[1010G]【决战2010精英组Economist阅读贴----DEBATE分贴】by TEAR(xingfuhbj)

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Background Reading  B

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate-change politics

Cap-and-trade(限额交易)'s last hurrah

The decline of a once wildly popular idea

Mar 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

Gaia([希神]盖亚(大地女神)) lent an unhelpful hand

IN THE 1990s cap-and-trade—the idea of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by auctioning off(拍卖，竞卖) a set number of pollution permits, which could then be traded in a market—was the darling of the green policy circuit.(开头可考虑借鉴) A similar approach to sulphur(硫) dioxide emissions, introduced under the 1990 Clean Air Act, was credited with(被认为) having helped solve acid-rain problems quickly and cheaply. And its great advantage was that it hardly looked like a tax at all, though it would bring in a lot of money.

The cap-and-trade provision expected in the climate legislation that Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have been working on, which may be unveiled(公开的，揭露的) shortly(立刻，马上,注意注意), will be a poor shadow of that once alluring idea. Cap-and-trade will not be the centrepiece(中心装饰品) of the legislation (as it was of last year’s House climate bill, Waxman-Markey), but is instead likely to apply only to electrical utilities, at least for the time being(目前来看). Transport fuels will probably be approached with some sort of tax or fee; industrial emissions will be tackled with regulation and possibly, later on, carbon trading. The hope will be to cobble together(迅速筹集) cuts in emissions similar in scope to those foreseen under the House bill, in which the vast majority of domestic cuts in emissions came from utilities.

This composite approach(注意搭配) is necessary because the charms of economy-wide cap-and-trade have faded badly. The ability to raise money from industry is not so attractive in a downturn(低迷时期). Market mechanisms([经] 市场结构，市场机能) have lost their appeal as a result of the financial crisis. More generally, climate is not something the public seems to feel strongly about at the moment, in part because of that recession, in part perhaps because they have worries about the science (see article), in part, it appears, because the winter has been a snowy one.

The public is, though, quite keen on new initiatives(倡议) on energy, which any Senate bill will shower with(大量给予) incentives and subsidies whether the energy in question(正在考虑的) be renewable, nuclear, pumped out(抽出) from beneath the seabed or still confined to research laboratories. So the bill will need to raise money, which is why cap-and-trade is likely to remain for the utilities, and revenues will be raised from transport fuels. A complex way of doing this, called a linked fee(费用，酬金), would tie the revenues to the value of carbon in the utility market; a straightforward carbon tax may actually have a better chance of passing.

Energy bills have in the past garnered(收藏，积累) bipartisan(两党的; 代表两党的) support, and this one also needs to. That is why Senator Graham matters. He could bring on board both Democrats and Republicans. Mr Graham’s contribution has been to focus the rhetoric(.雄辩言辞，虚夸的言辞；修辞学) not just on near-term(目前的，短暂的short-term的native表达) jobs, but also on longer-term competitiveness. Every day America does not have climate legislation, he argues, is a day that China’s grip(紧握,控制) on the global green economy gets tighter.

He also thinks action on the issue would be good for his party. While short-term Republican interests call for opposition, the party’s long-term interests must include broadening its support. Among young people, for example, polling suggests that the environment, and the climate, matter a great deal.

Unfortunately for this argument, tactics matter, and young voters are unlikely to play a great role in the mid-term election. Other Republicans may think it better to wait before re-establishing the party’s green credentials(证明,资格). Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example, is happy to talk about climate as a problem, and talks about the desirability(称心如意的人(东西)) of some sort of carbon restriction—perhaps a tax, or some version of Maria Cantwell’s “cap-and-dividend” scheme. But she expresses no great urgency about the subject. And she has introduced one of two measures intended to curtail(缩短，削减，减少) the power the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now has to regulate carbon, on the ground that that is a matter for legislation sometime in the future.

The EPA’s new powers undoubtedly make the charms of legislation greater. Some industrial lobbies(游说团) may decide that the bill will provide the certainty they need to decide about future investment, and get behind it. The White House has been supportive of late, inviting senators over to talk. But it remains an uphill struggle(艰苦的斗争), and the use of reconciliation(和解，调和) to pass health care could greatly increase the gradient(倾斜度，坡度，升降率) of the hill, as Mr Graham has made abundantly clear.

If the bill does not pass, it will change environmental politics in America and beyond. The large, comparatively business-friendly environmental groups that have been proponents of trading schemes will lose ground, with organisations closer to the grassroots, and perhaps with a taste for civil disobedience(不合作主义，温和抵抗), gaining power. Carbon-trading schemes elsewhere in the world have already been deprived of a vast new market—Waxman-Markey, now dead, would have seen a great many carbon credits bought in from overseas—and if America turned away from cap-and-trade altogether they would look even less transformative than they do today. And as market-based approaches lose relevance, what climate action continues may come to lean more heavily on the command-and-control techniques they were intended to replace.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
词汇:
auction off(拍卖，竞卖)
be credited with(被认为)
unveiled(公开的，揭露的)
shortly(立刻，马上,注意注意)
be tackled with
cobble together(迅速筹集)
downturn(低迷时期)
keen on
initiatives(倡议)
shower with(大量给予)
in question(正在考虑的)
garnered(收藏，积累)
bipartisan(两党的; 代表两党的)
rhetoric(.雄辩言辞，虚夸的言辞；修辞学)
grip(紧握,控制)
credentials(证明,资格)
desirability(称心如意的人(东西))
curtail(缩短，削减，减少)
uphill struggle(艰苦的斗争)
reconciliation(和解，调和)
gradient(倾斜度，坡度，升降率)
centrepiece(中心装饰品)
pumped out(抽出)
fee(费用，酬金)
lobbies(游说团)
专有名词:
Gaia([希神]盖亚(大地女神))
sulphur(硫)
Market mechanisms([经] 市场结构，市场机能)
civil disobedience(不合作主义，温和抵抗)
Cap-and-trade(限额交易)
Native 表达:
a poor shadow of
for the time being(目前来看)
composite approach(注意搭配)
near-term(目前的，短暂的short-term的native表达)
matter a great deal
expresses no great urgency about
get behind it
made abundantly clear
and beyond
with a taste for
结构:
IN THE 1990s cap-and-trade—the idea of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by auctioning off(拍卖，竞卖) a set number of pollution permits, which could then be traded in a market—was the darling of the green policy circuit.(开头可考虑借鉴)

More generally, climate is not something the public seems to feel strongly about at the moment, in part because of that recession, in part perhaps because they have worries about the science (see article), in part, it appears, because the winter has been a snowy one.

Energy bills have in the past garnered(收藏，积累) bipartisan(两党的; 代表两党的) support, and this one also needs to.

