求关于IMF的英文资料介绍.

1. 求关于IMF的英文资料介绍.

综述：
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization that oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its member countries, in particular those with an impact on exchange rates and the balance of payments. It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international exchange rates and facilitating development.It also offers highly leveraged loans mainly to poorer countries. Its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C., United States.





Organization and purpose：

The International Monetary Fund was created in July 1944, originally with 45 members,[3] with a goal to stabilize exchange rates and assist the reconstruction of the world's international payment system. Countries contributed to a pool which could be borrowed from, on a temporary basis, by countries with payment imbalances. (Condon, 2007)

The IMF describes itself as "an organization of 186 countries (Kosovo being the 186th, as of June 29, 2009),[4][5] working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty". With the exception of Taiwan (expelled in 1980),[6] North Korea, Cuba (left in 1964),[7] Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states participate directly in the IMF. Most are represented by other member states on a 24-member Executive Board but all member countries belong to the IMF's Board of Governors.[8]

[edit] History
The International Monetary Fund was formally created in July 1944 during the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. The representatives of 44 governments met in the Mount Washington Hotel in the area of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States of America, with the delegates to the conference agreeing on a framework for international economic cooperation.[9] The IMF was formally organised on December 27, 1945, when the first 29 countries signed its Articles of Agreement. The statutory purposes of the IMF today are the same as when they were formulated in 1943 (see #Assistance and reforms).

[edit] Today
The IMF's influence in the global economy steadily increased as it accumulated more members. The number of IMF member countries has more than quadrupled from the 44 states involved in its establishment, reflecting in particular the attainment of political independence by many developing countries and more recently the collapse of the Soviet bloc. The expansion of the IMF's membership, together with the changes in the world economy, have required the IMF to adapt in a variety of ways to continue serving its purposes effectively.

In 2008, faced with a shortfall in revenue, the International Monetary Fund's executive board agreed to sell part of the IMF's gold reserves. On April 27, 2008, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn welcomed the board's decision April 7, 2008 to propose a new framework for the fund, designed to close a projected $400 million budget deficit over the next few years. The budget proposal includes sharp spending cuts of $100 million until 2011 that will include up to 380 staff dismissals.[10]

At the 2009 G-20 London summit, it was decided that the IMF would require additional financial resources to meet prospective needs of its member countries during the ongoing global crisis. As part of that decision, the G-20 leaders pledged to increase the IMF's supplemental cash tenfold to $500 billion, and to allocate to member countries another $250 billion via Special Drawing Rights.















Data dissemination systems
 
IMF Data Dissemination Systems participants: 
     IMF member using SDDS
 
     IMF member, using GDDS
 
     IMF member, not using any of the DDSystems
 
     non-IMF entity using SDDS
 
     non-IMF entity using GDDS
 
     no interaction with the IMFIn 1995, the International Monetary Fund began work on data dissemination standards with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers: The General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS).

The International Monetary Fund executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in 1996 and 1997 respectively and subsequent amendments were published in a revised “Guide to the General Data Dissemination System”. The system is aimed primarily at statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals and Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers.

The IMF established a system and standard to guide members in the dissemination to the public of their economic and financial data. Currently there are two such systems: General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and its superset Special Data Dissemination System (SDDS), for those member countries having or seeking access to international capital markets.

The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage IMF member countries to build a framework to improve data quality and increase statistical capacity building. This will involve the preparation of metadata describing current statistical collection practices and setting improvement plans. Upon building a framework, a country can evaluate statistical needs, set priorities in improving the timeliness, transparency, reliability and accessibility of financial and economic data.

Some countries initially used the GDDS, but lately upgraded to SDDS.

