Wall Street deregulation;The pendulum swings

　　華爾街的去監管化; 逆勢而變;

　　The JOBS act turns into a battle about America scapital markets.

　　一場由工作法案引發的關于美國資本市場的爭端。

　　For a brief moment, it appeared that American sfractious politicians and capital markets were all inagreement. House Bill 3606, unofficially referred toas the JOBS act and officially known as the Jumpstart Our BusinessStart-up Act, sailed through the House of Representatives by 390 votes to 23 on March 8th.

　　在眼下，易怒的美國政治家竟決定要扶持資本市場。3月8號，民間稱為就業法案，官方稱為復蘇本國商業活動法案的眾議院3606號法案在該院得到390張支持票、23張反對票，順利通過。

　　It was on its way to a similar endorsement in the Senate when the unthinkable seems tohave happened: someone bothered to read the law. There they found a set of provisions that,depending on your point of view, either open the airways of asphyxiated financial markets orgive free rein to rapacious companies and banks.

　　人們認為相似的情況也將在參議院上演時，始料未及的事情卻發生了：有些人對這項議案感到了厭煩。他們發現依據個人的觀點，這一系列的法案既可以解釋為為即將窒息的金融市場打開了呼吸通道，又可以解釋為將控制權下放給了貪婪的企業和銀行。

　　Over the past decade, Congress and aggressive prosecutorsnotably New York s formerattorney-general, Eliot Spitzerhave responded to various upheavals on Wall Street,including the dotcom bubble, the collapse of Enron and the financial crisis, by imposingextensive regulations. Whether these rules protected investors or improved overall marketefficiency is a subject for debate. But they have definitely coincided with a period when thenumber of public companies in America has dropped in both absolute terms and relative toother countries. Critics charge that the rules have been devastating to the ability ofentrepreneurial firms to access funding on public markets.

　　過去的幾十年中，國會和激進的檢察官們尤其是紐約市前任司法部長，艾略特.斯皮策都通過執行額外監管條例來應對華爾街的各大變故，包括互聯網泡沫，安然公司倒閉以及金融危機。這些條例是否保護了投資者利益或提高了整體市場效率則只能在辯論中找到答案。但在美國企業數量從絕對指標與相對指標上都落后其他國家時，這些政策顯然很合時宜。批評者們卻指責道這些政策極大破壞了創新性企業在公共市場上的融資能力。

　　The JOBS actor the House version of it, at leastis packed with provisions to reverse theregulatory tide. It allows emerging growth companies with under $1 billion in revenue,hardly small change, to skip various reporting requirements and internal audits. It amendsaccounting rules. It loosens compensation constraints. And it allows limited onlinecrowdfunding by equity investors who are not designated as sophisticated . The law also provides protection against often intrusive state regulationsand reduces the restrictions on underwriters using public offerings to fund research.

　　工作法案或者至少從眾議院的版本看來囊括了足以扭轉當前監管態勢的法條。比如允許以10億美元以下的資金并購成長型企業并變革性的免除了各類報告和互聯網審計流程。它還恢復會計準則、放寬補償限制而且有限的允許經驗不足的資產投資人進行在線群體投資。該法案同樣提供保護措施，幫助抵御通常被認為有入侵性的國家監管政策，以及減少了針對保險商通過公開上市資助調研的限制。

　　Democrats have belatedly woken up to the act s radicalism. The proposal s support at firstextended to the White House, which has since pulled back and demanded revisions.Opponents have become more vocal: trade unions, professors, regulators and others havelined up to criticise it. On March 20th, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, voicedscepticism over the link between the JOBS act and job creation. To survive, the bill mustpass a vote in the Senate due to take place after The Economist had gone to press and then,harder still, win a presidential signature.

　　民主黨人沒能第一時間認識到這項法案的激進性。白宮曾經加入過這項提案的支持者陣營，但后來卻倒戈、要求對這項法案進行修訂。反對者們則更有發言權：工會，專家，監管者和其他人都在這一陣營之內。三月二十號，參議院多數黨領導人哈里里德就質疑工作法案是否真能創造工作崗位。在經濟學人雜志進行相關報道后，該法案現在必須經由參議院投票，更困難的是，還需通過總統的簽署才能生效。

　　The bill is not perfect. A weakening of rules that require the broad dissemination ofcorporate information, rather than merely to the wealthy and connected, is its biggestflaw. But the pendulum of capital-markets regulation in America has swung in onedirection for so long that when it started to reverse course, it was bound to do so with avengeance.

　　這項法案也不完美。條例中的一項弱點：將企業信息公開的范圍要求的過大，甚至超過利益相關人的范圍，成為了最大的瑕疵。但是美國資本市場監管者已經猶如鐘擺般在一端停留太久，當他想要擺向另一端時，甚至不惜過猶不及。

　　Wall Street deregulation;The pendulum swings

　　華爾街的去監管化; 逆勢而變;

　　The JOBS act turns into a battle about America scapital markets.