Every day America does not have climate legislation, he argues, is a day that China’s grip(紧握,控制) on the global green economy gets tighter.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Background Reading  B

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetically modified food

Attack of the really quite likeable tomatoes

The success of genetically modified crops provides opportunities to win over(说服，把 ... 争取过来) their critics

Feb 25th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

IN THE 14 years since the first genetically modified crops(转基因作物) were planted commercially, their descendants, relatives and remixes have gone forth(出发，离去，发布) and multiplied like profitable, high-tech pondweed. A new report (see article) shows that 25 countries now grow GM crops, with the total area under cultivation now larger than Peru. Three-quarters of the farmland used to grow soya is now sown with a genetically modified variant, and the figures for cotton are not that far behind, thanks to its success in India. China recently gave the safety go-ahead(放行信号) to its first GM rice variety and a new GM maize(玉米) that should make better pig feed. More and more plants are having their genomes(基因组,染色体组) sequenced(按顺序排好): a full sequence for maize was published late last year, the soya genome in January. Techniques for altering genomes are moving ahead almost as fast as the genomes themselves are stacking up(成为结果), and new crops with more than one added trait(特点, 特征) are coming to market.

Such stories of success will strike fear into some hearts, and not only in GM-averse Europe; a GM backlash(激烈反应，强烈反对) is under way in India, focused on insect-resistant aubergines(茄子). Some of these fears are understandable, but lacking supporting evidence they have never been compelling.(ARUMENT必用!) On safety, the fear which cuts closest to home(看不懂), the record continues to look good. Governments need to keep testing and monitoring, but that may be becoming easier. More precise modifications, and better technologies for monitoring stray(迷路的) DNA both within plants and in the environment around them, mean that it is getting easier to be sure that nothing untoward(不幸的，(坏事)没料到的) is going on.

Then there is the worry that GM crops are a way for big companies to take over the livelihoods(生活，生计) of small farmers and, in the end, a chunk(相当大的部分(数量)) of nature itself. Seen in this light the fact that 90% of the farmers growing GM crops are comparatively poor and in developing countries is sinister(不吉祥的，凶兆的，险恶的), not salutary(有益健康的); given Monsanto’s dominance in America’s soyabean market, it seems to suggest incipient(初期的，刚出现的) world domination. It is certainly true that big firms make a lot of money selling GM seeds: the GM seed market was worth $10.5 billion in 2009, and the crops that grew from that seed were worth over $130 billion. But multinationals are not the only game in town. The governments of China (which has increased agricultural research across the board), India and Brazil are also developing new GM crops. In 2009 a GM version of an Indian cotton variety, developed in the public sector, came to market, and a variety engineered by a private Indian firm has been approved for commercialisation(商业化). Charities, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are also funding efforts in various countries to make crops more hardy(植物等)耐寒) or nutritious. GM seeds that come from government research bodies, or from local firms, may not arouse quite so much opposition as those from large foreign companies, especially when they provide characteristics that make crops better, not just easier to farm.

Moreover, where the seeds come from is a separate question from who should pay for them, as Mr Gates points out. As with drugs and vaccines, it is possible to get products that were developed with profit in mind to the people who need them using donor money and clever pricing and licensing deals. In the longer term, if the seeds deliver what the farmers require, the need for such special measures should diminish. After all, the whole idea is not that poor farmers should go on being poor. It is that poor farmers should get a bit richer, be able to invest a bit more, and thus increase the food available to a growing and predominantly(优越地，卓越地，主要地) urban population.

More than strange fruits

There is another worry about GM technology, though, that should be taken seriously. It is that its success and appeal to technophiles(科技偏好者) may, in the minds of those who pay for agricultural research, crowd out(挤出，推开，排除) other approaches to improving farming. Because it depends on intellectual property that can be protected, GM is ripe for(时机成熟, 准备就绪) private investment. There is a lot of other agricultural research that is less amenable(顺从的，通情达理的，经得起检验的) to corporate ownership but still needs doing. From soil management to weather forecasts to the preservation, study and use of agricultural biodiversity, there are many ways to improve the agricultural systems on which the world’s food supply depends, and make them more resilient as well as more profitable. A farm is not a just a clever crop: it is an ecosystem managed with intelligence. GM crops have a great role to play in that development, but they are only a part of the whole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

词汇:
gone forth(出发，离去，发布)
maize(玉米)
genomes(基因组,染色体组)
sequenced(按顺序排好)
stacking up(成为结果)
trait(特点, 特征)
backlash(激烈反应，强烈反对)
stray(迷路的)
untoward(不幸的，(坏事)没料到的)
livelihoods(生活，生计)
a chunk(相当大的部分(数量)) of
sinister(不吉祥的，凶兆的，险恶的)
salutary(有益健康的)
incipient(初期的，刚出现的)
commercialisation(商业化)
hardy(植物等)耐寒)
predominantly(优越地，卓越地，主要地)
crowd out(挤出，推开，排除)
ripe for(时机成熟, 准备就绪)
amenable(顺从的，通情达理的，经得起检验的)
win over(说服，把 ... 争取过来)
专有名词:
genetically modified crops(转基因作物)
GM crops
go-ahead(放行信号)
aubergines(茄子)
technophiles(科技偏好者)
GM-averse 反转基因
结构:
Such stories of success will strike fear into some hearts
Some of these fears are understandable, but lacking supporting evidence they have never been compelling.(ARUMENT必用!)

Seen in this light..
But multinationals are not the only game in town.From
From soil management to weather forecasts to the preservation, and make them more resilient as well as more profitable.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Opening statements

Defending the motion

Amar Bhidé

Visiting Scholar, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

The techno-fetishist(物神崇拜者) view of innovation and the kind of government support it demands fails to appreciate the enormous variety of innovations that we need.

Against the motion

David Sandalow

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, US Department of Energy

Governments spur innovation. Governments shape innovation. Many of the most important innovations in recent decades grew from the work of governments.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The moderator's opening remarks

Mar 22nd 2010 | Mr Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran

What is the right role for government in spurring innovation? (ISSUE开头)The outlines of this age-old debate will be familiar to many. One side argues that governments inevitably get it wrong when they get too involved in innovation: picking the wrong technology winners, say, or ploughing subsidies into(干劲十足地投入，闯入) politically popular projects rather than the most deserving ones. (举例解释)The other rebuts that given the grave global challenges we face today—in the 1960s America thought it was the Soviet race into space, today many countries worry about climate change and pandemic threats—governments need to do much more to support innovation.

Happily for us, gentle reader, the two sides in the Economist's latest debate are moving beyond such platitudes(n.陈词滥调) to novel arguments. Arguing in favour of the motion that innovation works best when government does least is Amar Bhide, a professor at Harvard and author of "The Venturesome(冒险的，不顾一切的) Economy". His opening statement roundly(彻底地，严厉地) denounces the visions of home-grown Silicon Valleys that dance in the heads of bureaucrats worldwide as "a dubious(靠不住的) conception of paradise". California's bloated(肿胀的) government is bankrupt and Japan's once formidable(强大的，可怕的) MITI agency is in tatters, he observes, but market-minded Hong Kong is flourishing (and its hyper-commercial denizens(居民，外籍居民) far richer than their coddled Japanese counterparts).

He adds for good measure that the "techno-fetishist" view of innovation represented by the top-heavy Japanese model pales in comparison with a robust(强壮的，健康的), bottom-up(自上而下的) version of innovation that harnesses(治理，利用) the creativity and enterprise of the many, including the "venturesome consumers". He does acknowledge that governments have a role to play: "Doing the least doesn't mean doing nothing at all." However, his advocacy of a least is best policy, though conceptually elegant, seems a bit slippery(不可靠的) and is probably unhelpful in practice. In future postings, perhaps he will explain how exactly governments should decide whether they are doing too little or too much to help innovation.

