搜索
查看: 477|回复: 31

[阅读小分队] 【Native Speaker每日训练计划—95系列】【95-06】经管

[复制链接]
发表于 2017-10-11 11:31:57 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 铁板神猴 于 2017-10-12 16:32 编辑

内容:iris wang 编辑:Humphrey zhang

Wechat ID: NativeStudy  / Weibo: http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

官方活动帖:长难句讨论帖-每日训练    SC讨论帖    CR讨论帖    RC讨论帖  Quant 讨论帖





Part I: Speaker
American Richard Thaler Wins Nobel In Economics
Oct 9, 2017
[Rephrase 1, 03:00]
Source: NPR
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/09/556606164/nobel-prize-in-economics-announced-monday-morning



Part II: Speed


FILE – In this Saturday, July 8, 2017, file photo, White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, right, talks to U.S. President Donald Trump prior to a working session at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. Trump and his Republican partners in a nearly $6 trillion tax-cutting plan insist it would benefit middle-class Americans and not the wealthy. But a key provision of the plan would slash tax rates for a special kind of business set up by owners of profitable firms, including Trump and his family. (AP Photo/Michael Sohn, File)

Almost half of US adults "don't know anything about" Trump tax proposal
By Ethan Wolff-Mann | Oct 9, 2017

[Time 2]
President Donald Trump unveiled his tax plan earlier this month. But despite tweets and extensive news coverage, the public holds a massive blind spot about the plan’s details, its potential effects on taxpayers and their own financial situation.

According to survey data of 1,570 adults compiled by data-driven marketing company Fluent, many people are still in the dark over proposals that could affect their finances and the economy significantly over the coming years should Trump’s tax plan become law.

Not everyone is expected to recite the details of the proposal, but the survey yielded a particularly surprising result: Only 53% of Americans had heard about Trump’s tax proposal. A sizeable 47% of survey respondents said they didn’t know anything about it.

Trump’s tax plan, broadly speaking, collapses the seven-bracket system currently employed to a three-bracket model, lowering the highest tax bracket to 35% from 39.6% and raising the lowest bracket to 12% from 10%. The middle brackets would be condensed to a 25%, though it’s not immediately clear which ones will be grouped with the highest and lowest or remain in the middle. In addition, Congress may add a fourth bracket for ultra-high earners, the cutoff and percentage has not been specified and will be up to them if they proceed. For businesses, the proposal also slashes the corporate tax to 20% from 35%. Besides the brackets and rate changes, the tax plan would double an individual’s standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for joint-filers.

These changes are some of the largest to the tax system in decades, but 55% of the people who are familiar with the proposal have no idea about the proposal’s potential effects. For the rest of that same group, 20% think it will help them and 25% think it will hurt them.

Results show an expected partisan gap occurred between Trump supporters and non-Trump supports. Fifty-one percent of people who do not support Trump — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — view the changes as a massive tax cut for the wealthy. Fifty-four percent of Trump supporters, who the study found favor a single income-tax bracket for all, see it as a chance for economic stimulus, and 51% think it will help the middle class. Just 12% of those anti-Trumpers agree.

The survey also sought to reveal what people want their tax dollars spent on. For both Trump supporters and non-supporters, health care  and education led the way by a significant margin, though the ‘Make America Great Again’ crowd put military spending as a close third behind education. With the exception of military spending, priorities were almost identical similar in-line across party and Trump divides, with health care, education, military, infrastructure, justice, safety net-style programs, and foreign aid prioritized in that order.
[456words]
SourceYahoo Finance
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/almost-half-us-adults-dont-know-anything-trump-tax-proposal-172115389.html



Facebook and Google need to own their role in spreading misinformation -- and fix it
By Jonathon Morgan | October 9, 2017
[Time 3]
(CNN)Every day we learn more about the scale and effectiveness of Russian influence operations during the 2016 US election. The implications for our political process are ominous, but the problem runs much deeper. For years hostile foreign governments, terrorist groups, and armies of internet trolls have manipulated public discussion, both in the United States and around the world.