Some entities that are not themselves IMF members also contribute statistical data to the systems:

 Palestinian Authority – GDDS 
 Hong Kong – SDDS 
 European Union institutions: 
the European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS 
Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from  Cyprus (not using any DDSystem on its own) and  Malta (using only GDDS on its own) 
[edit] Membership qualifications
Any country may apply for membership to the IMF. The application will be considered first by the IMF's Executive Board. After its consideration, the Executive Board will submit a report to the Board of Governors of the IMF with recommendations in the form of a "Membership Resolution." These recommendations cover the amount of quota in the IMF, the form of payment of the subscription, and other customary terms and conditions of membership. After the Board of Governors has adopted the "Membership Resolution," the applicant state needs to take the legal steps required under its own law to enable it to sign the IMF's Articles of Agreement and to fulfil the obligations of IMF membership. Similarly, any member country can withdraw from the Fund, although that is rare. For example, in April 2007, the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa announced the expulsion of the World Bank representative in the country. A few days later, at the end of April, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that the country would withdraw from the IMF and the World Bank. Chavez dubbed both organisations as “the tools of the empire” that “serve the interests of the North”. [1] As of June 2009, both countries remain as members of both organisations. Venezuela was forced to back down because a withdrawal would have triggered default clauses in the country's sovereign bonds.

A member's quota in the IMF determines the amount of its subscription, its voting weight, its access to IMF financing, and its allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The United States has exclusive veto power. A member state cannot unilaterally increase its quota—increases must be approved by the Executive Board and are linked to formulas that include many variables such as the size of a country in the world economy. For example, in 2001, China was prevented from increasing its quota as high as it wished, ensuring it remained at the level of the smallest G7 economy (Canada).[13] In September 2005, the IMF's member countries agreed to the first round of ad hoc quota increases for four countries, including China. On March 28, 2008, the IMF's Executive Board ended a period of extensive discussion and negotiation over a major package of reforms to enhance the institution's governance that would shift quota and voting shares from advanced to emerging markets and developing countries. The Fund's Board of Governors must vote on these reforms by April 28, 2008.

















Assistance and reforms
Main articles: Washington consensus and Structural adjustment program
The primary mission of the IMF is to provide financial assistance to countries that experience serious financial and economic difficulties using funds deposited with the IMF from the institution's 186 member countries. Member states with balance of payments problems, which often arise from these difficulties, may request loans to help fill gaps between what countries earn and/or are able to borrow from other official lenders and what countries must spend to operate, including to cover the cost of importing basic goods and services. In return, countries are usually required to launch certain reforms, which have often been dubbed the "Washington Consensus". These reforms are thought to be beneficial to countries with fixed exchange rate policies that may engage in fiscal, monetary, and political practices which may lead to the crisis itself. For example, nations with severe budget deficits, rampant inflation, strict price controls, or significantly over-valued or under-valued currencies run the risk of facing balance of payment crises. Thus, the structural adjustment programs are at least ostensibly intended to ensure that the IMF is actually helping to prevent financial crises rather than merely funding financial recklessness.

[edit] IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships
The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War period, as the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of democracy, human rights, and labor rights. The controversy has helped spark the Anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.[16]

In the 1960s, the IMF and the World Bank supported the government of Brazil’s military dictator Castello Branco with tens of millions of dollars of loans and credit that were denied to previous democratically-elected governments.[17]

Countries that were or are under a Military dictatorship whilst being members of the IMF/World Bank (support from various sources in $ Billion












Criticism
"The interests of the IMF represent the big international interests that seem to be established and concentrated in Wall Street."

— Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1959[19]
Two criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called "Conditionalities", including Structural Adjustment Programs. It is claimed that conditionalities (economic performance targets established as a precondition for IMF loans) retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.[20]

One of the main SAP conditions placed on troubled countries is that the governments sell up as much of their national assets as they can, normally to western corporations at heavily discounted prices.