David Sandalow, author of "Freedom from Oil" and a senior official in America's Department of Energy, presents a robust defence of government. He does make the familiar points about the need for governments to invest in education and fundamental research. He also adds slightly more controversial arguments about why government policies are required to overcome market failures (such as the recent financial crisis, which unfairly sapped(耗尽) innovators of credit) and misaligned(线向不正的,方向偏离的,不重合的,未对准的) incentives that hold back the adoption of worthwhile innovations (like energy-saving technologies with speedy paybacks).

More striking is Mr Sandalow's linkage of the global trend towards open innovation, which means companies increasingly rely on ideas from outside their own research laboratories, with the need for greater government spending on innovation. He argues that open innovation will get technologies faster to market, but at the expense of fundamental research of the sort that AT&T Bell Labs or Xerox Parc used to do. He insists that "without government support for such research, the seed corn for future generations would be at risk". That is a clever point, but it does not answer the obvious rebuttal that governments would inevitably invest in the wrong sorts of research (think, to stick with his analogy, of the money spent by the American government subsidising corn ethanol(乙醇,酒精), an environmentally questionable but politically popular fuel).(这个可以做ISSUE例子)

Are you waiting for further rounds of jousting(马上长枪比武，竞争)to decide which side to support? Don't be a mugwump(中立人物), sitting on the fence with your mug in one hand and your wump on the other. Cast your vote now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

词汇:
platitudes(n.陈词滥调)
Venturesome(冒险的，不顾一切的)
dubious(靠不住的)
bloated(肿胀的)
formidable(强大的，可怕的)
denizens(居民，外籍居民)
robust(强壮的，健康的)
slippery(不可靠的)
sapped(耗尽)
misaligned(线向不正的,方向偏离的,不重合的,未对准的) incentives
专有名词:
ethanol(乙醇,酒精)
jousting(马上长枪比武，竞争)
mugwump(1884年大选时脱离共和党的人,中立人物)
Native 表达:
Ploughing into(干劲十足地投入，闯入)
roundly(彻底地，严厉地)
dance in the heads of
in tatters
pales in comparison with
bottom-up(自上而下的)
harnesses(治理，利用) the creativity and enterprise
the seed corn for future generations
That is a clever point
结构:
What is the right role for government in spurring innovation?
(ISSUE开头)

More striking is Mr Sandalow's linkage of the global trend towards open innovation,

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The proposer's opening remarks

Mar 22nd 2010 | Amar Bhidé

Innovation now attracts innumerable(无数的, 数不清的) worshippers but their prayers are often quite narrow and sectarian(宗派的, 派系的). (这个开头也不错)Silicon Valley or possibly the Israeli high-tech industry is the promised land(上帝允许给亚伯拉罕的地方;乐土,福地,希望之乡): a wondrous(adj.出色的; 完美的) combination of private high-tech enterprise underpinned(支撑，支持) by government-financed universities and research labs.

This is, alas, a dubious conception of paradise. For all(尽管，虽然) the high-tech prowess(非凡的才能) of Silicon Valley, the economy of California is on the edge of disaster.(注意for all的用法) Unemployment in eight counties now tops 20% and the government pays its bills in IOUs((=I owe you) n.借据). And in spite of its extraordinary concentration of scientific and engineering talent and entrepreneurship, Israel's GDP per head in 2009 was lower than of Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia.

Or remember Japan's omnipotent(adj.全能的, 权力无限的), visionary(空想的；幻想的) MITI working hand and glove with(合作密切) the likes of NEC, Hitachi and Fujitsu? Put aside fiascos(惨败) such as the ten-year Fifth Generation Computer Systems Project, by standard measures the overall level of Japanese engineering and scientific performance, either because of or in spite of government subsidies, is impressive. (例子。政府过度干预创新的不良后果)More tellingly(有效地，显著地), Hong Kong's GNP per head is nearly 30% higher than Japan's, 24% higher than Germany's and 505% higher than Israel's. Yet Hong Kong's government and private businesses pay scant(不足的，贫乏的) attention to cutting-edge(刃口，尖端，前沿) scientific and technological research.(例子.政府不怎么干预创新,但效果更好)

The techno-fetishist view of innovation and the kind of government support it demands fails to appreciate the enormous variety of innovations that we need.

The measure of a good economy lies in the satisfaction it provides to the many, not a few, not in the wealth or accomplishment of a few individuals or organisations.(不错的句子) And these satisfactions go beyond the material or pecuniary(adj.金钱的, 金钱上的) rewards earned: they include, for instance, the exhilaration(高兴，兴奋) of overcoming challenges. Indeed they go hand in hand: a good economy cannot provide widespread prosperity without harnessing the creativity and enterprise of the many. All must have the opportunity to innovate, to try out(试验) new things: not just scientists and engineers but also graphic artists, shopfloor workers(车间工人), salespersons and advertising agencies; not just the developers of new products but their venturesome consumers. The exceptional(优越的，杰出的) performance of a few high-tech businesses, as the Silicon Valley and Israeli examples show, is just not enough.

This widely diffused(散布的，普及的，扩散的), multifaceted(多层面的) form of innovation entails(使承担，使成为必要，需要) a circumscribed(vt.在…周围画线划定…范围; 限制, 限定) role for governments: they should not to put their finger on the scale(天平) bribing people to do basic research instead of, say, the kind of graphics design that has made Apple such an iconic company. Mandating(n.命令，指令  v.批准) more math and science in high schools when most of us never use trigonometry(n.三角法) or calculus in our working lives takes away time from learning skills that are crucial in an innovative economy: how to listen and persuade, think independently and work collaboratively, for instance.(可能写教育类ISSUE能用到)

Yes, there is a problem with global warming, but that is best solved by innumerable tinkerers taking their chances with renewable energy and resourceful conservation, not by throwing money at projects that a few savants(n.博学之士, 学者, 专家) have determined to be the most promising. The apparent duplication of autonomous(自治的；独立自主的) initiative isn't a waste: no one can foretell(vt.预言; 预示) what is going to work. Even the most successful venture-capital companies have more misses than hits. (记住记住)Therefore putting many independent experiments in play raises the odds that one will work. When government gets into the game of placing bets, for instance, on new battery technologies, innovators who don't have the savvy(机智的，有常识的), credentials and connections with politicians or the scientific establishment are at a severe disadvantage. Yet history shows that it is often the nonconformist(不墨守成规的人) outsiders who play a pivotal(关键的) role. Would Ed Roberts have been able to secure a government grant to build the world's first personal computer, a virtually useless toy when it was introduced in 1974(例子)

Of course a government doing the least doesn't mean a government doing nothing at all. Moreover, the least is a moving and ever expanding target. The invention of the automobile, for example, necessitated driving rules and a system of vehicle inspections. The growth of air travel required a system to control traffic and certify the airworthiness(n.耐飞性) of aircraft. Similarly, radio and television required a system to regulate the use of the airwaves.(例子)

Modern technology created new forms of pollution that did not exist in agrarian economies. Governments had to step in, in one way or the other, to make it unrewarding to pollute. Likewise, antitrust laws(反托拉斯法) to control commercial interactions and conduct emerged after new technologies created opportunities to realise economies of scale and scope—and realise oligopoly(寡头市场，也称寡头垄断) or monopoly profits. These opportunities were largely absent in pre-industrial economies.

