2. 考研
  3. "The word ’protection’ is no longer taboo (禁忌语)" This short sentence, uttered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy late last mont

"The word ’protection’ is no longer taboo (禁忌语)" This short sentence, uttered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy late last mont

admin2009-05-14  60
问题      "The word ’protection’ is no longer taboo (禁忌语)" This short sentence, uttered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy late last month, may have launched a new era in economic history. Why? For decades, Western leaders have believed that lowering trade barriers and tariffs was a natural good. Doing so, they reasoned, would lead to greater economic efficiency and productivity, which in turn would improve human welfare. Championing free trade thus became a moral, not just an economic, cause.
     These leaders, of course, weren’t acting out of unselfishness. They knew their economies were the most competitive, so they’d profit most from liberalization. And developing countries feared that their economies would be swamped by superior Western productivity. Today, however, the tables have turned—though few acknowledge it. The West continues to preach free trade, but practices it less and less. Asia, meanwhile, continues to plead for special protection but practices more and more free trade.
     That’s why Sarkozy’s words were so important: he finally injected some honesty into the trade debate. The truth is that large parts of the West are losing faith in free trade, though few leaders admit it. Some economists are more honest. Paul Krugman is one of the few willing to acknowledge that protectionist arguments are returning. In the short run, there will be winners and losers under free trade. This, of course, is what capitalism is all about. But more and more of these losers will be in the West. Economists in the developed world used to love quoting Joseph Schumpeter, who said that "creative destruction" was an essential part of capitalist growth. But they always assumed that destruction would happen over there. When Western workers began losing jobs, suddenly their leaders began to lose faith in their principles. Things have yet to reverse completely. But there’s clearly a negative trend in Western theory and practice.
     A little hypocrisy (虚伪) is not in itself a serious problem. The real problem is that Western governments continue to insist that they retain control of the key global economic and financial institutions while drifting away from global liberalization. Look at what’s happening at the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The Europeans have demanded that they keep the post of managing director. But all too often, Western officials put their own interests above everyone else’s when they dominate these global institutions.
      The time has therefore come for the Asians—who are clearly the new winners in today’s global economy—to provide more intellectual leadership in supporting free trade. Sadly, they have yet to do so. Unless Asians speak out, however, there’s a real danger that Adam Smith’s principles, which have brought so much good to the world, could gradually die. And that would leave all of us worse off, in one way or another.  
It can be inferred that "protection" (Line 1, Para.1) means ______.
选项 A、improving economic efficiency
B、ending the free-trade practice
C、lowering moral standard
D、raising trade tariffs
答案D
解析 参见文章第1段。其大意是：“保护”这个字眼不再是一个禁忌语了，上个月底法国总统萨科齐的这句话，可能已开创了经济史的一个新时代。因为数十年来，西方领袖们相信降低贸易壁垒和关税是一个自然的好事(a natural good)。根据上下文可知，萨科齐却反其道而行之，提出了贸易保护。由此可推论，他所提倡的“保护”意味着提高贸易关税，所以正确D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/OXsa777K
本试题收录于： MBA联考（英语）题库专业硕士分类
0

MBA联考（英语）

专业硕士

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)