(A)請算出存款貨幣、準備貨幣、Ml A、M2及M2乘數。（5分）

(B)若社會大眾將持有的100億元通貨存成定期存款，那麼MIA、M1B及M2總量各有何變化？ (3分）

(C)若名目GDP為2，200億元，那麼M1B及M2的貨幣流通速度(Velocity of Money)各是多 少？（2分）

3. 2015年美國升息（提高利率）與否的問題困擾全球經濟，自1994年以來美國聯準會在聯邦公 開市場委員會（Federal Open Market Committee)宣布變動利率或是利率目標區，主要是指哪 個利率？（2分）這個利率目標區是根據「泰勒法則」（Taylor Rule)訂出來的，請說明何謂「泰 勒法則」？並以數學式表示之。（8分）

1. coordinate

2. distraction

3. compelling

4. literally

5. prospective

2. 請就下面這一篇文章，出 5 題閱讀測驗，每題四個選項。並將正確答案畫底線。 (15 %)     Germany is pioneering an epochal transformation it calls the energiewende - an energy revolution that scientists say all nations must one day complete if a climate disaster is to be averted. Among large industrial nations, Germany is a leader, last year about 27 percent of its electricity came from renewable sources such as wind and solar power, three times what it got a decade ago and more than twice what the United States gets today. The change accelerated after the 2011 meltdown at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant, which led Chancellor Angela Merkel to declare that Germany would shut all 17 of its own reactors by 2022. Nine have been switched off so far, and renewables have more than picked up the slack.    What makes Germany so important to the world, however, is the question of whether it can lead the retreat from fossil fuels. By later this century, scientists say, planet-warming carbon emissions must fall to virtually zero. Germany, the world's fourth largest economy, has promised some of the most aggressive emission cuts - by 2020, a 40 percent cut from 1990 levels, and by 2050, at least 80 percent.    The fate of those promises hangs in the balance right now. The German revolution has come from the grass roots: Individual citizens and energy genossenschaften - local citizens associations - have made half the investment in renewables. But conventional utilities, which didn't see the revolution coming, are pressuring Merkel's government to slow things down. The country still gets far more electricity from coal than from renewables. And the energiewende has an even longer way to go in the transportation and heating sectors, which together emit more carbon dioxide than power plants.    The energiewende will take much longer and involve every single German - more than 1.5 million of them, nearly 2 percent of the population, are selling electricity to the grid right now. "It's a project for a generation; it's going to take till 2040 or 2050 and it's hard. It's making electricity more expensive for individual consumers. And still, if you ask people in a poll, Do you want theenergiewende? then 90 percent say yes.    If you ask why antinuclear sentiment has been so consequential in Germany, you end up back at the war. It left Germany a divided country, the front along which two nuclear superpowers faced off. Demonstrators in the 1970s and '80s were protesting not just nuclear reactors but plans to deploy American nuclear missiles in West Germany. When the German Green Party was founded in 1980, pacifism and opposition to nuclear power were both central tenets.    When the Soviet reactor at Chernobyl exploded in 1986, the left-leaning Social Democrats, one of Germany's two major parties, was converted to the antinuclear cause. Even though Chernobyl was hundreds of miles away, its radioactive cloud passed over Germany, and parents were urged to keep their children inside. It's still not always safe to eat mushrooms or wild boar from the Black Forest. Chernobyl was a water shed. It will have to get off gasoline and diesel. The transportation sector produces about 17 percent of Germany's emissions. Like the utilities, its famous carmakers - Mercedes - Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, and Audi - were late to the energiewende. But today they're offering more than two dozen models of electric cars. The government's goal is to have a million electric cars on the road by 2020; so far there are about 40,000. The basic problem is that the cars are still too expensive for most Germans, and the government hasn't offered serious incentives to buy them.    Much the same is true of buildings, whose heating systems emit 30 percent of Germany's greenhouse gases. The strategy has always been to modernize old buildings in such a way that they use almost no energy and cover what they do use with renewables. A lot is being done, but not enough. Just one percent of the stock is being renovated every year. for all buildings to be nearly climate neutral by 2050, the rate would need to double at least.     After Fukushima, for about half a year there was a real euphoria; but the feeling hasn't lasted. Economic interests are clashing now. Some Germans say it might take another catastrophe like Fukushima to catalyze a fresh burst of progress. But here's the thing about the Germans: They knew the energiewende was never going to be a walk in the forest, and yet they set out on it. While most countries have been free riders, who have an incentive to do nothing and hope that others will act, Germany has behaved differently: It has ridden out ahead. And in so doing, it has made the journey easier for the rest of us.

