假如知乎回答要求答主注释自己回答的来源会是什么样子的场面？ 第1页

既然都要强制注释了，那就直接抄呗，懒人狂喜

这个回答是老活了，下面整个新活

比如说我在翻译 Classical Political Economy and the Evolution of Central Banks Endogenous Money and the Fiscal-Military State 的时候，

发现这个作者引用了 Roberds and Velde，哦，这我熟悉

特别是这段

This view is compatible with Roberds and Velde's (2016) notion that early public banks were not yet central banks, and that only what they refer to as second-generation public banks, which would include both the Bank of Sweden and the BoE, would eventually be considered as such. In fact, they suggest that an essential aspect of the evolution of public banks into central banks is

managing fiscal temptation [that] required an appropriate degree of distance between government and bank, and a flawed mechanism for maintaining such distance might cause a bank to collapse in the face of war-driven fiscal demands. . . It is naturally tempting to see the Bank of England’s dominance in the nineteenth century as partly based on it having met that imperative. (Roberds and Velde 2016: 55)

排列组合一下老文章，上面那段引言就是：

管理财政诱惑需要政府与银行之间保持适当距离，而当维持这种距离的机制是有缺陷的机制时，在面对战争驱使的财政需求时，它可能会导致银行最终倒闭。…人们自然地倾向于认为，英格兰银行在19世纪的主导地位部分是因为它满足了这一要求（绅士距离）（Roberds and Velde 2016: 55）。

你看，很简单的。

。。。。。？