ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 3634|回复: 17

[阅读小分队] 【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障3系列】【3-19】经管

[复制链接]
发表于 2012-6-29 22:50:20 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
【速度】

Should All Young Americans Be Fiscal Conservatives?
http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/should-young-americans-all-be-in-the-tea-party/

【计时1】

Today’s government deficits allow the older generation to live at the expense of the young and those not yet born. So said eminent British historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson in a recent lecture. It is indeed remarkable that the young accept the fact that they will eventually end up having to pay off a mountain of debt at the same time that their own standard of living is eroding. But what is even more surprising, as Ferguson went on to add, is how easy it is “to win the support of young voters for policies that would ultimately make matters even worse for them, like maintaining defined-benefit pensions for public employees. If young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party.”

Instead, polls show that young Americans have become increasingly liberal at the very time that their financial prospects are deteriorating. Today’s voters under the age of 30 favor Democrats over Republicans by more than 14 percentage points, while voters under 30 were evenly divided between the two parties in the 1980s (and have remained more conservative as they have aged).

Ferguson is known for being provocative, and there was a bit of mischief in his assertion. The Tea Party isn’t the most neutral choice as a symbol of fiscal responsibility. In addition, some critics argue that the Tea Party is willing to preserve programs that serve the old, such as Social Security, and slash spending elsewhere, particularly on programs that benefit the young. So let’s rephrase the question to make it less loaded: If young Americans knew what was good for them, would they all support aggressive deficit-cutting plans that slash government spending across the board?

[285 words]


【计时2】

One way of analyzing such questions that has become increasingly popular among policy makers is what is known as intergenerational equity. The basic idea is straightforward: Public policy decisions should not enrich one generation at the expense of another. Ideally, in fact, each generation should leave the world a little better for the next one. This standard is relevant to a lot more than just the budget debate – it also applies to global warming, health care, and even zoning. People shouldn’t be allowed to trash the environment to maximize short-term profits or put up cheesy buildings that disfigure a historic neighborhood just to make a fast buck. There is a responsibility not to degrade the world that the next generation will inherit.

But intergenerational equity doesn’t always lead to the conclusions you might expect. It isn’t so much about good intentions as it is about weighing benefits against costs. For example, policies to prevent global warming may always sound progressive, but those that are badly crafted could slow economic growth and ultimately result in a lower standard of living for future generations. It might be smarter to spend on, say, converting power plants from coal to cleaner natural gas rather than using the same money to put up wind turbines. The key test is which policies figure to leave the next generation better off in objective terms several decades from now.

When it comes to government finances, the facts are as well known as they are stark. The federal government spends more than seven times as much on someone 65 or older as it does on a child. Even after you include state and local spending on public schools, total spending per person on children is less than half that for the elderly. Over the past decade, the number of children in poverty has soared, and over the rest of this decade, spending on children will shrink by a fifth (as a percentage of total federal spending), while spending on the elderly will swell even more. On the current path, in 25 years Social Security, health-care and interest on accumulated debt would consume all Federal government revenue, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office projections. As a percentage of GDP, all other Federal spending would fall by at least 15%.



[380 words]


【计时3】

There are counter-arguments for some of these statistics. The young will be old some day, and it may be in their interest to spend whatever is necessary for the aged – assuming that the same money will be available when today’s young people reach their 60s. Some of the deficit could be eliminated by ending the Bush tax cuts, projected to cost more than $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years. But it is important to note that 78% of the tax cut has gone to the middle class. And so far, neither party has wanted to raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 a year.

Current policies will continue to shift resources from the young to the old. Moreover, these policies are ultimately unsustainable, so that when today’s young people retire, they will not be able to count on full benefits. Without a change in policy, in 40 years Social Security will only be able to pay three-quarters of the payouts that have been promised. The gap cannot be closed by tax increases alone without sizable spending cuts.

So Niall Ferguson’s challenge remains: Why aren’t today’s young people all fiscal hawks? One explanation is that social and financial attitudes are inseparably mixed together in people’s political beliefs, and financial interests alone aren’t enough to change their loyalties. Or perhaps young people are simply idealistic. Either way, Americans over the age of 55 who are able to retire under old-fashioned defined-benefit pension plans and who can look forward to keeping their full Social Security benefits should heartily salute the younger generation for their extraordinary generosity.