That said, the IMF sometimes advocates "austerity programmes," increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, in order to generate government revenue and balance budget deficits, which is Keynesian policy. Countries are often advised to lower their corporate tax rate. These policies were criticised by Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank, in his book Globalization and Its Discontents.[21] He argued that by converting to a more Monetarist approach, the fund no longer had a valid purpose, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF "was not participating in a conspiracy, but it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community".[22]

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001, which some believe to have been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions — which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security — and privatization of strategically vital national resources.[23] Others attribute the crisis to Argentina's misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase rapidly.[24] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region's economic problems.[25] The current — as of early 2006 — trend towards moderate left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this crisis.

Another example of where IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes aggravated the problem was in Kenya. Before the IMF got involved in the country, the Kenyan central bank oversaw all currency movements in and out of the country. The IMF mandated that the Kenyan central bank had to allow easier currency movement. However, the adjustment resulted in very little foreign investment, but allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal Damji Pattni, with the help of corrupt government officials, to siphon off billions of Kenyan shillings in what came to be known as the Goldenberg scandal, leaving the country worse off than it was before the IMF reforms were implemented.[citation needed] In an interview, the former Romanian Prime Minister Tăriceanu stated that "Since 2005, IMF is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country's economic performances".[26]

In September 2007 the IMF said "given the Irish economy's strong fundamentals and the authorities' commitment to sound policies, the Directors expected economic growth to remain robust over the medium term".[27] Seventeen months later in April 2009, the New York Times quoted a Nobel prize-winning economist, who identified Ireland as a model for the worst-case scenario for the global economy.[28]

Overall the IMF success record is perceived as limited.[citation needed] While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any time in Post-Depression history.[citation needed] The considerable delay in the IMF's response to any crisis, and the fact that it tends to only respond to them or even create them[29] rather than prevent them, has led many economists to argue for reform. In 2006, an IMF reform agenda called the Medium Term Strategy was widely endorsed by the institution's member countries. The agenda includes changes in IMF governance to enhance the role of developing countries in the institution's decision-making process and steps to deepen the effectiveness of its core mandate, which is known as economic surveillance or helping member countries adopt macroeconomic policies that will sustain global growth and reduce poverty. On June 15, 2007, the Executive Board of the IMF adopted the 2007 Decision on Bilateral Surveillance, a landmark measure that replaced a 30-year-old decision of the Fund's member countries on how the IMF should analyse economic outcomes at the country level.

 Impact on public health
In 2008, a study by analysts from Cambridge and Yale universities published on the open-access Public Library of Science concluded that strict conditions on the international loans by the IMF resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries which the IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6 %.

Criticism from free-market advocates
Typically the IMF and its supporters advocate a monetarist approach. As such, adherents of supply-side economics generally find themselves in open disagreement with the IMF. The IMF frequently advocates currency devaluation, criticized by proponents of supply-side economics as inflationary. Secondly they link higher taxes under "austerity programmes" with economic contraction.

Complaints are also directed toward International Monetary Fund gold reserve being undervalued. At its inception in 1945, the IMF pegged gold at US$35 per Troy ounce of gold. In 1973 the Nixon administration lifted the fixed asset value of gold in favor of a world market price. Hence the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. This largely came about because Petrodollars outside the United States were more than could be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system. The fixed rate system only served to limit the amount of assistance the organisation could use to help debt-ridden countries. Current IMF rules prohibit members from linking their currencies to gold.[citation needed]

[edit] Attempts to repair image
Research by the Pew Research Center shows that more than 60 percent of Asians and 70 percent of Africans feel that the IMF and the World Bank have a positive effect on their country. However it is pertinent to note that the survey aggregated international organisations including the World Trade Organisation. Also, a similar percentage of people in the Western world believed that these international organisations had a positive effect on their countries. In 2005, the IMF was the first multilateral financial institution to implement a sweeping debt-relief program for the world's poorest countries known as the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. By year-end 2006, 23 countries mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central America had received total relief of debts owed to the IMF.

 Managing Director
Historically the IMF's managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other qualified candidates from any part of the world. Executive Directors, who confirm the managing director, are voted in by Finance Ministers from countries they represent. The First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, the second-in-command, has traditionally been (and is today) an American. 





