英语翻译Despite the considered period being very short,we attempted to extract some conclusions.Data in Table 2a showed that although the average general government financial deficit (GGFS) has increased by 2.5 points and about 2 points between t

英语翻译Despite the considered period being very short,we attempted to extract some conclusions.Data in Table 2a showed that although the average general government financial deficit (GGFS) has increased by 2.5 points and about 2 points between t
英语翻译
Despite the considered period being very short,we attempted to extract some
conclusions.Data in Table 2a showed that although the average general government
financial deficit (GGFS) has increased by 2.5 points and about 2 points between two
consecutive three-year periods,the current account deficit (CAS) has changed in two
different ways:in a contrary sense during 1993-95 and in the same sense during
1996-98.This implies that for the first period it seems that the “New Cambridge”
hypothesis was in contrast to the Romanian experience,but for the next period
(1996-98) it appeared to be more realistic.
On the other hand,the resulting data from Tables 4 showed that the average
private saving ratio (PS) has increased little between the first two periods (1995-
92/1992-90),but it was accompanied by a compensatory increase in government
dissaving,implying a quasi-stagnation of the national gross saving ratio (+0.6
points).Between the last two considered periods (1996-98/1993-95) there was a
general crisis in savings and investment,with both sectors registering significant
decreases.However,the government savings fell more than the private savings.
While the current account deficit has changed significantly (+3.1 points between the
two first periods and about –3.5 points between the last two periods),the numbers do
not agree with the neo-Ricardian conclusions.The transmission mechanism is also in
contrast to the one underlying the neo-Ricardian theory.For instance,considering the
changes between the two periods,in Romania it was private investment (PI),rather
than private savings (PS) that adjusted to the government dissaving.As it is evident
from Table 4a,the fall in private investment was almost three percentage points of
GDP,while the increase in private savings was less than two points.In fact,the
change in private savings was smaller and in investment larger.Nonetheless,there
was quite a different situation between the last two periods,with negative changes
both in private saving and private investment.

英语翻译Despite the considered period being very short,we attempted to extract some conclusions.Data in Table 2a showed that although the average general government financial deficit (GGFS) has increased by 2.5 points and about 2 points between t
虽然时间很短,我们还是试图提取些结论.表2a中的数据表明虽然政府平均财政总值（GGFS)已经增长了2.5个百分点并且在连续的三年时间中增长2个,普遍性的账目赤字（中科院）已经在两个方面有所改变：在1993~95年时相反的意义,在1996~98年又有了相同的意义.这表明第一时段“新剑桥”假说是相较于罗马尼亚人的经历的,但对下一时期来说（1996~98）却变得更加现实化了.
另一方面,因而发生的表4中的数据表明私人存款比率（ps）在之前的两个时期（1995~92|1992~90）几乎未增长,但它伴随政府动用储蓄补偿性增长.然而,政府积蓄比个人存款波动要敏感得多.然而普遍账目赤字显著的改变（+3.1点于前两个季度,—3.5点于后两个季度）,数字不能支持新李嘉图的结论.传导机制也不尊崇新李嘉图的方式.例如,考虑进两个时期间的改变,在罗马尼亚是私人投资（pl）,就像与政府积蓄联系紧密的私人存款（ps）一样.从表4中很显然可以看出在私人投资上的下降了影响GDP近3个百分点,个人存款上升少于2个百分点.事实上,私人存款的改变很小而私人投资的改变很大.然而,对于私人存款和投资的负面变化在后两季形式有很大变化.
可能有很多不足但我翻译得很辛苦 多给点分啊.