得的成果感到高兴。

当前，中德关系正处在历史最好时期，双方交流合作的广度、深度、热度都达到了前所未有的水平。

事实证明，中德实现优势互补、共同发展，不仅可以造福两国和两国人民，而且可以为世界和平与发展发挥重要促进作用。

女士们、先生们、朋友们！为什么中德两国交流合作能出现这样的好局面？我认为，一个重要因素就是经过双方长期努力，懂得了不同历史文化、不同国情、不同社会制度的国家要相互理解、真诚相待，善于倾听对方意见，设身处地从对方的角度思考问题。

相互了解、相互理解是促进国家关系发展的基础性工程。

了解越多，理解越深，交流合作的基础就越牢固、越广泛。

众所周知，经过改革开放30多年的快速发展，中国经济总量已经位居世界第二。

面对中国的块头不断长大，有些人开始担心，也有一些人总是戴着有色眼镜看中国，认为中国发展起来了必然是一种“威胁”，甚至把中国描绘成一个可怕的“墨菲斯托”，似乎哪一天中国就要摄取世界的灵魂。

尽管这种论调像天方夜谭一样，但遗憾的是，一些人对此却乐此不疲。

这只能再次证明了一条真理：偏见往往最难消除。

纵观人类历史，把人们隔离开来的往往不是千山万水，不是大海深壑，而是人们相互认知上的隔膜。