[1010G]【决战2010阅读贴】by lxin333

lxin333UID: 2650844

第一次动手做ECONOMIST
决定从debate开始 有针对性的为AW准备做积累工作

批注
红色 重点单词
蓝色 词组
下划线 句子
橙色 例子
（括号) 点评

lxin333UID: 2650844

下面这个参考用的。。。
☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debates阅读写作分析-----Mass intelligencehttps://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=949685&highlight=

接着学习toywang同学

组里的朋友们做的阅读贴做一个连接。这样就可以学习别人的了4 g, O& K5 ]+ a% U

whiteout https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1081786-1-1.html PDF格式
weili0612 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081461&extra
kingwyf87 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081580&page=1&extra
missingqiqi  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081596&page=1#pid1773815710
huan19880122  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081845&extra
橘子汁 https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1082345-1-1.html
cnycny  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081533&page=1#pid1773815145
bridgerain  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1082095&page=1&extra
weasel   https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1082770-1-1.html
blynn  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081482&page=1&extra=#pid1773814573
nanfeng  https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1082265-1-1.html
showkid  https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1082624-1-1.html
maggie  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1082643&pid=1773825371&page=1&extra=#pid1773825371
yuanlinqinggre  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081668&extra=
zmssghh   https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1081839&extra=
xingfuhbj   https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1082213&extra
toywang   https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1081738-1-1.html

lxin333UID: 2650844

后备楼。。。

lxin333UID: 2650844

INNOVATION

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/168

About this debate
What is the right role for government in spurring innovation? 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提供资金支持 into politically popular projects rather than the most deserving ones. The other rebuts反驳 that given the grave global challenges 考虑到严峻的全球挑战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 大范围恐慌—governments need to do much more to support innovation.

The proposer's opening remarks
Amar Bhidé

Innovation now attracts innumerable worshippers but their prayers are often quite narrow and sectarian.
比喻Silicon Valley or possibly the Israeli high-tech industry is the promised land 希望之乡: a wondrous combination of private high-tech enterprise underpinned by government-financed universities and research labs.XX和XX之间非常好的结合

This is, alas, a dubious无把握的
怀疑的 conception of paradise.（不错的metaphor） For all the high-tech prowess非凡的能力 of Silicon Valley, the economy of California is on the edge of disaster. Unemployment in eight counties now tops 20% and the government pays its bills in IOUs（借据 =I owe you）. And in spite of its extraordinary concentration of scientific and engineering talent and entrepreneurship创业精神, Israel's GDP per head（指人?） in 2009 was lower than of Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia.

Or remember Japan's omnipotent, visionary MITI working hand and glove with 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. More tellingly有效地
显著的, Hong Kong's GNP per head is nearly 30% higher than Japan's, 24% higher than Germany's and 505% higher than Israel's.
（put aside…more tellingly ） Yet Hong Kong's government and private businesses pay scant attention to cutting-edge scientific and technological research.

The techno-fetishist view of innovation主语 and the kind of government support主语
（it demands） fails to appreciate谓语 the enormous variety of innovations （that we need）宾语.(不知道理解错没有，可是读不懂)
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. And these satisfactions go beyond the material or pecuniary rewards earned: they include, for instance, the exhilaration 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 new things: not just scientists and engineers but also graphic artists, shopfloor workers, salespersons and advertising agencies; not just the developers of new products but their venturesome consumers. The exceptional performance of a few high-tech businesses, as the Silicon Valley and Israeli examples show, is just not enough.

This widely diffused, multifaceted form of innovation entails a circumscribed role for governments: they should not to put their finger on the scale bribing people to do basic research instead of, say, the kind of graphics design that has made Apple such an iconic company. Mandating more math and science in high schools when most of us never use trigonometry 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.

Yes, there is a problem with global warming, but that is best solved by innumerable tinkerers新手 taking their chances with renewable energy and resourceful conservation, not by throwing money at projects that a few savants have determined to be the most promising. The apparent duplication of autonomous initiative isn't a waste: no one can foretell what is going to work. Even the most successful venture-capital companies have more misses than hits不懂. 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, credentials and connections with politicians or the scientific establishment are at a severe disadvantage. Yet history shows that it is often the nonconformist outsiders who play a pivotal 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?

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 of aircraft. Similarly, radio and television required a system to regulate the use of the airwaves.


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 to control commercial interactions and conduct emerged after new technologies created opportunities to realise economies of scale and scope—and realise oligopoly 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 meddling and a cover for rent-seeking. It is one thing for the Federal Aviation Administration to manage the air traffic control system, quite another for the Civil Aeronautics Board (b. 1938, d. 1985) to regulate airfares, routes and schedules. （it is one thing…quite another for…）The construction of the interstate highway system may have been a great boon to the US economy, for example, but it did not take long for Congress to start appropriating funds for bridges to nowhere.

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. The US chief justice has often repeated the maxim: "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. 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.

lxin333UID: 2650844

en

lxin333UID: 2650844

~

lxin333UID: 2650844

第二个debate

lxin333UID: 2650844

~

lxin333UID: 2650844

china's leaders

lxin333UID: 2650844

Greece's woes

暗翼UID: 2658347

这个该怎么做？
求教...

lxin333UID: 2650844

11# 暗翼
这个东西。。。因人而异吧
不过目前最主要就是做debate 看了你就会发现这个对issue有帮助的。。。斑竹说的。。。。。。。
怎么做 你可以看我上面的链接 有其他人做的 我自己还没做多少 可能还不太有参考价值
我认为主要是 学习debate里面思维，比如逻辑性，严谨性啥的
然后可以积累些例子，词句，以后写作文拿来装装样子~还有就是练阅读了

暗翼UID: 2658347

12# lxin333
谢谢~！
我也开始做啦~！