没写下，还有这个：http://www.imfsite.org/finprograms/oando.html

2. what the f......是什么意思，求翻译，谢谢。

为您解答

口语，表示惊讶，愤怒，感叹
相当于中文的"卧槽"

3. "what the 【f】【u】【c】【k】" 怎么翻译

fuck是英语里面骂人的
这句话的意思是“他妈的到底怎么搞的”

4. 谁能帮我找下资料关于IMF（International Monetary Fund）

Since the outbreak of the Asian financial crisis, it has been open season for attacks on the International Monetary Fund. We have been told that the prospect of IMF bailouts caused the crisis and that the IMF's existence, if continued unchanged, will result in many more financial disruptions. Distinguished former cabinet officials, writing on this page, have asked "Who Needs the IMF?" And this newspaper has added its editorial voice to the chorus. 

Here's a more balanced perspective: In a globalized economy, everyone needs the IMF. Without the IMF, the world economy would not become an idealized fantasy of perfectly liquid, completely informed, totally unregulated capital markets. Investors and lenders would still make decisions on the basis of imperfect information, and they would have to take into account the absence of an international lender of last resort. This would be a serious, perhaps devastating, defect. In fact, we got a good sense of life without the IMF in the 1920s and 1930s. The results included widespread competitive devaluation and trade wars in response to balance of payments problems, followed by a plunge into global depression and world war. 

Without a guarantor of international liquidity, many good loans would not be made. Fundamentally sound private investment projects in emerging markets can be dragged down by decisions external to the businesses involved. Even prudent government policies can be waylaid by unforeseeable shocks. Either way, fundamentally good investments will run into temporary liquidity problems. In a world of flexible exchange rates, such temporary problems can be magnified by accompanying drops in the value of the domestic currency. IMF programs finance the adjustment necessary to give these countries and firms time to let their fundamentals pay off. 

Credit Union 

Thus, the IMF is the sovereign nations' credit union. It imposes strict conditions on countries' policies for bridge loans to get through hard times. Only a multilateral institution like the IMF could exert the discipline required without causing an unacceptable affront to a country's sovereignty. The benefits to the borrowing nation are that the adjustment program will be less painful and any resulting contraction less severe. The benefits to the lending countries are not only the availability of those credits to themselves, if and when they need them (as even the United States has), but a smaller contraction of world demand associated with the borrowing country's adjustment. 

Some have claimed that these IMF conditions have been misapplied in the Asian crisis, demanding either too much austerity or unjustified structural reform. But IMF conditionality is highly pragmatic. Since the current crisis was not caused in large part by macroeconomic policies but by financial fragility and lack of transparency, the conditions were designed to respond to those causes. The fund has been ready to renegotiate its programs and to loosen austerity (such as the inflation target for South Korea) as matters stabilized. There always is room for improvement in individual IMF programs. But attacks on the basic idea of IMF conditionality are thoroughly misguided. 

Events in emerging markets have spillover effects on the world economy as a whole, including the United States. Growing economies provide greater opportunities for investment and exports, so an institution that sustains productive capital flows to developing countries also sustains our own economic growth. More important, countries that run into significant balance of payments problems would have only two policy options without the IMF: default or devaluation. As seen in the interwar years, either can induce reactions by other countries that make a bad situation worse; together, they can make the global economy rapidly spiral downward. This chain of events is precisely what the IMF was created to prevent. 

A cycle of competitive devaluations is the most dangerous potential chain of events the IMF prevents. Imagine that an emerging market in trouble over its balance of payments decides that it must export its way out and so devalues or depreciates its currency. Economies with similar exports and markets find themselves competitively disadvantaged, so they too devalue, hoping to offset the first country's currency gambit. Yet, if many countries pursue this strategy simultaneously, none of their positions improve significantly, while their purchasing power drops along with their currencies. It must be considered a triumph of the IMF's rapid response to the recent Asian crisis that no ongoing spiral of competitive devaluation has arisen despite the pressures on Hong Kong and China and even on Brazil and Russia. 

