- UID
- 276133
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-9-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
越障1000字，要求真的好高，找了接近1小时。
【速度】
【计时1】
Facebook Stock Goes on Sale
This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.
Facebook is the world's biggest social network. It has over nine hundred million users worldwide. And it reported three point seven billion dollars in sales for last year.
The company has been privately held since two thousand four. That was when Mark Zuckerberg and several classmates at Harvard University started Facebook as a business. But on May eighteenth, Facebook becomes a publicly traded company. That means its shares will be listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, and sold to the public.
Interest in the stock has been building since Facebook announced details of its initial public offering, or IPO, earlier this year. The IPO will make billionaires of the company's founders, including Mr. Zuckerberg. Eduardo Saverin, a co-founder, has been strongly criticized for giving up his United States citizenship. He will avoid a fifteen percent tax on the value of his shares by claiming to be a citizen of Singapore.
A screen at NASDAQ in New York City lists Facebook on its first day of public trading.
This week, Facebook told the Securities and Exchange Commission that it wanted to increase the number of shares being offered to over four hundred twenty million. The company had earlier said it planned to offer three hundred thirty-seven million. The starting price has been set at between thirty-four and thirty-eight dollars -- also an increase. Now, some financial experts say Facebook could raise sixteen billion dollars, making it one of the biggest IPOs ever.
【字数：254】
【计时2】
Facebook says most of its money comes from online advertising. But the company also says it expects to earn money from fees charged on the sales of virtual goods. These are digital products used in social games, not physical goods. Facebook says it sees important income coming from this new market, which could reach fourteen billion dollars by twenty sixteen.
Not everyone is pleased. General Motors ended its advertising agreement with Facebook this week. The carmaker said it did not see results from the millions of dollars it spent on advertising with Facebook.
And Facebook has been criticized for some recent business decisions. It offered one billion dollars to buy Instagram, an application for sharing photographs. The deal requires government approval and has yet to be finalized.
So is Facebook worth the price of the stock? That will be for investors to decide.
And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report. I'm Barbara Klein.
Deathless data What happens to our digital property after we die?
LORNE GLADSTONE of Toronto is 58, but prudently pondering how to bequeath his digital property. Doing the paperwork after his parents’ death was a challenge. “When my time comes, I wonder if my children will even know what paper is,” he says. As a software developer, his virtual assets are both valuable and vital to his business. That exemplifies a problem. Online lives have increasing economic and sentimental value. But testamentary laws offer muddled and incomplete ways of bequeathing and inheriting them.
Digital assets may include software, websites, downloaded content, online gaming identities, social-media accounts and even e-mails. In Britain alone holdings of digital music may be worth over £9 billion ($14 billion). A fifth of respondents to a Chinese local-newspaper survey said they had over 5,000 yuan ($790) of digital property. And value does not lie only in money. “Anyone with kids under 14 years old probably has two prints of them and the rest are in online galleries,” says Nathan Lustig of Entrustet, a company that helps people manage digital estates.
【字数：338】
【计时3】
Service providers have different rules—and few state them clearly in their terms and conditions. Many give users a personal right to use an account, but nobody else, even after death. Facebook allows relatives to close an account or turn it into a memorial page. Gmail (run by Google) will provide copies of e-mails to an executor. Music downloaded via iTunes is held under a licence which can be revoked on death. Apple declined to comment on the record on this or other policies. All e-mail and data on its iCloud service are deleted on the death of the owner.
This has led to litigation in America. In 2004 the family of Justin Ellsworth, a marine killed in Iraq, took Yahoo! to court in Michigan to get copies of his e-mails. This year, a court in Oregon ruled that another bereaved American mother could use her dead son’s password to enter his Facebook account for a short period. Now five American states have enacted laws giving executors control over the social-networking profiles of deceased users.
But this raises the subject of privacy. Passing music on is one thing; not everyone may want their relatives snooping on their e-mails. Colin Pearson, a London-based lawyer, says access should come only with an explicit provision in a will.
Such clearly expressed wishes may help. An internet law expert in New Delhi, Gurpreet Singh, has already seen a few cases of wills including digital estates. “People are slowly realising the value,” he says. A nascent industry is emerging to simplify the process. Entrustet, newly acquired by a Swiss competitor, SecureSafe, says it has 10,000 clients. It safeguards their passwords, and a list of who can access what when they die.