We must understand Russia's manipulative attack during last year's presidential elections in a broader context: as a relatively traditional propaganda operation that achieved unprecedented reach because social media companies are either unable or choose not to defend themselves.
Every time our society falls victim to an information attack, we blame the attacker, but not their weapons. It's hard to accept that the platforms we use to chat with friends and share baby photos can have such a powerful impact in shaping democracy. Platforms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have fundamental flaws that must be fixed if we're going to protect ourselves in the future.
This is how easy it is to buy a Facebook ad like the Russian 'troll farms' did
This is how easy it is to buy a Facebook ad like the Russian 'troll farms' did
At its peak in 2013, ISIS mobilized tens of thousands of social media accounts to spread their message and radicalize Americans. They created horrific but compelling content, and used their social bot armies to force that content into the mainstream. They were manipulating the underlying mechanics of social media, tricking platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and YouTube into amplifying their message to the widest possible audience.
[261words]

[Time 4]
ISIS lit a fuse with its message of hate and violence, but these social media platforms powered the explosion, making it simple to share and spread nearly instantaneously. Years later, tech companies have finally acknowledged the severity of the problem, establishing the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism in June, 2017.
The terrorist group's years-long, highly visible manipulation of our social platforms was a clear warning that hostile actors could use our online gathering places to target Americans. The warning was ignored, and in 2016 we were attacked again. In October, 2016, Obama administration intelligence officials formally accused Russia of meddling in US elections. By March of 2017, New Knowledge, along with independent researchers from our volunteer collective, Data for Democracy, discovered 30,000 accounts that exhibited bot-like behavior in posting on the Trump campaign's Facebook page alone. Fake accounts, run by software programs, are designed to imitate real users and manufacture popular support by repeatedly posting messages to social media.
Yet only now, 11 months after the 2016 election, are we beginning to realize the cost. We have recently learned that millions of Americans were served propaganda by a foreign adversary, disguised as news stories and as persuasive comments by fake neighbors. The tech companies that enabled this continue to accept only limited responsibility, reframing the problem as an issue of free speech rather than admitting that their users were fooled and manipulated.
Yet again, as the country reeled from the deadliest mass shooting in the US history, Google and Facebook promoted fake news about the attacks. 4chan, an anonymous message board infamous for its racist and misogynist content, falsely accused an innocent man of being the Las Vegas shooter.
Despite 4chan's reputation as a hotbed of offensive memes and wild conspiracy theories, Google promoted the content in its Top Stories search results and Facebook promoted 4chan messages on its crisis response page -- which was supposed to be a resource for families checking to see if their loved ones were injured or killed in the attack. Both companies released statements expressing regret for the mistakes and ultimately corrected the issues.
[351words]

[Time 5]
These information attacks continue because manipulating these platforms is cheap and easy. Media platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook rely on trust. If enough people trust that a piece of information is valuable, it is promoted to more users. It doesn't matter where the information was published, who authored it, or what it contains.
At one time, this kind of democratic sharing of ideas was the great promise of the internet, where information flowed freely, unconstrained by traditional gatekeepers like government or media companies.
However, the internet is not a democracy. Information is controlled by a cartel of media companies, who are not motivated to help their users share information, but rather to profit off of their attention. Google, Facebook, and Twitter know that their businesses profit by deeply understanding their users, and the type of content that captures each individual user's attention.
Their algorithms learn what information attracts attention, then in turn promote that content to exactly the users who are most likely to consume and share it, which in turn gives that content more attention, and generates more profit. As a society, we communicate with each other using products that aren't designed to help us communicate — they're designed to keep us watching.
The flaws in this system are baked into its design. These flaws have been repeatedly exploited, and we're still vulnerable. We're vulnerable to content that grabs our attention, regardless of its veracity or substance. We're vulnerable to targeting systems that understand our preferences, our beliefs, and our politics, and can show attention-grabbing, influential content to exactly the people most likely to be manipulated by it. And we're vulnerable to automation -- fake accounts that invent, share, and amplify information to fool tech company algorithms into believing information will be valuable in capturing their users' attention.
[299words]