But the principle of the least is best remains a true compass. New technologies not only create the need for desirable new rules, they but also generate more opportunities for unwarranted(没有根据的) meddling and a cover for rent-seeking. It is one thing for the Federal Aviation Administration(联邦航空局) to manage the air traffic control system, quite another for the Civil Aeronautics Board(n.(美国)民间航空局;民用航空局) (b. 1938, d. 1985) to regulate airfares(机票价), routes and schedules. The construction of the interstate highway system may have been a great boon(恩惠) to the US economy, for example, but it did not take long for Congress to start appropriating funds for bridges to nowhere.(绝路桥)

Entrepreneurial leaps into the dark are best sustained by great caution in expanding the scope of government intervention; the private virtue of daring can be a public vice.(再一次virtue和vice的对比) The US chief justice has often repeated the maxim(n.格言; 座右铭): "If it is not necessary to decide an issue to resolve a case, then it is necessary not to decide that issue." Similarly, if it is not necessary to intervene to promote innovation, it should be considered necessary not to intervene. The government should focus on things that private enterprise simply cannot provide and stay away from promoting activities that would allegedly be undersupplied.(这不就是ISSUE题么~)
If nothing, this maxim frees up resources for crucial public goods. So traffic police, emission rules and carbon taxes: absolutely. Subsidising networks of hydrogen pumps and new engine or battery technologies: no thanks.(结尾蛮有意思的~)

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

词汇:
innumerable(无数的, 数不清的)
sectarian(宗派的, 派系的)
wondrous(adj.出色的; 完美的)
underpinned(支撑，支持)
prowess(非凡的才能)
omnipotent(adj.全能的, 权力无限的)
visionary(空想的；幻想的)
fiascos(惨败)
tellingly(有效地，显著地)
scant(不足的，贫乏的)
pecuniary(adj.金钱的, 金钱上的
exhilaration(高兴，兴奋)
try out(试验)
exceptional(优越的，杰出的)
diffused(散布的，普及的，扩散的)
entails(使承担，使成为必要，需要)
circumscribed(vt.在…周围画线划定…范围; 限制, 限定)
Mandating(n.命令，指令)
trigonometry(n.三角法)
savants(n.博学之士, 学者, 专家)
autonomous(自治的；独立自主的)
foretell(vt.预言; 预示
savvy(机智的，有常识的)
nonconformist(不墨守成规的人)
pivotal(关键的)
unwarranted(没有根据的)
meddling
airfares(机票价)
boon(恩惠)
maxim(n.格言; 座右铭)
shopfloor workers(车间工人)
multifaceted(多层面的)
专有名词:
promised land(上帝允许给亚伯拉罕的地方;乐土,福地,希望之乡)
IOUs((=I owe you) n.借据)
cutting-edge(刃口，尖端，前沿)
antitrust laws(反托拉斯法)
oligopoly(寡头市场，也称寡头垄断)
monopoly
Federal Aviation Administration(联邦航空局)
Civil Aeronautics Board(n.(美国)民间航空局;民用航空局

bridges to nowhere.(绝路桥)

Native 表达:
go beyond..
material or pecuniary(adj.金钱的, 金钱上的) rewards
Indeed they go hand in hand
put their finger on the scale(天平)

The apparent duplication of autonomous(自治的；独立自主的) initiative isn't a waste: no one can foretell(vt.预言; 预示) what is going to work.

Even the most successful venture-capital companies have more misses than hits. (记住记住)

raises the odds

Yet history shows that it is often the nonconformist(不墨守成规的人) outsiders who play a pivotal(关键的) role.

in one way or the other

But the principle of the least is best remains a true compass.
interstate highway system

the private virtue of daring can be a public vice.(再一次virtue和vice的对比)
结构:
Innovation now attracts innumerable(无数的, 数不清的) worshippers but their prayers are often quite narrow and sectarian(宗派的, 派系的). (这个开头也不错)
And in spite of its extraordinary concentration of scientific and engineering talent and entrepreneurship

The measure of a good economy lies in the satisfaction it provides to the many, not a few, not in the wealth or accomplishment of a few individuals or organisations.(不错的句子)


例子: 划线句

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The opposition's opening remarks

Mar 22nd 2010 | David Sandalow

Governments spur innovation. Governments shape innovation. (排比排比~) Many of the most important innovations in recent decades grew from the work of governments.

In 1965, a US government employee named Bob Taylor had an idea about how computers could communicate. He took the idea to his boss Charles Herzfeld, head of the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), who invested government funds in exploring it. That investment led to the ARPAnet(阿帕网(美国官方的电脑网络，为Internet的前身)(=Advanced Research Projects Agency Network)) and, in turn, to the internet, without which so many things (including this online debate) would not be possible.(政府促进创新的例子)

An isolated example? Hardly. Among the innovations that grew directly from government funding are the Google search engine, GPS devices, DNA mapping, inexpensive mass data storage and even Teflon.(继续例子)

Why is government important to innovation?

First, because the private sector underinvests(未能投资足够的钱，投资不足) in fundamental research(基础理论研究). That is natural. Time horizons(时间范围) in many businesses are short. Few companies are in a position to capture benefits from fundamental research they might fund on their own. In many fields, fundamental research requires resources available only to governments and the largest companies. As Professor Henry Chesbrough documents in his book "Open Innovation", the big corporate research labs of decades past have given way to(让位于，让步，代替) more distributed approaches to innovation. That gets many technologies to market faster, but at the expense of fundamental research. Without government support for such research, the seed corn for future generations would be at risk.

Second, because innovation depends on an educated workforce, which is a job for governments. Biomedical research requires medical technicians. Energy research requires engineers. Computer research requires programmers.(排比小王子)Although private companies often provide specialised training, an educated workforce is the essential starting point. Primary and secondary education is a vital precursor(n 先驱；先兆【反】sequela（n 后继者）) to much innovation. That is a job for governments everywhere. And universities play a central role, with training of promising young innovators often made possible by government funding.

Third, because market failures stifle(v 使窒息而死；抑止（声音、愤怒等）【反】foment（v 煽动）；foster（v 养育；鼓励）) innovative technologies. The recent financial crisis choked off(使 ... 中断，停止，使窒息) capital for innovators. Without governments stepping in to provide backstop support, thousands of promising innovations would have been lost due to the unrelated vagaries(奇特行为，变幻莫测) of failing financial markets. There are many other examples. Lack of capital and information prevents homeowners from investing in energy-saving technologies with very short payback periods. Split(分散的) incentives between architects, builders, landlords and tenants(房客，佃户) prevent widespread adoption of similar technologies in commercial buildings. Governments have a central role in overcoming these barriers, and more.