But laws, wills and password safes may clash with the providers’ terms of service, especially when the executor is in one country and the data in another. Headaches for the living—and lots of lovely work for lawyers.
【字数：324】
【计时4】
Geothermal energy in Japan: Storm in a hot tub
As anyone who has been to Japan knows, there are strict rules about bathing in onsen, or hot springs. Bodies must be scrubbed beforehand, swimming trunks are banned and tattoos are taboo. The industry’s jurisdiction extends far beyond the tub, however.
For decades, onsen owners have stifled development of a huge potential source of clean energy: geothermal power. They argue that the tapping of heated aquifers in volcanic Japan will drain the onsen dry, increase pollution and ruin a cherished form of relaxation. With Japan on the verge of running out of nuclear power, however, the demand for new sources of energy is becoming harder to resist.
Three Japanese companies—Toshiba, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Fuji Electric—control more than half of the global market for geothermal turbines, yet Japan itself gets a mere 0.3% of its energy, or 537 megawatts, from its own steam. The industry’s promoters say that Japan sits on about 20,000 MW of geothermal energy, or the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors, though not all of this could be developed. Since the disaster at Fukushima last year, all but one of the nation’s 54 nuclear reactors are now temporarily suspended, reducing Japan’s power-generating capacity by about a third. That has accelerated the search for alternatives.
In July the government is set to introduce a feed-in tariff that will force the ten regional electricity monopolies to buy renewable energy at above-market rates—though a price has not yet been set. At the end of March the environment ministry said it would abolish guidelines that restrict geothermal development in some national parks. Companies including Idemitsu, a refiner, have quickly announced plans to build a geothermal plant in the mountains of Fukushima prefecture, which is famous for its hot springs. But they expect it will take ten years before they start generating electricity.
【字数：313】
【计时5】
Experts say the long time lag reflects some of the difficulties of developing new business in Japan. Tetsunari Iida, head of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, says the country needs a “strong and wise government” that can persuade the onsen owners and local communities that the industry would not spoil their spas. He also says the country needs companies with strong balance-sheets and a robust risk culture to lead the way. Having the world’s best turbine manufacturers is not enough, he says.
To speed things up, Japan could also look overseas for help. Iceland, for instance, generates the same amount of geothermal energy as Japan, though Japan has 400 times more people. A Japanese expert, Hirofumi Muraoka, calculates that one mid-sized northern city, Aomori, with a population about the size of Iceland’s 318,000, could save enormously on imported fuel bills and heating costs by tapping geothermal springs nearby. Besides generating electricity, it could use the hot water from the springs to heat houses, as Iceland does.
Iceland’s ambassador to Japan, Stefan Stefansson, says his country’s experience suggests Japan does not need subsidies to develop geothermal energy. It needs careful management of underground reservoirs, and an entrepreneurial vision. Besides heating houses, he says, Iceland’s geothermal water is used for farming tasty tropical fish such as tilapia. As for the onsen-owners’ protests, he snorts: “Go to your computer and type in “Blue Lagoon”. There you will find the biggest onsen in the world and we have them all over Iceland. How’s that for pollution?”
【字数：253】
【越障】
Unlimited Campaign Spending—A Good Thing? Posner
The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that Congress cannot limit expenditures in political campaigns as long as the spender, who might be an individual or an organization, including a corporation or union, is not affiliated with or acting in concert with the candidate or political party. The Court held that such “independent” expenditures are not campaign donations, which can be regulated; they are pure expressions of the political preferences of the donors.
Some of the expenditures are made directly by donors to buy political advertising, but most (84 percent of the roughly $100 million in such “independent” expenditures already made in the current presidential primary campaign) are given by the donors to political action committees (called “super PACs”), which channel the expenditures into political ads or other methods of influencing political opinion. This is sensible intermediation since the donors are unlikely to be knowledgeable about creating or buying or placing ads.
The Supreme Court allows donations to political campaigns to be regulated (and limited) because of fear that donations unlimited in amount corrupt the political process, because the candidate recipient knows that a donor of a large amount of money expects something in return, usually favorable consideration of a policy that would benefit the donor, and hence a large donation is likely to be a tacit bribe. But the Court, rather naively as it seems to most observers, reasoned in the Citizens United case that the risk of corruption would be slight if the donor was not contributing to a candidate or a political party, but merely expressing his political preferences through an independent organization such as a super PAC—an organization neither controlled by nor even coordinating with a candidate or political party.
