2. 外语
  3. Every political period has its characteristic form of scandal. During the Reagan defense buildup of the mid-1980s, the scandal o

Every political period has its characteristic form of scandal. During the Reagan defense buildup of the mid-1980s, the scandal o

admin2021-10-13  52
问题     Every political period has its characteristic form of scandal. During the Reagan defense buildup of the mid-1980s, the scandal of the day was "waste, fraud and mismanagement" at the Pentagon, symbolized by the infamous $640 toilet seat. Amid the general embarrassment and excuse-making, only one defense hawk was bold enough to declare that waste and fraud were actually good things. "We need more" of them, wrote Edward Luttwak in Commentary. If you’re going to build a stronger defense and build it fast, a bit of corruption is a necessary by-product.
    Today’s characteristic form of scandal is financial abuse and excess. So where is the Luttwak of today who will cut through all the demagoguery and the whining, the outraged criticism and the mealymouthed apologies, and say, "Look, you want a vigorous entrepreneurial economy?" A bit of excess is a necessary by-product. "We need more" financial abuse—it is a sign that capitalism is working.
    Who has the courage to make this argument? I am not that man. But if 1 were that man, the case would run something like this: the magic of capitalism, as explained by Adam Smith and his followers, is that it channels individual greed into activities that benefit all of us. "Greed is good," declared Michael Douglas, playing a corrupt financier in the movie Wall Street. More accurately, greed is inevitable. It is part of the human condition. And in moderation, economists argue and history demonstrates, greed is no bad thing. Free-market economies could not function if we were all Mother Teresa.
    But there is nothing inherent in the human condition that keeps greed in moderation. So there are laws, and there are appearances. Both these forces draw a rough line—and attempt to place it—between greed that helps other people and greed that hurts other people. Inevitably, though, some will take greed too far. And that’s a good thing (goes the argument I lack the courage to make). Why? Because you can’t regulate greed with precision.
    Keynes used the term "animal spirits" to describe the motivation of business people. A successful economy needs a culture that encourages them, up to a point. It’s a Goldilocks-type situation. You don’t want too much greed, and you don’t want too little—you want an amount that’s just right. But the dials are not all that sensitive. A culture that encourages enough greed in enough people will encourage too much in a few. If nobody is taking greed too far, you can be certain that too few people are taking it far enough.
    For some reason, none of the lawyers who are defending the big greed heads have chosen to make this argument. Instead, they offer inconsistent theories to explain the obvious. Lawyers for the Rigas family, which performed the remarkable feat of bankrupting a cable company, say their clients can’t be guilty of a conspiracy to loot the company because they are too dimwitted: one is "not the sawiest guy," another is "clueless." Martha Stewart’s defense, by contrast, was in part that she is too clever to have done anything as dumb as conspiring to break the securities laws.
    Lawyers for Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco, take this line of reasoning further. The Wall Street Journal called theirs the "brazenness defense." Kozlowski made no secret of the fact that he used Tyco money for a yacht, kept his mistresses on the payroll and (possibly therefore) also let Tyco finance a $5 million diamond ring for his wife. How could he have criminal intent if it was all out in the open? By contrast, Scott Sullivan, former CFO of WorldCom, engaged in a more traditional form of gall in pleading guilty to $11 billion worth of accounting fraud. It was a "misguided effort to save the company," he said. Call this the Vietnam defense: it was necessary to destroy the company in order to save it.
    Will no one step forward to say clearly that these seeming malefactors are actually heroes? That we need more of them, not fewer? True, Martha has been found guilty (though she is appealing), and others may lose in court as well. True, these people may have personally harmed the economy and ripped off many individual investors. Nevertheless, taken together, they are a sign of the economy’s robust health. Far better that a few greedheads get carried away than that we are worried that we are not getting the benefit of all the good, healthy, productive sort of greed that this county is capable of producing.
    In fact, think of these unpopular figures as the canaries of capitalism. They precede us into the coal mine of greed, going farther than the rest of us dare, showing us where far enough becomes too far and perishing in the effort. They are martyrs of capitalism, dying financially so that others may prosper. Does no one have the simple guts to tell this truth?
    Well, I certainly don’t.
According to the passage, which of the following is NOT the defense made by the lawyers?
选项 A、The Rigas family are not so clever as to bankrupt the company.
B、Martha Stewart is so clever as not to break the securities law.
C、Kozlowski does not intend to commit a crime since everything is in the open.
D、Greed is good for the economy to develop.
答案D
解析 由第六段和第七段可知，选项A、B和C都是律师为他们的当事人做的辩护，但是没有人做出D这样的辩护来，因此，D为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/mSIK777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)