[1010G]Economist阅读帖 by cnycny

cnycnyUID: 2791256

建个阅读帖先
主帖链接：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1081436&page=1#pid1773814005
标记规则：
1  红色-- 重点单词
2 蓝色-- 词组/惯用说法;
3  绿下划线—好句子

cnycnyUID: 2791256

The truth hurts
Will the Treasury（财政部） call China a currency manipulator（操纵者）?
（财政部要就将中国列为汇率操纵国）
Mar 31st 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

TO MOST people,to say that China holds down（压制） the value of its currency（货币）to boost its exports is to state the obvious（不言自明的）. （对大多数人来说，说中国压制其货币以刺激出口是不言自明的） Not, though, to America’s Treasury Department(财政部). By law it must report twice a year on which countries fiddle（篡改，骗取）their exchange rates（汇率） at the world’s expense. China was last fingered in 1994. Ever since then, the Treasury has concluded that the designation would do more harm than good. Speculation（猜测）is growing that it may decide differently in its next report（猜测越来越多，下次报告中的决定可能会有所不同）, due on April 15th.

The mood in America resembles that in 2005, when the Senate（参议院） voted to hit China with tariffs（关税） of 27.5% and the Treasury ratcheted up（逐渐升高升级） its rhetoric（言论）. China abruptly（突然地） moved to a managed float（由政府操纵的税率浮动） for the yuan. It was allowed to appreciate（涨价） by 20% over the next three years before a halt（停止） was called during the banking panic of 2008.

China seems more determined to resist pressure this time, though, and can rightly point out that its fiscal stimulus（刺激物） has halved（切成一半） its current-account surplus（过剩物） since 2007. America’s trade deficit(贸易逆差) with China has edged a bit lower (see chart), though further declines seem unlikely, now that its own recovery is under way.

Nonetheless, the weight of opinion in America is running heavily against China. Unemployment has doubled since 2005 and Barack Obama wants exports to lead the recovery. That will be harder if China sticks to its export-centric（以出口为中心） yuan policy.（如果中国坚持以出口为中心的人民币策略，那将会很难坚持）

cnycnyUID: 2791256

                                                    Winner announcement
Most things in life end badly, generally including life itself. Governments are no exception（政府也不例外）. If New Labour's long sojourn（逗留） in office comes to an end, as it is expected to at the forthcoming general election, the party will likely lose amid recrimination（话语权） and disappointment, booted out of power by an electorate（全体选民）
forgetful of its achievements and angry at Britain's recent economic travails.

All of which is by way of saying that Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society always faced a tough task in opposing our debate's motion and defending the government's record. He has discharged it with aplomb（垂直） and an admirable intellectual suppleness; he conceded some of David Willetts's criticisms while arguing that, overall, New Labour largely met the ambitions it set itself. If the party had more champions with Mr Katwala's eloquence（雄辩口才） and range, it might make a better fist of its unlikely bid for a fourth term(第四个任期).


Nevertheless, in the circumstances, even Mr Katwala's ingenuity（精巧） was not enough. Mr Willetts won fairly comfortably, and the motion—that New Labour has failed—was carried, by 62% to 38%. Mr Willetts may have had the easier brief, but he made his arguments with wit and verve（活力）, concentrating especially and powerfully on the economy and the public services. Our thanks to both of them; to Richard Reeves of Demos, our guest commentator, for his triangulating wisdom（三角智慧）; and to everyone who has participated and voted.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

观阅此图，有感而发，权当练笔，惨不忍睹，观者海涵
On the picture are three mountains which are full of stones. Growing on the mountains are three trees. What draw me attention is not the mountains itself but these trees growing between stones. There is no doubt that they can get little nutrition through the stones. However, they can survive in the acridest circumstance. I can imagine what hardship they have got through to survive between the stones. Although they do not have a better circumstance as other trees growing in the fertile soil, after a long way of struggle, they finally made it to be the king of trees standing in the tallest peak. They remand us that, sometimes, the circumstances we are in may not be suitable for us. But the hardship we get through is our real treasure that can help us to survive and finally make a difference.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

                                                  Launch pad iPad登台亮相，蓄势待发
GIVEN all the hype(大肆宣传) ahead of the arrival of Apple’s new tablet computer, the debut on April 3rd of the iPad in America was perhaps inevitably going to feel like something of an anti-climax（突降法）. (苹果新款平板电脑iPad面世前，宣传铺天盖地，考虑到这点，它4月3日在美国的上市，或许就不免让人觉得有些虎头蛇尾了。)There were long lines at the company’s stores before daybreak and, as the doors opened, would-be buyers（潜在顾客） were met with rapturous applause（雷鸣般的掌声） from Apple staff. But many reports suggested that by mid-morning the fervor had died down in most places. At the Apple store in San Francisco late on Saturday afternoon, it almost felt like any other shopping day—except, that is, for the small scrum that had formed around the table where iPads were being tested. （周六下午晚些时候，在旧金山的苹果商店，除了一小群顾客围在体验桌旁争相试用iPad之外，这里给人的感觉几乎跟普通的购物日没有两样。）The company later said it had sold over 300,000 on the first day, around the middle of the range of analysts' expectations.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could.
Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries.
Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other."

Cooperation---or Tragedy?

The solution to the world's growing environmental problems may have to wait awhile（片刻）. It has been said that "environmental problems are global and respect no nation's boundaries."
Unfortunately, pollution and its consequences still fall to large measure on those least likely to do anything about it: poor countries willing to sacrifice anything in order to sit at the table with the world's wealthy.