3. 請就以下這一篇文章, 寫出一份約 250 字的 summary (15%)。然後用這篇 summary 出 5 題克漏字選擇題，每題四個選項。並將正確答案畫底線。 (10%)。   Genetically manipulated food remains generally safe for humans and the environment, a high-powered science advisory board declared in a recnet report. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded that tinkering with the genetics of what we eat doesn't produce the "Frankenfood" monster some opponents claim — but it isn't feeding the world with substantially increased yields, as proponents promised.   With the line between engineered and natural foods blurring thanks to newer techniques such as gene editing, the 408-page report said, regulators need to make their safety focus more on the end-product of the food that's made rather than the nuts and bolts of how it's made.   The report waltzed a bit around the hot political issue of whether genetically modified food should be labeled. The study's authors said labels aren't needed for food safety reasons but potentially could be justified because of transparency, social and cultural factors, somewhat similar to made-in-America stickers. That stance was praised by some environmental and consumer groups, but criticized by some scientists as unnecessary because the food poses no unique risks.   There's no evidence of environmental problems caused by genetically modified crops, but pesticide resistance is a problem, the report said. Farms that use genetically modified crops in general are helped, but it may be a different story for smaller farmers and in poorer areas of the world, it said. Most of the modified plants are soybean, cotton, corn and canola; in most cases, genetic tinkering has made them resistant to certain herbicides and insects. When farms switched from conventional crops to the engineered varieties, there was no substantial change in yields. While experimental results suggest that there should be an increase in production, U.S. Department of Agriculture data doesn't show it, the report said.   The report first said it is important not to make sweeping statements on genetically engineered foods, which it called GE. Still, "the committee concluded that no differences have been found that implicate a higher risk to human health safety from these GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts." Although the National Academy has issued reports before, saying it could find no safety problem with eating genetically modified food, the academy committee chairman Fred Gould said this report is significant because his study team started by listening to critics of such foods, examined anew more than 1,000 studies, and created a website that allows consumers to look at evidence and decide for themselves.   "To some extent we know more about some genetically engineered food than we do about other food," committee member Dominique Brossard of the University of Wisconsin said. "There are limits to what can be known about any food. That's something we're not used to hearing as consumers."    Many scientists who work on the issue but weren't part of the study team lauded the report as sensible, but not surprising. Mark Sorrells at Cornell called it "very well balanced, accurate, and reiterates much of what has already been published many times." "Science is science, facts are facts," emailed Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of biochemistry and food science at the University of Illinois. "There's just no sound basis for their opposition just as there was never any scientific basis to believe GM plants should be viewed any differently than any other,"   One dissenter was Charles Benbrook, who used to be at Washington State University but is now a private consultant. He said he feels the risks of genetically engineered food are more serious than more mainstream scientists do, and that the human health assessments aren't ample enough.   Some groups critical of genetically engineering foods criticized the report. Food & Water Watch criticized the National Academy as taking funding from biotechnology firms and using "pro-GMO scientists" to write its reports. The report was funded by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the New Venture Fund, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the academy itself. It was peer reviewed by outside experts and committee members are vetted for financial conflicts of interests, said academy spokesman William Kearney.

114年 - 114-3 證券投資分析人員資格測驗試題：總體經濟及金融市場#136090

114年 - 114-2 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#130608

114年 - 114-1 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#130607

113年 - 113-3 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#125779

113年 - 113-2 證券投資分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#123673

113年 - 113-1 證券投資分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#119336

112年 - 112-3 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員 ：總體經濟及金融市場#121710

112年 - 112-2 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#116244

112年 - 112-1 證券投資分析、期貨交易分析人員 ：總體經濟及金融市場#116059

111年 - 111-3 證券投資分析人員、期貨交易分析人員：總體經濟及金融市場#112166