ISSUE56球拍

hudu464UID: 2512268

ISSUE56

"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."

The quotation above is reasonable to me, insofar as it admit the importance of solving the immediate problems of today. I agree with this assertion, subject to the proviso that anticipated problems of the future would not be abandoned from the government agenda. While the anticipated problems of the future do cause concerns and worries, the immediate problems of today, however, should be prioritized in the to-do list of governments, not because today's problems are more destructive but because of its logical connection with
future problems and governments' higher efficiency in solving them.

Most of the anticipated problems of the future could be logically attributed to the unsolved immediate problems of today, and boundary between them is permeable. In other words, solving the immediate problems of today is in some way preventing the advent of future problems. One revealing example in economic development would be made. Unemployment is one of the most immediate problems now in the United States, which probably is number one issue that keep the president awake at night because he is well aware of its predictable consequences. People who lost their jobs would not have enough money to pay mortgage and would consume less. As a result, continuous foreclosures and sapping consumer spending make the struggling economy even worse. To solve that, governments resort to stimulus package not only to employ more workers but also to prevent another round of economic crisis in the future. In this case, the boundary between immediate and future problems is not transparent in this circumstance. An anticipated problem is easy to define, but not how quickly it would transform to an immediate one. The financial crisis we've seen from last year is an alarming warning that how far a immediate problem can bring us to. Should those financial institutions and the Federal Reserve took early measures to address immediate need to liquidate those bad assets, and we probably could escape from this financial tsunami. Bearing this logical connection between the two types of problems in mind, governments should provide better solution in solving an immediate problem of today that could cause future concerns.

Meanwhile, many people may think, include me, that solving these overlapping problems alone would not be sufficient to sweep away all our worries towards the future. This kind of worry, however, does not automatically suggest that government should spare no effort to address every foreseeable problem in the future, even at the expense of ignoring today's problems. This suggestion would be unrealistic, even naive given the scarce funding and limited resources governments are granted. Reality like this highlights the importance of efficiency, in which solving the immediate problems of today win over attempting to solve anticipated future problem. Efficiency is hard to measure unless we have a clear evaluation tool, which is unlikely to happen for government's capacity to solve future problems. The ambiguity of the evaluation comes from the very definition of the "future problem". How many years away we can call it "future"? To what extent a possible scenario constitute a "problem"? Is the concern that the earth would one day deplete with resources and become no longer inhabitable for human beings an anticipated future problem? If so, how can we evaluate the efficiency of governments' efficacy in addressing them? Can outpaces exploration be accountable? Read history one can find that seldom governments are evaluated or reviewed in how well they stop a war happened hundreds years later. Given this uncertainty, it is clear that evaluating governments' efficacy in solving immediate problem is less ambiguous and thus a higher efficiency is more likely to be achieved. It indicates that money, energy and resources could be better allocated in solving immediate problems.

As presented in my analysis, I think it is safe to conclude that government should give more credence to solving the immediate problems where a considerable amount of future problems lie in, and this sense of priority could lead to a more efficient allocation of limited public resources.

niyinanUID: 2693578

"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."
The quotation above is reasonable to me, insofar as it admit the importance of solving the immediate problems of today. I agree with this assertion, subject to the proviso that anticipated problems of the future would not be abandoned from the government agenda. (感觉有点累赘，可以合成一下吧。。。)While the anticipated problems of the future do cause concerns and worries, the immediate problems of today, however, should be prioritized in the to-do list of governments, not because today's problems are more destructive but because of its logical connection with
future problems and governments' higher efficiency in solving them.
Most of the anticipated problems of the future could be logically attributed to the unsolved immediate problems of today, and boundary between them is permeable. In other words, solving the immediate problems of today is in some way preventing the advent of future problems. One revealing example in economic development would be made. Unemployment is one of the most immediate problems now in the United States, which probably is number one issue that keep the president awake at night because he is well aware of its predictable consequences. People who lost their jobs would not have enough money to pay mortgage and would consume less. As a result, continuous foreclosures and sapping consumer spending make the struggling economy even worse. To solve that, governments resort to stimulus package not only to employ more workers but also to prevent another round of economic crisis in the future. In this case, the boundary between immediate and future problems is not transparent in this circumstance. An anticipated problem is easy to define, but not how quickly it would transform to an immediate one. The financial crisis we've seen from last year is an alarming warning that how far a immediate problem can bring us to. Should those financial institutions and the Federal Reserve took early measures to address immediate need to liquidate those bad assets, and（这个不用吧。。。） we probably could escape from（感觉这个词组不是太恰当。。。） this financial tsunami. Bearing this logical connection between the two types of problems in mind, governments should provide better solution in solving an immediate problem of today that could cause future concerns. （未来的问题和现实面临的问题有巨大的联系，二者之间的关系找的很好，学习了）
Meanwhile, many people may think, include（including？？） me, that solving these overlapping problems alone would not be sufficient to sweep away all our worries towards the future. This kind of worry, however, does not automatically suggest that government should spare no effort to address every foreseeable problem in the future, even at the expense of ignoring today's problems. （你是想说，解决上文中的问题无法消除人们对未来的担忧，而这种对未来的担忧不应使政府完全考虑未来的事情么？那第一句和第二句 它们之间没有什么联系啊。。。。感觉第一句不恰当，可否换一种连接两段的方式？）This suggestion would be unrealistic, even naive given the scarce funding and limited resources governments are granted. Reality like this highlights the importance of efficiency, in which solving the immediate problems of today win over attempting to solve anticipated future problem. Efficiency is hard to measure unless we have a clear evaluation tool, which is unlikely to happen for government's capacity to solve future problems（这句话说的不清楚啊。。。没明白过来。。。）. The ambiguity of the evaluation comes from the very definition of the "future problem". How many years away we can call it "future"? To what extent a possible scenario constitute a "problem"? Is the concern that the earth would one day deplete with resources and become no longer inhabitable for human beings an anticipated future problem? If so, how can we evaluate the efficiency of governments' efficacy in addressing them? Can outpaces exploration be accountable? Read history one can find that seldom governments are evaluated or reviewed in how well they stop a war happened hundreds years later. Given this uncertainty, it is clear that evaluating governments' efficacy in solving immediate problem is less ambiguous and thus a higher efficiency is more likely to be achieved. It indicates that money, energy and resources could be better allocated in solving immediate problems.（这个效率问题，我认为，你是把衡量方法当做目标了。政府要解决的是未来的问题，而效率只是一个衡量标准，假设一个政府解决了未来的问题，但是由于没有衡量方法，无法确定其效果，能说这个政府没有效率么？就和哥白尼发现日心论一样，当时没有人能有衡量其有效性的方法，但是不代表这个理论错误，无效。）
As presented in my analysis, I think it is safe to conclude that government should give more credence to solving the immediate problems where a considerable amount of future problems lie in, and this sense of priority could lead to a more efficient allocation of limited public resources.

感觉第二段有点偏，呵呵。可以说未来的问题不一定出现，或者说其对社会的影响的大小无法衡量，未来的小问题花费了现在的大价钱就不值得了。。。。

这个是我写的，挺着急的，帮忙回拍，先谢谢了。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1773439540