[265 words]

【计时4】

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, who teaches at Duke University, is known as one of the most original designers of experiments in social science. Not surprisingly, the best-selling author’s creativity is evident throughout his latest book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. A lively tour through the impulses that cause many of us to cheat, the book offers especially keen insights into the ways in which we cut corners while still thinking of ourselves as moral people. Here, in Ariely’s own words, are seven lessons you didn’t learn in school about dishonesty. (Interview edited and condensed by Gary Belsky.)

1. Most of us are 98-percenters.

“A student told me a story about a locksmith he met when he locked himself out of the house. This student was amazed at how easily the locksmith picked his lock, but the locksmith explained that locks were really there to keep honest people from stealing. His view was that 1% of people would never steal, another 1% would always try to steal, and the rest of us are honest as long as we’re not easily tempted. Locks remove temptation for most people. And that’s good, because in our research over many years, we’ve found that everybody has the capacity to be dishonest and almost everybody is at some point or another.”

2. We’ll happily cheat … until it hurts.

“The Simple Model of Rational Crime suggests that the greater the reward, the greater the likelihood that people will cheat. But we’ve found that for most of us, the biggest driver of dishonesty is the ability to rationalize our actions so that we don’t lose the sense of ourselves as good people. In one of our matrix experiments [a puzzle-solving exercise Ariely uses in his work to measure dishonesty], the level of cheating didn’t change as the reward for cheating rose. In fact, the highest payout resulted in a little less cheating, probably because the amount of money got to be big enough that people couldn’t rationalize their cheating as harmless. Most people are able to cheat a little because they can maintain the sense of themselves as basically honest people. They won’t commit major fraud on their tax returns or insurance claims or expense reports, but they’ll cut corners or exaggerate here or there because they don’t feel that bad about it.”


[386 words]

【计时5】


3. It’s no wonder people steal from work.

“In one matrix experiment, we added a condition where some participants were paid in tokens, which they knew they could quickly exchange for real money. But just having that one step of separation resulted in a significant increase in cheating. Another time, we surveyed golfers and asked which act of moving a ball illegally would make other golfers most uncomfortable: using a club, their foot or their hand. More than twice as many said it would be less of a problem — for other golfers, of course — to use their club than to pick the ball up. Our willingness to cheat increases as we gain psychological distance from the action. So as we gain distance from money, it becomes easier to see ourselves as doing something other than stealing. That’s why many of us have no problem taking pencils or a stapler home from work when we’d never take the equivalent amount of money from petty cash. And that’s why I’m a little concerned about the direction we’re taking toward becoming a cashless society. Virtual payments are a great convenience, but our research suggests we should worry that the farther people get from using actual money, the easier it becomes to steal.”

4. Beware the altruistic crook.

“People are able to cheat more when they cheat for other people. In some experiments, people cheated the most when they didn’t benefit at all. This makes sense if our ability to be dishonest is increased by the ability to rationalize our behavior. If you’re cheating for the benefit of another entity, your ability to rationalize is enhanced. So yes, it’s easier for an accountant to see fudging on clients’ tax returns as something other than dishonesty. And it’s a concern within companies, since people’s altruistic tendencies allow them to cheat more when it benefits team members.”

[311 words]



【越障】

The Rise of Innovative State Capitalism




Over the past five years, as much of the developed world has staggered through crisis, a new type of capitalism has emerged as a challenger to laissez-faire economics. Across much of the developing world, state capitalism—in which the state either owns companies or plays a major role in supporting or directing them—is replacing the free market. By 2015 state-owned wealth funds will control some $12 trillion in assets, far outpacing private investors. From 2004 through 2009, 120 state-owned companies made their debut on the Forbes list of the world’s largest corporations, while 250 private companies fell off it. State companies now control about 90 percent of the world’s oil and large percentages of other resources—a far cry from the past, when BP (BP) and ExxonMobil (XOM) could dictate terms to the world.

Even as state capitalism has risen, some writers, business leaders, and politicians contend that such systems fail to encourage innovation, the key to long-term growth and economic wealth. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group and author of The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between Corporations and States, argues that state capitalists “fear creative destruction—for the same reason they fear all other forms of destruction that they cannot control.” In China 2030, a recent analysis of China’s economy, the World Bank concurred, noting that the country needs “a better innovation policy, which will begin with a redefinition of government’s role in the national innovation system … and a competitive market system.”