Fourth, because government policies and standards can lay a strong foundation for innovation. Last century, the United States benefited from government policies requiring near universal access to electricity and telephone services, laying the groundwork(基础，根基) for a vibrant(生机勃勃的【反】ponderous adj 沉重的；沉闷的) consumer electronics industry. This century, Finland and Korea (among others) are benefiting from government policies to promote broadband access, helping position each country for global leadership in a vast global market. New technologies require standards that allow them to operate within larger systems. The NTSC(National Television Standards Committee (美国)国家电视标准委员会) television broadcast standard, 110V AC current and FHA housing loans, to pick just three examples, each helped market actors coordinate, encouraging innovation. Or consider Israel, which has a teeming(丰富的，充满的) innovation culture in which the Israeli government plays a central role, providing the foundation for startups that commercialise civilian uses of military technologies in materials, semiconductors, medical devices and communications.

Finally, because governments help make sure innovation delivers public benefits. Not all innovation is good. Collateralised debt obligations(CDOs, 抵押债务债券) were an important financial innovation. Yet as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, financial markets cannot be relied upon to self-regulate innovation. As government encourages and promotes innovation, it also has a role in guiding it.

In the academic literature on innovation, the number of patents(adj 显而易见的；n 专利权（证书）) issued(注意动词) in a country is often used as a proxy(代理权，代表权；代理人) for the rate of innovation. Patents are, of course, issued by governments. As this suggests, governments play a central role in innovation.

In his inaugural address(就任演说), President Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…" That should guide us in(注意这个介词) thinking about this motion. The notion that "Innovation works best when government does least" is simplistic(过分简单化的) and wrong. There may be instances in which government meddling chokes off innovation. (Past US government restrictions on stem cell research come to mind.) Yet governments can and do play a central role in spurring innovation and making sure innovation delivers(bring的native表达) benefits. We should embrace government's role in innovation, always seeking to refine(提纯；精炼；使高雅) and improve it, not diminish it with broad generalities.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

词汇:
precursor n .先驱；先兆
【反】sequela（n 后继者）
stifle:v.使窒息而死；抑止（声音、愤怒等）
【反】foment（v 煽动）；foster（v 养育；鼓励）)
vagaries:n.奇想；反复无常的行为
【参】vagabond（adj 流浪的；n 流浪者）；vagrant（n 游民）
【类】vagary:predict＝impossibility:execute＝indemonstrable:prove＝acme:surpass＝diehard:budge奇异的想法无法预测＝不可能的事无法执行＝不能证明的无法证明＝顶峰无法超越＝固执的人无法动摇")
vibrant:生机勃勃的
【反】ponderous adj 沉重的；沉闷的
【类】fear:cower＝anger:rant畏缩是害怕的表现＝咆哮是愤怒的表现
patents:adj 显而易见的；n 专利权（证书）
【反】not evident（不明显的）；abstruse（adj 奥妙的）；nuance（n 细微差别）－patent difference（明显差别）；occult（adj 神秘的）；recondite（adj 深奥的）"
refine:提纯；精炼；使高雅
【类】winnow:wheat＝refine:oil扬谷纯化小麦＝精练纯化油refine:purification＝attenuate:rarefaction提纯的目的是纯化＝使稀薄的目的是稀薄lustrous:polish＝pure:refine磨光使有光泽的＝提纯使纯的
【反】reduce purity（降低纯度）"
teeming(丰富的，充满的)
tenants(房客，佃户)
given way to(让位于，让步，代替)
choked off(使 ... 中断，停止，使窒息)
Split(分散的)
groundwork(基础，根基)
proxy(代理权，代表权；代理人)
simplistic(过分简单化的)
underinvests(未能投资足够的钱，投资不足)
专有名词:
Time horizons(时间范围)
ARPAnet(阿帕网(美国官方的电脑网络，为Internet的前身)(=Advanced Research Projects Agency Network))
fundamental research(基础理论研究)
NTSC(National Television Standards Committee (美国)国家电视标准委员会)
Collateralised debt obligations(CDOs,
抵押债务债券)
inaugural address(就任演说)
Native 表达:
the seed corn for future generations
That is a job for governments everywhere
lay a strong foundation for
issued(注意动词) patent
guide sb in(注意这个介词) doing
delivers(bring的native表达) benefits
结构:
Governments spur innovation. Governments shape innovation. (排比排比~)
Biomedical research requires medical technicians. Energy research requires engineers. Computer research requires programmers.(排比小王子)
例子: 划线句

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Rebuttal statements

Defending the motion

Amar Bhidé

Visiting Scholar, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Should we have a few decision-makers with no skin in the game placing bets on their favoured technologies rather than many independent innovators staking their time and money on a chance that their offering will beat the status quo?

Against the motion

David Sandalow

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, US Department of Energy

Classic government functions such as basic research, education and patent protection are central to innovation. Would innovation "work best" with less of such things? Quite the contrary.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Featured guest

John Kao

The proposition on the table carries for me some of the flavour of a medieval theological(神学的=theologic) debate. On the one extreme are those who invoke(祈求；恳求) an invisible market hand that should rule and generate innovations free of interference from government. On the other hand are those who look to knowledgeable, action-oriented government stakeholders(利益关联者) to address every one of society's ills.

The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle. And to get at the truth, it is important to distinguish between what I would call a dictionary or enterprise definition of innovation, creativity applied to a purpose to realise value, and what I have recently taken to call "large-scale" innovation, new sources of societal value that emerge from the blended capabilities of public, private and NGO sectors as well as civil society.

We would not want government telling the inventor in their garage(车库) what to do (the enterprise model of innovation). However, in my view, government cannot help being involved in innovation at a large scale. In every country I am aware of, government regulates health care, provides for the national defence, influences education policy and pursues societal moonshots(月球探测器)—both literally and figuratively.

As an example, a national security agenda taken as a whole(作为一个整体来看) requires continuous innovation (we need to be smarter/faster than the other guy). Yet simply picking over(挑选(把好的挑出来)) the fruits of invisible-hand, market-driven innovation might not have led to the development of stealth(n 秘密行动；秘密) technology, Kevlar or even the internet, all fruits from the efforts of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The case of DARPA, which is a part of the US federal government, is instructive(教育性的，有启发的，有益的) because its purpose is to champion the kind of long-range, higher-risk innovation initiatives that might lead to game-changers. One assumption at the heart of(关键) DARPA's raison d'etre(<法>存在的目的或理由) is that the government mainstream, left entirely to its own devices, might not generate relevant innovation for a variety of reasons (bureaucracy, speed or lack thereof(由此,因此), lack of early-stage funding, inability to go outside its own mindset(心态,观念)). The other guiding assumption behind DARPA is that some kind of transmission system with seed investment(种子投资,即天使投资) and talent-scouting(发掘人才. 星探;人才发掘者) capability is needed to identify and bridge with promising technologies and talents outside the national security community.

My larger point should now be clear. Government has an inevitable role in shaping innovation. At the same time, we would be right not to trust omniscient(无所不知的) technocrats who believe they are the sole arbiters of what is worth putting on the agenda. Top-down, ivory-tower government is not what I am talking about: it is government's role in innovation. Modern history is replete(饱满的，塞满的) with expensive examples of how governments have got it wrong. Think Japan and supercomputers, for example.