All these virtues of the IMF have been forgotten in the rush to condemn one of its inherent costs: the creation of moral hazard. Moral hazard exists whenever insurance is provided against any kind of risk. Anyone who has worked in the banking industry knows that government guarantees, or even the perceived possibility thereof, can create perverse incentives for financial risk taking. The prospect of a rescue can encourage investments that otherwise would not be made. This increases the herdlike behavior of global capital since financial firms often watch what other investors do more than they watch the performance of the actual investments. This tendency certainly contributed to the surge of capital flows into South Korea, Indonesia, and their neighbors, and the subsequent drain of that capital. 

It is a huge exaggeration, however, to suggest that the so-called bailout guarantee played more than a minor role in creating the Asian crisis. It is absurd to believe that any country would risk a national currency crisis simply because the tender mercies of the IMF were waiting to rescue it from its follies. The pain imposed by IMF programs deters crises rather than bringing them on. 

As for private investors who put money into these economies--in the form of foreign direct investment, equities, commercial paper, and even many foreign currency loans to nonbank businesses--significant losses have been taken in every single country. Market discipline has in fact hit all domestic investors and their intermediaries in these countries hard. Many government and financial officials who contributed to the problem have had their careers ended as well. 

Too Much Protection 

There was indeed too much protection for the loans of some foreign banks. Here the IMF needs to move toward greater reliance on private financial workouts than excessively large rescue programs. Substantial burden sharing by all foreign creditors must also become an integral part of all future IMF programs. But saying that there is room for increasing the degree of market discipline is not the same as saying that market discipline is entirely lacking, let alone that its absence caused the Asian crisis. 

In any event, such a moral hazard cost hardly outweighs all the benefits of IMF programs. The relevant comparison is between the explosive growth and macroeconomic stability we have experienced in the postwar decades, with the IMF in existence, and the much slower growth in the developing countries and far greater worldwide instability we saw in the interwar years or in the late nineteenth century. Only part of the differences can be attributed to the IMF, but it is illogical to ignore its contribution while attributing to it total responsibility for the few short financial crises of the past decades.

5. IMF会给巴基斯坦美圆贷款么

老婆，我来了````分数给偶吧，偶也发了一样的问题，答案别人能搜到的 。
应该愿意的吧，看下面的新闻 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has announced its readiness to lend billions of dollars to support nations hit by fallout from the global financial turmoil, is holding talks with several countries about possible new lending programs. 
"I have been on the phone with leaders in several capitals who have asked the Fund for assistance. We now have mission teams in some of these countries assessing their needs and, where asked to do, discussing programs that could be supported by an IMF loan," says IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. 

The IMF is currently discussing possible loan packages for Hungary, Iceland, Pakistan, and Ukraine. It is also in discussions with a number of other countries about possible financing needs, and is providing confidential policy advice to governments in emerging and developing economies on how to adapt to the current turmoil. It said on October 22 that it would also begin discussions with Belarus. 

Emergency Financing Mechanism 

"We are actively engaged at this critical time with several governments around the world, both to provide technical economic advice and financing, if necessary. We are ready to act very quickly, with streamlined conditions attached," says Strauss-Kahn. 

Strauss-Kahn said in an October 22 statement that an IMF mission would soon begin discussions with Pakistan's authorities on a program aimed at strengthening economic stability and enhancing confidence in the financial system. The amount of Fund financing under a Stand-By Arrangement had yet to be determined. Financing could be made within framework of the Fund's Emergency Financing Mechanism, Strauss-Kahn added. 

The IMF has recently activated the mechanism—a procedure for speeding up lending in a crisis—which has been used six times previously since it was set up in 1995. 

Loanable funds 

The IMF has more than $200 billion of loanable funds and can draw on additional resources through two standing borrowing arrangements with groups of IMF member countries. 

