UC知道哪位帮忙英译汉(请别用软件)，不胜感激！
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/06/14 05:50:35
In principle it does make sense to set total national liabilities off against total national assets, but there is an important difference that makes “off-setting” these amounts unwise: the repatriation of earnings is out of the UK government’s control. If a foreign company buys an asset, such as a water company, then the foreign company will take dividends back to its home country.
By contrast a UK company or individual owning assets abroad, does not need to bring these dividends back to the UK. The UK owner cannot be compelled to repatriate foreign earnings. Indeed, a sterling crisis, with the inevitable talk of further devaluation and talk of exchange controls, may well discourage holders of foreign assets from bringing money back to the UK. Fundamentally, however, the problem is that the foreign-owned UK assets now significantly exceed the net assets owned abroad by UK residents (by £683 billion, as above).
By contrast a UK company or individual owning assets abroad, does not need to bring these dividends back to the UK. The UK owner cannot be compelled to repatriate foreign earnings. Indeed, a sterling crisis, with the inevitable talk of further devaluation and talk of exchange controls, may well discourage holders of foreign assets from bringing money back to the UK. Fundamentally, however, the problem is that the foreign-owned UK assets now significantly exceed the net assets owned abroad by UK residents (by £683 billion, as above).
原则上说，用国家总资产来抵消总负债是可行的，但是这其中有个重要的区别，使得这种“抵消”很不明智：利润的回收并不受英国政府的控制。如果一家外国公司买下了产业，比如供水公司，这个外国公司就会把利润带回它自己的国家。
与之相对比，在海外拥有产业的英国公司和个人，不需要把他们的利润带回英国。英国业主不必缴回在国外获得的利润。实际上，英国的经济危机，将不可避免的涉及长远的货币贬值和兑换管制，这也会刺激外国业主不把钱放在英国。然而从根本上说，问题在于，由外资拥有的英国的产业现在大大超过了英国在外国的净资产（683,000,000,000英镑，同上）。
人工翻译