I believe that government's appropriate role in innovation is rather as a catalyst(催化剂，促使事情发展的因素), a platform and a convener(会议召集人) to enable collaboration among a range of stakeholders from the public, private, NGO and societal sectors. The advent of web 2.0 is a great enabler(促进者) in fostering such collaboration with multiple vectors(引导;动力): bottom up, top down, inside out, outside in.(2对反义词,以示彻底性) Government also has a role in identifying the purposes to which innovation should be applied, creating the strategy for addressing them and providing resources as needed. And this, parenthetically(作为插入成分地,附带说明地), is why it is important for America to have a national innovation strategy, not as a warmed up, top-down version of industrial policy, but as a living, breathing strategic conversation among stakeholders to determine priorities, generate road maps(准则;指示;说明) and requirements, and create accountability.

The final point about government's inevitable role in innovation again returns to the optics of the large scale. Many of today's emerging waves of innovation—synthetic biology, alternative energy, health care informatics—will not be addressed by a few Silicon Valley venture capitalists making a few $5 million investments in the ventures of a few passionate entrepreneurs. Rather, they require bets of considerable size across a spectrum of opportunity. This is particularly true when one thinks about a next generation of societal services—health care and education, for example—that consume a significant portion of GDP and that require societal capabilities for prototyping and experimentation, research funding, large amounts of risk capital, human capital strategies and an enabling regulatory(管理的;控制的;调整的) environment to progress. Government is everywhere to be seen in this picture, but as a partner, not a dictator.

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

词汇:
theological(神学的=theologic)
invoke:v 祈求；恳求（恳切地请求）＝implore＝entreat＝solicit；行使（法律）
【记】in进入，voke喊－进门大喊－恳求
【参】invocation（n 祈祷）；revoke（vt 撤回；废除）
【反】suspend（v 暂停）
stealth:n 秘密行动；秘密
【类】furtive:stealth＝whimsical:caprice＝unsatisfied:discontent秘密的和秘密＝易变的和易变＝不满的和不满omniscient:无所不知的
【参】prescient（adj 预知的）；conscience（n 良心）
【反】vacuous（adj 空虚的）
replete(饱满的，塞满的)
catalyst: n.催化剂，促使事情发展的因素
【参】catalysis（n 催化作用）；catalytic（adj 催化的）
【类】enzyme:catalyst＝bacterium:microbe酶是一种催化剂＝细菌是一种微生物supervisor:oversight＝catalysis:initiate管理者小心照顾＝催化剂发动
【反】inhibitor（n 抑制剂）；catalyze（vt 催化）－retard（vt 延迟；使减速）/prevent（v 防止；预防）"
stakeholders(利益关联者)
garage(车库)
moonshots(月球探测器)
instructive(教育性的，有启发的，有益的)
thereof(由此,因此)
mindset(心态,观念)
convener(会议召集人)
enabler(促进者)
vectors(引导;动力)
parenthetically(作为插入成分地,附带说明地)
专有名词:
raison d'etre(<法>存在的目的或理由)
seed investment(种子投资,即天使投资)
talent-scouting(发掘人才. 星探;人才发掘者)
road maps(准则;指示;说明)
Native 表达:
On the one extreme…On the other hand
The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle.
applied to a purpose
In every country I am aware of
both literally and figuratively
taken as a whole(作为一个整体来看)
picking over(挑选(把好的挑出来)) the fruits of
at the heart of(关键)
be right not to trust
expensive examples
is rather as
has a role in
a spectrum of opportunity
Government is everywhere to be seen in this picture

The advent of web 2.0 is a great enabler(促进者) in fostering such collaboration with multiple vectors(引导;动力): bottom up, top down, inside out, outside in.(2对反义词,以示彻底性)

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | Mr Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran

Our online debate on the role of government in fostering innovation is off to(去，离开去某地) a fiery(激烈的,热烈的) start. Both sides are now offering their rebuttals, and, despite minor gestures of conciliation, it is clear that neither debater is really willing to concede much ground.

Amar Bhidé, arguing in favour of the proposition, takes on the favourite example offered up in defence of government funding of innovation: the creation of ARPAnet, the precursor(先驱者，前辈，前体) to today's internet. Yes, he accepts, government funding did play an essential role in this example. But he then points to Minitel(迷你电脑网), a French government network that also had grand ambitions, cost billions but ultimately proved a turkey. Indeed, it held France back from embracing the internet, the obvious winner of that technology race. "Should we have a few decision makers with no skin in the game placing bets on their favoured technologies rather than many independent innovators staking their time and money?", he asks.

Arguing against the proposition, David Sandalow offers a robust defence of government's role in fostering innovation. It is not only classical governmental functions such as patent protection, education and basic research that he defends. He takes on the charge that government must not pick technology winners, insisting that the American government's efforts to spur investments in battery technology are justified in part because of the externalities associated with energy use are not recognised by the market framework. Not only is government intervention required to internalise those social costs, he insists, but only can the wise hand of the state "guide innovation toward socially beneficial purposes".

The battle lines are drawn. Our combatants are intellectually clear on their differences, and not afraid to attack the other side's weaknesses. Which side do you believe has the upper hand? Cast your vote now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
词汇:
precursor:先驱者，前辈，前体
【记】pre前，curs跑，or－在前面跑的人－先驱
【反】sequela（n 后继者）
fiery(激烈的,热烈的)
externalities: 外部经济效果---internalise: 使内在化
专有名词:
Minitel(迷你电脑网)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
Native 表达:
proved a turkey
Arguing against
is off to(去，离开去某地)

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | Amar Bhidé

Mr Sandalow's assertion that Google's search engine "grew directly from government funding" is puzzling. I was once a satisfied user of Alta Vista search. In 1999 I switched to Google mainly because its interface(界面，接口) was much cleaner and to some degree its results were better related to my queries. In what way did the government fund the idea of the cleaner interface? And as my friend Jim Manzi, a contributing(贡献的，起作用的) editor at National Review, and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute puts it, which Federal Department of Critical Insight caused Google co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin to think about the "page rank(网页评级)" algorithm(【数】互除法;演算法;规则系统)?

The Google case in fact underlines the importance of decentralized(分散的) innovation that is not directed by the government. Alta Vista was on the surface(表面上) (此结构表强调)a perfectly satisfactory search engine. Two graduate students figured out on their own how to make it better in aesthetic(美学的，审美的，有美感的/n. (复数)审美观) and non-technical ways without having to curry favour with(巴结(讨好，拍马屁)) funding agencies.

Mr Sandalow is on firmer(稳定的，坚固的) ground in pointing out that the internet evolved from the Pentagon-funded ARPAnet. But think of France's grand Minitel scheme. Starting in 1982, the state-owned telephone company gave away(赠送；泄露) millions of free Minitel terminals, which could be used to make online purchases and train reservations, trade stocks, look up phone numbers and chat. Just like the internet. Except it wasn't quite as good or versatile(多功能的，万用的). Worse, Minitel held back the adoption of the internet and France's entry into the information age, as Lionel Jospin, French prime minister, pointed out in 1997. Yet by then Minitel had acquired a life of its own: in 2000 France Telecom poured money as never before into a publicity campaign to promote a service widely recognised to be obsolete.( 废弃的，过时的)
(政府妨碍创新的例子)

What accounts for the difference between the success of the internet and the failure of Minitel? It seems unlikely that it is because the French are worse at managing large publicly funded projects. Compared with the Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV)(巴黎|里昂间高速火车), Amtrak's Acela is a bad dream.

