美国经济生产力发展缓慢那篇,是本月的JJ,急,请教翻译

下面是这个月的JJ题,我逐句做了翻译,可是还是搞不懂一些逻辑关系:

另外的解释要责备联邦预算赤字：如果预算赤字低，利率也会相应的低，从而增加了在可以刺激服务业增长的新技术的发展上的投资。然而，技术资源的缺乏，实际上是服务业的经理们没有广泛利用可利用的技能和机器。优秀的服务业获得的高的生产力提高水平表明，明智地实施可利用的技术并且选择纯熟工作者的服务业的经理们能极大改进他们公司的生产力。服务业生产力停滞的阻碍是这样一股力量：比如公司接管、多余政府章程，这些力量分散经理使用最理想的可用资源。

另外的解释要责备联邦预算赤字：如果预算赤字低，利率也会相应的低，从而增加了在可以刺激服务业增长的新技术的发展上的投资。然而，技术资源的缺乏，实际上是服务业的经理们没有广泛利用可利用的技能和机器。优秀的服务业获得的高的生产力提高水平表明，明智地实施可利用的技术并且选择纯熟工作者的服务业的经理们能极大改进他们公司的生产力。服务业生产力停滞的阻碍是这样一股力量：比如公司接管、多余政府章程，这些力量分散经理使用最理想的可用资源。

另外的解释要责备联邦预算赤字：如果预算赤字低，利率也会相应的低，从而增加了在可以刺激服务业增长的新技术的发展上的投资。然而，技术资源的缺乏，实际上是服务业的经理们没有广泛利用可利用的技能和机器。优秀的服务业获得的高的生产力提高水平表明，明智地实施可利用的技术并且选择纯熟工作者的服务业的经理们能极大改进他们公司的生产力。服务业生产力停滞的阻碍是这样一股力量：比如公司接管、多余政府章程，这些力量分散经理使用最理想的可用资源。

翻译完,我自已对这篇文章有一些问题:

1.既然是70年后经济走下坡路,为什么提1980年和1992年的例子呢?

2.第一段最后的第二点,觉得是说制造业和服务业一样不会高效工作,那不是间接在说,因为这两个行业的人都懒散所以阻碍了美国经济的发展吗?

3.最后一名总结的SUCH AS里"takeovers "是指什么?前文有提吗?

我的阅读好差,请各位NN指点,万分感谢

下面是原文:

Whereas United States eco-

nomic productivity grew at an annual

rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965,

Line               it has grown at an annual rate of

(5)                only about 1 percent since the early

1970’s. What might be preventing

higher productivity growth? Clearly,
    

the manufacturing sector of the

economy cannot be blamed. Since
    

(10)               1980, productivity improvements

in manufacturing have moved the

United States from a position of

acute decline in manufacturing

to one of world prominence.

(15)               Manufacturing, however, consti-

tutes a relatively small proportion
    

of the economy. In 1992, goods-

producing businesses employed

only 19.1 percent of American

(20)               workers, whereas service-producing
    

businesses employed 70 percent.

Although the service sector has

grown since the late 1970’s, its

productivity growth has declined.

(25)               Several explanations
   have been

Offered for this declined and for the

discrepancy in productivity growth

between the manufacturing and

service sectors. One is that tra-
    

(30)
                 ditional measures fail to reflect

service-sector productivity growth

because it has been concentrated

in improved quality of services.

Yet traditional measures of manu-

(35)               facturing productivity have shown

significant increases despite the

undermeasurement of quality,

whereas service productivity has

continued to stagnate. Others argue

(40)               that since the 1970’s, manufacturing

workers, faced with strong foreign
    

competition, have learned to work

more efficiently in order to keep their

jobs in the United States, but service
   

(45)               workers, who are typically under

less global competitive pressure,

have not. However, the pressure on

manufacturing workers in the United

States to work more efficiently has

(50)               generally been overstated, often

for political reasons. In fact, while

some manufacturing jobs have been

lost due to foreign competition, many

more have been lost simply because

(55)               of slow growth in demand for manu-

factured goods.

     Yet
   another explanation blames

the federal budget deficit: if it were

lower, interest rate would be lower

(55)               too, thereby increasing investment

in the development of new technol-

ogies, which would spur productivity

growth in the service sector. There

is, however, no dearth of techno-

(60)               logical resources, rather, managers

in the service sector fail to take

advantage of widely available skills

and machines. High productivity

growth levels attained by leading-

(65)               edge service companies indicate

that service sector managers
   

who wisely implement available

technology and choose skillful

workers can significantly improve

(70)               their companies’ productivity.

The culprits for service-sector

productivity stagnation are the

forces－such as corporate

takeovers and unnecessary

(75)               governmental regulation－that

distract managers from the task

of making optimal use of available

resources.