Strauss-Kahn, who helped spearhead the international response to the global financial turmoil during the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in Washington on October 10-13, has emphasized the IMF's readiness to lend quickly to member countries that need help during the ongoing crisis through its emergency financing procedures. 

The IMF says the financial turmoil hitting advanced economies is starting to slow growth in many emerging markets. The world economy is entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous financial shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s, according to the IMF's World Economic Outlook. 

Fewer conditions 

Strauss-Kahn says that although some policy conditions will still be attached to loans from the IMF, the conditions will be fewer and more targeted than in the past. Given that the IMF is a financial institution, its lending has to be accompanied with some policy conditions, he adds. 

However, he told IMF staff recently that "conditionality has to be defined as what is needed to achieve the goals of the program... it should not attempt to fix the world." These measures must be directly related to achieving the goals of the program, he emphasized. 

"This is the way for us to be recognized by the membership as addressing the needs they have and not the agenda we have." 

Executive Board role 

Under the Emergency Financing Mechanism, IMF management informs the Board of the intention to activate emergency procedures and provides reasons for doing so; a short written report is circulated as soon as feasible, describing the member's economic situation; once agreement with the authorities has been reached on a lending program, the IMF staff report is circulated, and the Board considers the request for a loan within 48-72 hours. 

The rules state that member's past cooperation with the IMF has a strong bearing on the speed with which the Fund can assess the situation and agree on necessary corrective measures to put the economy back on track. 

Several countries in pipeline 

Several countries appear close to agreeing loan packages with the IMF. Iceland is seeking help from the IMF and a number of countries to help shore up the economy after the collapse of its banking system. The IMF has announced a Fund mission will begin discussions with Pakistani authorities in the next few days to meet balance of payments needs created by recent high food and fuel prices and the global financial crisis. Discussions with Ukraine and Hungary are ongoing, with the intention of bringing them to an early conclusion. 

World leaders will hold a summit in Washington on November 15 to agree on a broad set of principles for reforming the international financial system. The IMF, which will also attend, has been asked to take a lead in preparing lessons from the crisis and how the international financial architecture could be adjusted and these ideas could feed into the summit discussion. 

The White House has invited to the summit members of the G-20, a forum of rich and emerging nations that was convened in 1999 after an earlier international crisis. Its members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States, and the European Union. 

Comments on this article should be sent to imfsurvey@imf.org 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/new102208a.htm 

Statement by IMF Managing Director Strauss-Kahn on Pakistan 
Press Release No. 08/254 
October 22, 2008 
Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), issued the following statement today on Pakistan: 

"The Pakistani authorities have requested discussions with the IMF on an economic program supported by financial assistance from the Fund to meet the balance of payments difficulties the country is experiencing as a result of high food and fuel prices and the global financial crisis. A Fund mission will begin discussions with the authorities in the next few days on a program aimed at strengthening economic stability and enhancing confidence in the financial system. The amount of Fund financing under a Stand-By Arrangement has yet to be determined. Financing could be made within framework of the Fund's Emergency Financing Mechanism." 

参考资料：http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2008/pr08254.htm

6. What is your favourite colour怎么回答？

直接答颜色或者说My favorite color is.....

7. The Shifting Structure of China’s Trade（IMF working paper)谁能帮我翻译下面这段英文的，不要翻译软

翻译完了也 累死了

8. 请问Millennium Challenge Account是什么？

这应该是美帝国..务..院设立的。美帝设立了世纪挑战账户 (Millennium Challenge Account, MCA)的阳谋是引导其他国家向自己希望的方向改变。这数十亿美元并非贷款，而是赠与，要符合美帝的标准“公正治国、投资于民生并提倡经济自由”。
洪都拉斯（Honduras）和尼加拉瓜（Nicaragua）可能已有相关的新闻。世纪挑战帐户还被用于提升非洲的自由程度。2005年共有8个非洲国家达到世纪挑战帐户的赠款条件。5月，马达加斯加因“政治和经济自由化”被美帝奖励了1亿1千万美元。