As far as the industrialized nations of the world are concerned, the world is a big place. Environmental destruction taking place outside their borders may sometimes be fodder for government pronouncements of concern, but few concrete actions.
Deforestation（森林砍伐） of the Amazon, for instance（例如）, is of vital concern to all those who wish to continue breathing. But the only effective deterrent（威慑的） to this activity,
the restriction of international aid money to those countries showing net deforestation, has been stalled（拖延） in the United Nations by those unwilling to "interfere" in the internal politics of other nations.

Because of the differential impact of polluting activities around the world, and even in different regions of a single country, many governments will undoubtedly continue to promulgate（公布） only modest environmental regulations.
Costs to polluting companies will continue to carry as much weight as the benefit of a pollution-free environment. Particularly in the current political climate of the United States, the well-documented expense of today's pollution-control measures will be stacked against the unknown long-term effects of
polluting actitivities.
"Why should I spend millions of dollars a year, which causes me to have to raise the cost of my goods or eliminate jobs, if no one really knows if air pollution is all that harmful?
Show me the proof, " an air polluting company
may demand.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

As far as the industrialized nations of the world are concerned, the world is a big place. Environmental destruction taking place outside their borders may sometimes be fodder for government pronouncements of concern, but few concrete actions.
Deforestation（森林砍伐） of the Amazon, for instance（例如）, is of vital concern to all those who wish to continue breathing. But the only effective deterrent（威慑的） to this activity,  the restriction of international aid money to those countries showing net deforestation, has been stalled（拖延） in the United Nations by those unwilling to "interfere" in the internal politics of other nations.
TO MOST people,
to say that China holds down（压制） the value of its currency（货币）
to boostits exports is to state the obvious（不言自明的）. （对大多数人来说，说中国压制其货币以刺激出口是不言自明的） Not, though, to America’s TreasuryDepartment(财政部). By law it must reporttwice a year on which countries fiddle（篡改，骗取）their exchange rates（汇率） at theworld’s expense. China was last fingered in1994. Ever since then, the Treasury has concluded that the designation would domore harm than good. Speculation（猜测）is growing that it maydecide differently in its next report（猜测越来越多，下次报告中的决定可能会有所不同）, due on April 15th.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

TO MOSTpeople,
tosay that China holds down（压制） the value of its currency（货币）
to boost its exports is to state theobvious（不言自明的）. （对大多数人来说，说中国压制其货币以刺激出口是不言自明的）Not, though, to America’s TreasuryDepartment(财政部). By law it must reporttwice a year on which countries fiddle（篡改，骗取）their exchange rates（汇率） at the world’s expense. China waslast fingered in 1994. Ever since then, the Treasury has concluded that thedesignation would do more harm than good. Speculation（猜测）is growing that it maydecide differently in its next report（猜测越来越多，下次报告中的决定可能会有所不同）, due on April 15th.

cnycnyUID: 2791256

The moderator's opening remarks May 4th 2010 | Mr Saugato Datta
The economic case for free trade（自由贸易） is straightforward（明显的）. Trade allows the global economy to do more with the resources, skills, and technology at its disposal than would be possible if countries were to operate in isolation. Opening up to trade lets countries shift their patterns of production, making more of what they are relatively good at producing. They sell abroad the part of their output that their own people do not want, and import things they do want that are not domestically produced at lower prices than if they were to try to make those things themselves. Indeed, the fruits of trade are on the shelves of shops around the world. When trade dries up, as it did last year as a result of the economic crisis, it causes palpable pain in the form of shuttered factories and unemployed workers. And few would doubt that at least part of the dramatic growth of trade in the post-war era has been because of a progressive lowering of trade barriers.

Yet it is hard, nowadays, to find too many people who wholeheartedly espouse the cause of further liberalising trade. True, the leaders of the world's major economies dutifully trot out the requisite promise about completing the seemingly interminable Doha round of multilateral trade talks and abjuring protectionist measures each time they meet. Despite this, the political will for making trade freer seems almost non-existent.
Part of the reason for this is that the benefits of trade are believed to be uneven. Some regions and some groups within them are seen as cornering all or most of the gains. Others—autoworkers in America or call-centre employees in Ireland, for instance—are seen mainly as losers. Trade, the argument goes, is fundamentally unfair, both to rich-country workers who see their jobs shipped off to China and the workers in China who must do those jobs for a fraction of the original workers' wages, and under conditions that the former would shudder to accept. Instead of concentrating on more and more open trade, the argument goes, it is more important to deal with trade's inherent unfairness.


Our latest online debate will tackle this tension between freedom and fairness and try to resolve whether action on one front is more important, and what forms such action might take. Proposing the motion, Ngaire Woods from Oxford University suggests that making trade fairer "is important to avert a further public backlash against trade". She argues that both the outcomes and the processes of trade need to be made fairer. At the same time, as she notes, "fair trade can be used as a Trojan horse for protectionist arguments".

Her opponent in this debate, Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University, would agree with that last statement. Where the benefits of free trade are obvious, Mr Bhagwati argues, the merits of fairer trade—or indeed, just what is meant by this—are nebulous at best and thinly disguised protectionism at worst. He puts forward three possible ways to define fair trade, and argues that in each case, "making trade fairer" will have malign effects, whereas "making trade freer" will make us better off".


As the debate proceeds, I hope we arrive at a clearer understanding of what precisely we should understand fairer trade to mean, as well as of the ways in which trade remains unfree. What does the evidence of trade's effects on inequality within and between countries say? And how should trade's effects on things like inequality or the wages of the less skilled in rich countries be balanced against the jobs it creates for poorer workers in developing countries, as well as its less remarked upon but widely dispersed benefits for consumers at large?
I wonder also whether fair and free ought to be seen as being in constant conflict. Is part of the reason that trade seems unfair that it is not free enough (for example, because of continuing agricultural subsidies in rich countries?) I look forward to a lively exchange between Ms Woods and Mr Bhagwati, and I hope that you, our readers, will take an active part in the discussion.