It could be bad luck, since all innovative projects are a gamble. But then do we want the government to be gambling with taxpayers' money? Should we have a few decision-makers with no skin in the game(不怎么懂~) placing bets on their favoured technologies rather than many independent innovators staking their time and money on a chance that their offering will beat the status quo(现状)?

The difference between ARPAnet's and Minitel's ambitions also is noteworthy(值得注意的). ARPAnet was not a grandiose scheme(雄伟的计划) to create a ubiquitous(无所不在的，普通的) national network. Rather the project involved a small number of players and was undertaken to advance the Pentagon's(五角大楼) mission(这是怎么个搭配法？). Very likely this helped limit the risks of overreach.

Now of course the Pentagon's mission of ensuring national security is vital and cannot be outsourced to private enterprise. And technology is a paramount(最重要的,好词,记着) ingredient of modern defence. It is inevitable, therefore, that the Pentagon is an important high-tech buyer and (like any large customer) helps shape the new technologies it wants. Which is as it should be, and not at all inconsistent(不一致的) with the principle of limited government. Conversely debacles like Minitel are likely to occur when governmental bodies go beyond their assigned, essential roles.

【很尖锐的指出了阿帕网发展的源动力】

And although ARPAnet's contribution was valuable, it is far from certain(还远不能确定) that without Pentagon funding, there would have been no internet.(这个论点excellent!) The telephone network was in its time every bit as(全部，完全) revolutionary. Yet Alexander Bell invented the telephone and Theodore Vail created a nearly universal nationwide network with no military or other developmental grants. Similarly Thomas Edison became the most prodigious(惊人的,注意搭配) inventor in American history without a receiving penny in research subsidies.(都是很有力的例子)

History also shows that unlike say national defence or air traffic control, a significant governmental role is not essential even for fundamental research. Revolutionary advances occurred even when government funding for scientific research was minimal(最小的，最低限度的). Darwin's research on evolution, Michael Faraday's work on electromagnetism and electro-chemistry, Newton's discoveries of calculus and the laws of motion were all done without government grants. In 1905 Albert Einstein produced four path-breaking papers—on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy—while employed as an examiner at the Swiss patent office.(例子~不过咋感觉最后一句话好熟~)

A common argument made in favour of government subsidies for fundamental research is that contributions that the likes or Darwin, Faraday, Newton and Einstein might make on their own are not enough. Mr Sandalow asserts, for instance, that the private sector naturally under-invests in fundamental research because profit-seeking businesses cannot fully capture the returns. First off(终于又找到一个首先了…), the private sector is not all for-profit. A great deal of basic research is done through private resources (such as foundations) that do not seek to maximise financial return.

And who is to say how much and what kind of investment in basic research is right? There is a vast range of valuable knowledge whose returns accrue more to society as a whole than to the producers of the knowledge. In medicine, creating routines to ensure that surgeons wash their hands before they operate is no less valuable a public good than decoding the genome.(好牛叉的例子) IBM's development of a professional sales process, which was then adopted throughout the high-tech industry, was as vital to the diffusion of information technology as the discovery of the transistor(晶体管) principle. Virtually every day I turn to the internet to learn about how to solve computer problems that other users have discovered and share it at no charge.(再结合自身,真是齐全啊)

Of course these different kinds of knowledge are rarely perfectly in balance. Sometimes fundamental science runs ahead of concrete user-generated knowledge, for instance, and sometimes it is the other way round. But that is not an argument for turning to government. If the brightest and the best economists at the Fed(美国联邦储备局) continue to assert that a large nationwide housing bubble was unrecognisable, which government agency can we charge with identifying and correcting these subtle knowledge imbalances? Why not trust the autonomous(自治的；独立自主的), competing judgements of for- and not-for profit innovators seeking fame, fortune or excitement while the government focuses on those activities that only it can perform?

词汇:
contributing(贡献的，起作用的)
aesthetic(美学的，审美的，有美感的/n. (复数)审美观)
versatile(多功能的，万用的)
obsolete.( 废弃的，过时的)
grandiose scheme(雄伟的计划)
ubiquitous(无所不在的，普通的)
paramount(最重要的,好词,记着)
interface(界面，接口)
algorithm(【数】互除法;演算法;规则系统)
decentralized(分散的)
gave away(赠送；泄露)
noteworthy(值得注意的)
inconsistent(不一致的)
minimal(最小的，最低限度的)
transistor(晶体管)
autonomous(自治的；独立自主的)
专有名词:
page rank(网页评级)
http://www.hudong.com/wiki/page%20rank
Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV)(巴黎|里昂间高速火车)
Amtrak's Acela:阿西乐快线 (Acela Express) 是美铁推出的新式快车服务，从波士顿到纽约只需3个小时
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Fed(美国联邦储备局)
Pentagon's(五角大楼)
Native 表达:
on the surface(表面上) (此结构表强调)
curry favour with(巴结(讨好，拍马屁))
on firmer(稳定的，坚固的) ground
as never before
status quo(现状)
a paramount(最重要的,好词,记着) ingredient of modern defence.
is far from certain(还远不能确定)
The telephone network was in its time every bit as(全部，完全) revolutionary.
prodigious(惊人的,注意搭配) inventor
First off(终于又找到一个首先了…)
例子: 划线句

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | David Sandalow

In his defence of the notion that government should do "least", Amar Bhidé states his support for carbon taxes, emissions rules, pollution rules more broadly, vehicle inspections, air traffic control, aircraft certification, spectrum(光谱；范围) regulation and antitrust laws. He notes that construction of the US interstate highway system (one of the largest government projects of modern times by some metrics(度量标准)) was a boon to the US economy.

Professor Bhidé and I have common ground.

We have disagreements, to be sure, which I will come to in a moment. But before doing so, it is worth pausing for a moment on the motion, which asks whether "innovation works best when government does least". I applaud Professor Bhidé's recognition of the many benefits government provides, yet note that this might be seen to sit oddly with his call for minimal government.

In fact this is quite typical. Words criticising government seem often to be combined with grateful acceptance of government services. In the United States, this regular part of the political dialogue may have reached its zenith(极高点) last summer when a man at a town hall meeting in South Carolina told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". Now to be 100% clear, I am not ascribing(归因于，归咎于) such views or confusion to Professor Bhidé. But I note that—especially in the United States—there is a deep cultural tendency to denigrate(污蔑，诽谤) government even as government's many benefits are routinely enjoyed.

This is not harmless. When government is repeatedly cast as the problem without celebrating its many contributions, support for government erodes. Over time, the ability of government to deliver benefits withers((使)干枯，(使)枯萎). Services that are best or even uniquely provided by government are abandoned. California's public schools, for example, have slid(下滑) in the past several decades from one of the nation's best to among its worst, the victim of severe limits on the ability of local governments in the state to raise funds for this classic governmental function.(例子)

This brings us to Professor Bhidé's argument. He notes that, despite Silicon Valley's high-tech prowess, "the State of California pays its bills in IOUs.". Well, yes, but not because Silicon Valley entrepreneurs failed to create jobs or improve the quality of life, but because state laws limiting the ability of the people of California to fund their government collided with(与…相碰撞) a deep recession and expectations from those same people for continued government services.

