2. 外语
  3. Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal

Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal

admin2014-09-18  49
问题     Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not ac- cord with the requirements of the free market. A price that is determined by the seller or, for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. Ac- cordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price-fixing(the determination of prices by the seller)as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is nor- mal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning re- quires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explic- it agreements among large firms; it is not.
    Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
    Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by a free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices.
The passage provides information that would answer which of the following questions about price-fixing? I . What are some of the ways in which prices can be fixed? II. For what products is price-fixing likely to be more profitable than the operation of the free market? III . Is price-fixing more common in socialist industrialized societies or in non-socialist industrialized societies?
选项 A、I only
B、III only
C、I and II only
D、IIand III only
E、I, II and III
答案A
解析 文中回答了下列哪个问题?I．定价的几种途径?文中指出了两种：卖方定价和完全市场定价。Ⅱ．对哪些产品卖方定价措施比市场定价更有效?文中没有任何关于具体产品的表述。Ⅲ．卖方定价措施在社会主义工业化国家里更常见还是在非社会主义工业化国家里更常见?文中没有此种比较。∴A正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/PMtO777K
本试题收录于： GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

GMAT VERBAL

GMAT

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)