It is a mistake, however, to underestimate the innovative potential of state capitalism. Rising powers such as Brazil and India have used the levers of state power to promote innovation in critical, targeted sectors of their economies, producing world-class companies in the process. Despite its overspending on some state sectors, the Chinese government has nevertheless intervened effectively to promote skilled research and development in advanced industries. In so doing, the state capitalists have shattered the idea that they can’t foster innovation to match developed economies. State capitalists’ combination of government resources and innovation could put U.S. and European multinationals at a serious disadvantage competing around the globe.

State intervention in economic affairs runs against the established wisdom that the market is best for promoting ideas. At the same time, throughout history, the governments of many developed nations have actively fostered groundbreaking companies, from Bell Labs in the U.S. to Airbus in Europe.

Brazil is perhaps the best current example of how a state-capitalist system can build innovative industries. Successive Brazilian governments have intervened—with incentives, loans, and subsidies—to promote industries that otherwise would have needed long-term private investment to make them competitive with U.S. and European rivals. At the same time, Brazil preserved strong, independent management of state-backed firms, ensuring they did not become political boondoggles.

Three decades ago, for example, the Brazilian government gave aircraft manufacturer Embraer lucrative contracts and various subsidies, recognizing that it could potentially find a niche in producing smaller, regional aircraft. Private investors were dubious of Embraer’s chances. Had it relied solely on private investment, the company probably would have failed; instead, it flourished, becoming the world’s biggest maker of regional jets. Similarly, by investing in deep-sea drilling technology, Petrobras, a state oil company with an independent management board, has made itself competitive with multinational giants such as Chevron (CVX), Shell (RDS/A), and BP.

By picking industries it could dominate and supporting them even when private capital was scarce, Brazil has created internationally competitive companies in a range of industries, from aerospace to clean energy. Today the government often backs companies as a minority shareholder or through indirect vehicles, allowing for corporate independence while still helping companies make important investments in research and skills. Many of Brazil’s state-backed companies have survived the global slump far better than multinationals because they can rely on government assistance to see them through.

Combining government support with a mandate for profitability and independent management has yielded successful businesses in other state-capitalist economies. Singapore has used government incentives to push companies to move into industries such as solar and other clean energies, which, although not necessarily profitable now, will be the emerging technologies of this century. A comprehensive 2009 paper by Harvard Business School looked at India’s more than 40 state-owned science and engineering research laboratories, which have used a similar type of public-private collaboration. It found that the Indian state labs had “more U.S. patents than all domestic [Indian] private firms combined.” In China, greater political interference in state-supported companies has been worse for profitability and innovation than in places like Brazil. And yet in recent years, China’s score has steadily risen on the Global Competitiveness Index, a World Economic Forum ranking of nations, even as the score of the U.S. has dropped.

The rise of innovative state capitalists presents a more than formidable challenge to U.S. and European businesses; it could push multinationals out of some markets entirely. In oil and gas, for example, state companies already control most of the world’s reserves, and as state companies like Petrobras become as innovative as multinationals, they will not require foreign companies for exploration, deepwater technology, or refining. In their own large domestic markets the innovative state capitalists will be able to match multinationals’ technology, giving them dominance over mobile communications, high-end retailing, and other businesses.

Some developed countries may respond by either curbing state-capitalist companies’ access to their markets or by intervening heavily in their own economies. Neither of these solutions is really viable. As the state capitalists’ biggest companies expand their global operations, their technology, connections, and capital will be almost impossible to keep out. And aging, heavily indebted nations face huge challenges reforming their entitlement programs: They’re in no position to pour the amount of resources into companies that Brazil, India, or China can.

Instead of trying to prevent—or worse, dismiss altogether—the rise of state-capitalist systems, U.S. and European companies and governments would do better to learn from them. Singapore offers one model of how the state can intervene in the economy without stifling entrepreneurship. The government there identifies industries that are critical to innovation and future technology, helps provide initial angel investments in small companies, tries to woo talented men and women from other countries who work in these industries, and uses state resources to ensure that universities focus on basic science research that will yield dividends in the future.

All these strategies require only modest state investment, and nothing on the scope of China’s or Brazil’s large-scale lending to state companies. The U.S. itself has effectively employed such policies in the past—before restrictive immigration policies kept skilled foreigners out, state and federal governments robbed funds from universities for other programs, and even the idea of the government helping foster new industries such as clean energy became politically toxic. (See Solyndra.)

