2. 考研
  3. The Government s Aggressive Dealings with U.S. Automakers In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusi

The Government s Aggressive Dealings with U.S. Automakers In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusi

admin2013-06-05  94
问题             The Government s Aggressive Dealings with U.S. Automakers
    In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities to achieve political goals.
    It is now clear that there is no real difference between the government and GM. For all intents and purposes, the government, which is set to assume a 50 percent equity stake in the company, is GM, and it has been calling the shots in negotiations with creditors. While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto-Workers (UAW). How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is going to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $ 10 billion in Claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $ 27 billion? it’s highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have reached such a deal if the government had not been watching them or providing the money needed to keep the factory doors open.
    GM is widely expected to file for bankruptcy before the end of this month. If this were a typical bankruptcy, the company would be allowed by law to tear up its UAW collective bargaining agreement and negotiate for drastically reduced wages and benefits. Surely, the government won’t let that happen. Still, the threat of a contract abolition probably played a role in the union’s agreement to cost-cutting measures last week, it’s never easy for unions to make concessions, but the sting of handing back money is being softened by the government’s desire to give the union a huge ownership stake in GM.
    The administration argues that it could not risk alienating the union for fear of triggering a strike that could permanently cripple GM. It also assumes that it had to agree to protect suppliers and fund warranties in order to preserve jobs and reassure potential buyers that their cars would be serviced. These are legitimate concerns. But it’s too bad that the Obama administration has not thought more deeply about how its bullying of bondholders could convince future investors that the last thing they want to do is put money into any company that the government has—or could—become involved in.
To which of the following statements would the author most likely agree?
选项 A、The UAW should be fully satisfied in order to avoid a strike.
B、The administration has given more than enough sympathy to the workers.
C、The unfair treatment can make future investors lose trust in the government.
D、Legitimate concerns are only tools of the government to achieve political goals.
答案C
解析 观点态度题。从全文意义以及最后一段可以推断出作者的观点态度，即政府行为会导致投资者不愿再把钱投资到与政府有关的企业中，因为政府可能会损害他们的利益来保护劳工权益，C项与之相符。A项“为了避免罢工，政府需要尽量满足UAW的要求”、B项“政府已经给予工人最大限度的同情”均是政府托词。而非作者意见；D项“合理考虑仅仅是政府达到政治目的的手段”未提及。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5Ad4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)