　　一場由工作法案引發的關于美國資本市場的爭端。

　　For a brief moment, it appeared that American sfractious politicians and capital markets were all inagreement. House Bill 3606, unofficially referred toas the JOBS act and officially known as the Jumpstart Our BusinessStart-up Act, sailed through the House of Representatives by 390 votes to 23 on March 8th.

　　在眼下，易怒的美國政治家竟決定要扶持資本市場。3月8號，民間稱為就業法案，官方稱為復蘇本國商業活動法案的眾議院3606號法案在該院得到390張支持票、23張反對票，順利通過。

　　It was on its way to a similar endorsement in the Senate when the unthinkable seems tohave happened: someone bothered to read the law. There they found a set of provisions that,depending on your point of view, either open the airways of asphyxiated financial markets orgive free rein to rapacious companies and banks.

　　人們認為相似的情況也將在參議院上演時，始料未及的事情卻發生了：有些人對這項議案感到了厭煩。他們發現依據個人的觀點，這一系列的法案既可以解釋為為即將窒息的金融市場打開了呼吸通道，又可以解釋為將控制權下放給了貪婪的企業和銀行。

　　Over the past decade, Congress and aggressive prosecutorsnotably New York s formerattorney-general, Eliot Spitzerhave responded to various upheavals on Wall Street,including the dotcom bubble, the collapse of Enron and the financial crisis, by imposingextensive regulations. Whether these rules protected investors or improved overall marketefficiency is a subject for debate. But they have definitely coincided with a period when thenumber of public companies in America has dropped in both absolute terms and relative toother countries. Critics charge that the rules have been devastating to the ability ofentrepreneurial firms to access funding on public markets.

　　過去的幾十年中，國會和激進的檢察官們尤其是紐約市前任司法部長，艾略特.斯皮策都通過執行額外監管條例來應對華爾街的各大變故，包括互聯網泡沫，安然公司倒閉以及金融危機。這些條例是否保護了投資者利益或提高了整體市場效率則只能在辯論中找到答案。但在美國企業數量從絕對指標與相對指標上都落后其他國家時，這些政策顯然很合時宜。批評者們卻指責道這些政策極大破壞了創新性企業在公共市場上的融資能力。

　　The JOBS actor the House version of it, at leastis packed with provisions to reverse theregulatory tide. It allows emerging growth companies with under $1 billion in revenue,hardly small change, to skip various reporting requirements and internal audits. It amendsaccounting rules. It loosens compensation constraints. And it allows limited onlinecrowdfunding by equity investors who are not designated as sophisticated . The law also provides protection against often intrusive state regulationsand reduces the restrictions on underwriters using public offerings to fund research.

　　工作法案或者至少從眾議院的版本看來囊括了足以扭轉當前監管態勢的法條。比如允許以10億美元以下的資金并購成長型企業并變革性的免除了各類報告和互聯網審計流程。它還恢復會計準則、放寬補償限制而且有限的允許經驗不足的資產投資人進行在線群體投資。該法案同樣提供保護措施，幫助抵御通常被認為有入侵性的國家監管政策，以及減少了針對保險商通過公開上市資助調研的限制。

　　Democrats have belatedly woken up to the act s radicalism. The proposal s support at firstextended to the White House, which has since pulled back and demanded revisions.Opponents have become more vocal: trade unions, professors, regulators and others havelined up to criticise it. On March 20th, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, voicedscepticism over the link between the JOBS act and job creation. To survive, the bill mustpass a vote in the Senate due to take place after The Economist had gone to press and then,harder still, win a presidential signature.

　　民主黨人沒能第一時間認識到這項法案的激進性。白宮曾經加入過這項提案的支持者陣營，但后來卻倒戈、要求對這項法案進行修訂。反對者們則更有發言權：工會，專家，監管者和其他人都在這一陣營之內。三月二十號，參議院多數黨領導人哈里里德就質疑工作法案是否真能創造工作崗位。在經濟學人雜志進行相關報道后，該法案現在必須經由參議院投票，更困難的是，還需通過總統的簽署才能生效。

　　The bill is not perfect. A weakening of rules that require the broad dissemination ofcorporate information, rather than merely to the wealthy and connected, is its biggestflaw. But the pendulum of capital-markets regulation in America has swung in onedirection for so long that when it started to reverse course, it was bound to do so with avengeance.

　　這項法案也不完美。條例中的一項弱點：將企業信息公開的范圍要求的過大，甚至超過利益相關人的范圍，成為了最大的瑕疵。但是美國資本市場監管者已經猶如鐘擺般在一端停留太久，當他想要擺向另一端時，甚至不惜過猶不及。