Developed nations still possess a huge advantage over their emerging-market competitors: The U.S. and countries in Europe have mature, large venture capital firms, while places like India don’t. In emerging markets, when innovative companies become large enough to leave the state’s embrace, they may have nowhere to turn. Venture capital giants, on the other hand, can help small groundbreakers grow. This advantage can be enormous for countries like the U.S. And in a world where the emerging-market giants are learning to innovate, any advantage will be critical.


[1211 words]
发表于 2012-6-29 23:11:50 | 显示全部楼层
1:12
2:26
2:21
2:04
2:02

11:33

慢死...

Back: During the five year of financial crisis, the ration of state owned entities increased. ->the innovation ablility will drop.

But it turned out aht sate-owned capitalism would not be harm to innovation.Its ability to stipulate the innovation was underestimated.

Compare Brazil, India and China. The former two's innovation capability increased due to the sated-owned capitalism. But for China, the s-owned capitalism was too much.

Take Brazil for example, it stipulate the innovation by balance the intervien and the private wisdom. For an aircaft manufacture E, the gov. provide it more resources and made it to be the no. 1 on the small airplane market. Also its petrol manu. P is the strongest competitor of BP. The gov.'s success due to it's support and dominate for the s-owned entities.

For Singa., the gov. done well on balance the state owned interest with private interest. For India, it balanced the American patent with the domestic intellegence.For China, the s-owned interest clog the innovation boom.

However, according to the rank of innovation capability, B,I&C's place was upgoing, how. US and EU coutries droped.

But due to developed countries owned more mutural VC, the were more likely to handle the innovation thing.
发表于 2012-6-29 23:22:57 | 显示全部楼层
ms姐姐今天发啊。。来顶一个。。字体能不能调成跟其他一样的呀?这种感觉不太好看
发表于 2012-6-29 23:23:06 | 显示全部楼层
占~Rena今儿不来啦?
-- by 会员 猫咪团团 (2012/6/29 23:11:50)


Rena有点事,要下下周才能回来~
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-29 23:24:19 | 显示全部楼层
ms姐姐今天发啊。。来顶一个。。字体能不能调成跟其他一样的呀?这种感觉不太好看
-- by 会员 jolene91 (2012/6/29 23:22:57)



正在调~~~~不太会用呢~~~~~正在请教神猴怎么弄
发表于 2012-6-30 00:21:45 | 显示全部楼层
今天lancaster姐姐发帖啊~估计做完这期下周不能天天来做了,考试在即,临阵再磨一下枪~~
——————————
速度:
1'38    2'05    2'04    2'31    2'10
(姐姐的第二篇速度是不是没有贴标题?)

越障:10'17(今天这篇越障好喜欢!内容超丰富!学到了好多!新词laissez-faire economics,哈哈~记下来)
Main idea:
The passage presents a trend of flourish in innovation state capitalism and the prospective of state capitalism in the emerging markets.
Structure:
*These years, the developed countries were under great financial and even economic crisis, while the new emerging markets are on their process of innovating state capitalism. Some developing countries, such as Brazil, has got great sucess.
-Brazil has created internationally competitive in a range of industry, from nature resource to clean energy. The companies can get support from the government once they suffer a loss. This are the exclusive advantages that the local operating MNE that will never have.
*The rise of the innovative state countries provide threat to the American and the European business. The author illustrates the view with the examples of Singapore and China.
*The old western developed coutries try to learn from the strategies of the innovative state capitalism rather than take action to protest it.And the rich western developed coutries have their own advantages, since their mature domestic markets can provide they companies with ample venture captital, while in the emerging markets, those companies  find no one to turn to.
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-30 01:36:28 | 显示全部楼层
占个座~今天lancaster姐姐发帖啊~

估计做完这期下周不能天天来做了,考试在即,临阵再磨一下枪~~
-- by 会员 teddybearj4 (2012/6/30 0:21:45)



恩恩  加油考试~
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-30 01:37:48 | 显示全部楼层
1:12
2:26
2:21
2:04
2:02

11:33

慢死...

Back: During the five year of financial crisis, the ration of state owned entities increased. ->the innovation ablility will drop.