Professor Bhidé is on equally shaky ground in his assertions regarding Israel (often praised for its innovation culture) and neighbouring countries. He is wrong in asserting that GDP per head in Israel is lower than in Cyprus or Slovenia, at least according to WTO figures. But more to the point(更重要的是), innovation is of course just one determinant(决定因素) of GDP.

Countries have different comparative advantages, including location, resource wealth and stable legal systems. They may (and often do) adopt growth-limiting policies unrelated to innovation. After flourishing in the 1980s thanks in part to(注意表达) innovations in its manufacturing sector, Japan floundered(挣扎) in the 1990s due in part to(注意表达) problems in its financial sector. Yet the benefits of those innovations were still very real.

A substantial body of economic literature demonstrates that innovation is correlated with GDP growth. Indeed for his work on this topic, Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize. (例证) Solow's work suggests that innovation is more important to GDP growth than capital accumulation or increases in the labour market. If governments have it within their power to enhance the rate of innovation, the benefits of doing so would be huge.

And they do. Classic government functions such as basic research, education and patent protection are central to(重要的) innovation. Would innovation "work best" with less of such things? Quite the contrary.

Government funding of basic research led to the creation of the internet, one of the greatest sources of innovation of all time. Government funding led to DNA mapping, a breakthrough revolutionising medicine. Government funding led to countless other advances in decades past, and could lead to many more in decades to come.(排比小王子~这句可以记着学学) Yet that will depend on adequate budgets. It will depend, crucially, on political support. It will depend on government doing more than the "least" to support innovation.(吐血啊~~我们都是些排比句~他老人家写排比段~他已经不是排比小王子了~他是排比他大爷~)

In his essay, Professor Bhidé takes particular aim at government funding for batteries. In one respect, this is tangential(切线的；离题的) to the main argument. One could easily believe that government programmes to promote development and deployment(部署，展开) of advanced batteries are misguided, yet agree that innovation overall deserves strong government support. But I happen to believe there is a strong case for government work on batteries, so will take this opportunity to explain why.

Modern energy systems are in many ways a marvel(奇迹). Yet they impose social costs, which could be reduced by cutting pollution from electricity generation and diversifying the fuel mix in vehicles. Better energy storage technologies would help with both objectives.

Solar and wind power, for example, can help cut pollution. Yet those technologies are limited by their intermittency(时断时续，断续性，间歇性): they produce no power when the wind stops blowing or day turns to night. Advances in energy storage could help overcome these problems.

Electric vehicles can help diversify the fuel mix in transport. Yet their advance is limited by high costs and short driving range. Better batteries are the solution.

Government could simply stand back, letting the market decide whether to invest in advances in energy storage. But the market does not recognise the social costs from pollution. It won't fund basic research in adequate amounts. It won't educate children and university students, who form the next generation of innovators. Government is essential to overcome these problems—and more.

What is government's role? To fund basic research. To educate the citizenry. To establish patent protection, helping ensure adequate incentives for invention. To set the regulatory framework, so externalities(外部性) such as those created by pollution are incorporated into market decisions. To help technologies facing sunk-cost(滞留成本) competitors get to market. To guide innovation toward socially beneficial purposes. (排比他大爷呀~这段可以学学)

For innovation to work best, government needs to do much more than the "least". It must bring its many strengths to the field of play. We should recognise and embrace government's role in innovation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

词汇:
spectrum
n 光谱（根据波长来排定的能量分布）；（活动等的）范围
【记】spect看，rum－看到颜色－光谱
【参】spectral（adj 光谱的；鬼怪的）
【类】color:spectrum＝tone:scale各种颜色组成光谱＝各种音调组成音阶
boon
n 恩惠（有益的并且及时的赐予，尤指答复请求时的赐予）＝benevolence＝largess
【例】Radio is a boon to the blind   收音机是对盲人的恩惠。
【记】1）从moon月亮上得到boon恩惠－嫦娥2）bon好，boon特别好－恩惠
【反】misfortune（n 灾祸，不幸）
zenith(极高点)

n 天顶；最高点
【记】读：ze你死，从zenith上掉下来你就会死。
【反】nadir（n 天底；最低点）；lowest point（最低点）"

ascribing(归因于，归咎于)
denigrate

v 污蔑（人格或名誉）；诽谤＝defame＝blacken＝belittle
【记】de加强语义，nigr黑一弄黑一诽谤de向下，ni你，grate＝great：使你的伟大向下－侮蔑
【参】negrophile（n 同黑人友好者）；nigrify（v 使变黑）；denigration（n 诋毁，贬低＝belittlement）
【反】honor（vt 尊敬；给以荣誉）；exalt（v 晋升）

wither

v （因失去水分而）枯萎；凋零
【记】weather不好，植物就会wither。
【类】dehydrate:water＝wither:vitality脱水使水分降低＝枯萎使活力降低
【反】burgeon（n /v 发芽）；revive（v 复活）

determinant(决定因素)
flounder(挣扎)

v 挣扎（尝试着移动或重获平衡）；笨重地移动；n 比目鱼（有侧扁的身体，两眼位于上侧：flow under的结果）＝flatfish
【记】flo＝flow，under：在水下面没有氧气瓶－挣扎
【类】flounder:process   挣扎是困难地行进
【反】act gracefully（优雅地动）；slide（v /n 滑行）"

tangential(切线的；离题的)

adj 切线的；离题的；不相关的
【记】tang＝tag接触，ent－和圆接触的线－切线，离圆心比较远－离题
【反】essential（adj 本质的）
marvel(奇迹)

n 奇迹；v 大为惊异
【反】mean（n / adj 低劣的；卑鄙的）；pedestrian（adj 通俗的）－marvelous（adj 引起惊异的）

takes particular aim at
slid(下滑)
metrics(度量标准)
collided with(与…相碰撞)
deployment(部署，展开)
intermittency(时断时续，断续性，间歇性)
专有名词:
externalities(外部性)
sunk-cost(滞留成本)
Native 表达:
sit oddly with
regular part
on equally shaky ground
more to the point(更重要的是)
thanks in part to(注意表达)
due in part to(注意表达)
is correlated with
have it within their power
are central to(重要的)
there is a strong case for
Modern energy systems are in many ways a marvel(奇迹).
结构:
Government funding led to countless other advances in decades past, and could lead to many more in decades to come.(排比小王子~这句可以记着学学)
例子: 划线句

xingfuhbjUID：2769976

Closing statements

Defending the motion

Amar Bhidé

Visiting Scholar, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

People must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee(裁判员；仲裁者)rather than be a dispenser(分配者) of rewards or even a judge of economic merit(功绩，价值，优点) or contribution. Picking winners—this technology or that developer—which is an inevitable consequence of expansive(易膨胀的，易扩张的) schemes such as Mr Sandalow's, makes us all losers.

Against the motion

David Sandalow

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, US Department of Energy

Will government sometimes make mistakes? Of course. So does the private sector. Innovation is about taking risks. There may be times when government should do less, but there will never be a time when it should do the "least". (好句!)Government has unique and powerful abilities to promote innovation. We should recognise and embrace them.