The criticisms of the Court’s reasoning are several. First, the notion of “coordination” is vague, and tacit coordination with a candidate or a party seems to occupy the same never-never land as tacit collusion in antitrust law. It can be quite effective yet is hard to condemn as actual coordination. Allies of the candidate or members of the party can run the super PAC, and without even talking to the candidate or to party officials can figure out what kind of political advertising will be helpful to the candidate. Most super PAC advertising has been negative—that is, has attacked opponents of the candidate whom the super PAC favors—because positive advertising would be difficult without explicit coordination; the reason is that candidates tend to be vague and protean about what they favor, in order to maintain their freedom of action and reaction, so a super PAC could operate at cross-purposes with its favored candidate if it advertised in support of a program that it thought the candidate would favor. In addition, negative political advertising is usually more effective than positive.
It thus is difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint. A super PAC is a valuable weapon for a campaign, as the heavy expenditures of Restore Our Future, the large super PAC that supports Romey and has attacked his opponents, proves; the donors to it are known; and it is unclear why they should expect less quid pro quo from their favored candidate if he’s successful than a direct donor to the candidate’s campaign would be.
So the real question is whether campaign donations, in whatever guise, should be limited. There are two arguments. The first and less is that, as with brand advertising, advertising pro and con competing politicians tends to be offsetting; the argument is that if the contestants’ spending is limited, this will not affect the outcome of the contest but merely reduce its cost. But the argument is weak because it fails to account for the need of a new entrant to spend more heavily than incumbents in order to offset the cumulative effect of earlier expenditures. Even if the producer of some famous brand stopped advertising altogether, it would be years before consumers began to forget about the brand and stop buying it, but a new entrant would have no existing body of consumer good will to fall back on.
The stronger argument for limiting campaign donations is the corruption argument, which I have just suggested is as strong against the super PACs as it is against direct campaign donations. But again there is the concern with new entrants. If a candidate’s name is Bush or Clinton or Kennedy (and he or she is related to a former President who bore one of those names), the candidate enters a political campaign with an information advantage by virtue of belonging to a well known political dynasty extending over two or more generations (hence like an established brand). An unknown may need to spend more than one of those dynasts to pull even. Yet it hardly seems feasible to fix a limit on contributions and then raise it for new entrants.
That said, I think the emergence of new media in the Internet era make the corruption argument stronger than the new-entrant argument. The reason is that the Internet greatly reduces the expense of disseminating information, whether about a candidate or anything else. The number of over the air radio and television stations is limited and likewise the number of newspapers and magazines, but nowadays most people are getting their information, including political information, from social media, blogs, tweets, and other modes of communication, effectively infinite in number, accessible costly over cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices. These technologies for creating, disseminating, and receiving information at very low cost should enable any candidate with a persuasive message to reach a large audience of potential voters, and should thus favor new entrants in political as in other markets—provided they are not allowed to be drowned by enormous expenditures by super PACs.
We saw the effect of the new information technologies at work in the 2008 Democratic primary season, when the relatively unknown Barack Obama defeated the much better known Hillary Clinton, and we have seen it again and more dramatically (consistent with the rapid expansion and adoption of these technologies) in the current Republican primary campaign. Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, none of whom was nationally prominent (Santorum had once been, but after his one-sided defeat for reelection to the Senate in 2006 had lapsed into obscurity), were able to compete effectively with the better-known candidates (Romney and Gingrich), and lost because of lack of support rather than lack of campaign funds. True, Santorum and Gingrich were both bolstered by super PACs, but they were hammered by Restore Our Future, thus providing a good example of offsetting “arms race” political expenditures.
But could it be that the more that is spent on political campaigns, the more informed the voting public becomes? This suggestion is hard to take seriously. Political candidates seem to have a very condescending view of the American electorate; almost no information is conveyed by political advertising. Debates and other campaign appearances provide voters with insights into the character and intelligence of candidates, but positive political advertising is largely a mode of hagiography, and negative of defamation.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-24 22:03:42
收藏
收藏