But it turned out aht sate-owned capitalism would not be harm to innovation.Its ability to stipulate the innovation was underestimated.

Compare Brazil, India and China. The former two's innovation capability increased due to the sated-owned capitalism. But for China, the s-owned capitalism was too much.

Take Brazil for example, it stipulate the innovation by balance the intervien and the private wisdom. For an aircaft manufacture E, the gov. provide it more resources and made it to be the no. 1 on the small airplane market. Also its petrol manu. P is the strongest competitor of BP. The gov.'s success due to it's support and dominate for the s-owned entities.

For Singa., the gov. done well on balance the state owned interest with private interest. For India, it balanced the American patent with the domestic intellegence.For China, the s-owned interest clog the innovation boom.

However, according to the rank of innovation capability, B,I&C's place was upgoing, how. US and EU coutries droped.

But due to developed countries owned more mutural VC, the were more likely to handle the innovation thing.
-- by 会员 猫咪团团 (2012/6/29 23:11:50)




但是记的真的好详细啊!!!!!换我不可能记住这么多了
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-30 02:13:32 | 显示全部楼层
1'27
old generations live on the expenses to the young. young dont know about this and still vote for the politic leaders who protect the welfare of old generations and thus harm the benefit of young. critis about this asked if young ppl know such things, will they vote for those who bring them benefit and limit the spendings on eldery?

Tea party is one of the politic parties that make young ppl live easier in the future.


1'41

polititians must know intergeneration equity: limit the various actions that leave problems to future generations now we do. (不就是可持续发展嘛- -) but such limits may slow down the current economy growth and hence leave young ppl living in a lower living standard.
然后说了一堆数字,大概就是花在65岁以上老人身上的钱比花在年轻人身上的多。

1'20

some argue against the above statements, claiming that young ppl can still live on younger. but the gap cannot filled up if the gov. dont rise tax. (养老金缺口,国内外都一样)说了一个词,financial hawks,不懂,之后人家解释了,大概就是年轻人怎么这么乐观这么月光族,干嘛不存款。

1’50

a famous lecturer in Duke university who teaches human behaviour investigated about why ppl cheat.

1, someone shocked about how easy a locksmith can open his lock, but lock smith said lock is only keep honest ppl from steal. 1% of ppl never steal, 1% always, and the rest keep themselves out of steal only because it is hard to do so.

2. ppl cheat because they do not know how harmful it is. most ppl cheat a little bit, some ppl cheat until they are punished for such actions.

2'14

3, ppl cheat when they do not think the things they steal, the rules they break is relevent to money.
4, ppl cheat more often and feel free of guity when they cheat for others, say, their team members.

5'50

crisis lead current free market to be replaced by new form of economy. state capitalism is taking its steps. this new form of economy can stimulate the innovations for long term growth, it also benefit the current industries together with emerging industries such as clean energy.

some examples in emerging market countries in which state captalism is applied. examples are given to illustrate that this new form of economy can also benefit the developed countries.
发表于 2012-6-30 05:49:04 | 显示全部楼层
最近都生病,几乎什么都没有看...急啊...今天好一点了,要继续啦!先占位置

01:19


01:58


01:24


02:02


01:45


08:50
今天的越障文章很好呢,思路很清晰,辛苦了!
1. Nowadays, there is an emerging market in the world—state company. This kind of new market has helped developing countries a lot. And the state—owned companies have outnumbered the private companies.


2. Some people may doubt that whether this market has some benefits to the countries. One analyst says that the free market is best for the country economy, and the stat company can do nothing except hinder the countries from innovation.


3. However, the author cannot agree with the opinion. He holds the view that the pattern of state company can actually help countries’ economy.


(1) The best example comes from Brazil. Thanks to the intervene of the government, companies in Brazil enjoy many advantages from competitors throughout the world. And these companies still gain profits despite the slash of world economy.


(2) The new market also has effect in developed capital countries such as Singapore.


(3) India and China are another good example for the new market. Because the government takes part in the market, they achieve many advantages in the global economy, opposite to most peoples’ thoughts—they will lose the competitive edge of innovation and technology.


(4) USA and Europe should pay attention to this kind of market. If the new kind of developing pattern is mature, then the developing countries will not need to depend on the help of USA of European countries. As a result, USA and Europe will lose a lot, so it is reasonable to conclude that USA and Europe should learn from state company.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-29 22:46
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部