[The rest]
Addressing these complex problems will require significant investment from tech companies, who need to rethink how information is shared and promoted on their platforms. They need new models for promoting content that assess the quality, not just quantity, of user engagement.
In the short term, they need to follow through on promises to flag false or misleading information, and commit to labeling automated accounts so users can distinguish between what real humans believe, and what bots want us to believe.
Most importantly, tech companies need to accept that they don't operate in a vacuum -- Facebook and Google have revolutionized how we communicate as a society. These platforms are where Americans engage in public discourse, and are therefore fundamental to our modern democracy. Every tech worker and executive has an ethical responsibility to protect our democratic ideals.
It's also time for a sober conversation about government regulation. As a society, we need to decide whether a small number of giant tech companies should be restricted in mining the data they collect about every aspect of lives. We need to decide if we trust these companies to control the information we consume, even when that gives them the control to shape our elections.
Together, the tech industry and government need to deal with the structural problems in our media platforms. Otherwise we can expect to be victims again.
SourceCNN OPINIONS
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/09/opinions/social-media-platforms-spreading-disinformation-opinion-morgan/index.html


Why the Russia ad scandal could actually be a win for Facebook
By JP Mangalindan | October 9, 2017
[Time 6]
Facebook (FB) has made headlines recently over revelations that Russia used the social network to meddle with the U.S. presidential election last year. But for marketers, those revelations could have the unintended consequence of being a major draw.

RBC Capital analyst Mark Mahaney told Yahoo Finance the impact of Russian-linked ads on the presidential election serves as a stark reminder for marketers of Facebook’s clout. It’s the the third-most trafficked website in the world, according to web traffic site Alexa.

“It’s almost like, ‘Facebook is so influential that someone can manipulate it and use it to influence an election? Wow, that’s got to be a powerful marketing platform,’ ” Mahaney offered.

Mahaney added he hasn’t seen any material impact on advertisers’ interest in Facebook based on internal marketing surveys conducted by RBC Capital Markets every six months.

Last week, Facebook acknowledged that an estimated 10 million users of the social network saw ads purchased by a Russian company to influence U.S. politics. A Facebook spokesperson told TechCrunch those ads appeared to exploit racial and social divisions, as well as ugly stereotypes.

Mahaney also predicted that the negative headlines won’t hinder Facebook’s stellar financial run, which includes 16 consecutive quarters of mid-double-digit revenue growth. He also maintained an “outperform” rating on Facebook’s stock and predicted the social network will generate $39.9 billion in 2017 revenues, largely from advertising — an estimate that remains unchanged in light of Facebook grabbing some negative headlines.
[241words]
Source: Yahoo Finance
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebooks-recent-russia-scandal-appeal-marketers-201149086.html


Part III: Obstacle


The Nobel in economics rewards a pioneer of “nudges”
By W. Brian Arthur | October , 2017  
[Paraphrase 7]
NOT long ago, the starting assumption of any economic theory was that humans are rational actors who maximise their utility. Economists summarily dismissed anyone insisting otherwise. But over the past few decades, behavioural economists like Richard Thaler have progressively chipped away at this notion. They combine economics with insights from psychology to show how heavily economic decisions are influenced by cognitive biases. On September 9th Mr Thaler’s work was recognised at the highest level when the Nobel Committee awarded him this year’s prize in economics. Mr Thaler thus becomes one of very few behavioural economists to win the prize.

Mr Thaler’s has been a prolific career, spanning over four decades, the last two of them at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. His research has touched on subjects as varied as asset prices, personal savings and property crime. For example, Mr Thaler developed a theory of mental accounting, which explains how people making financial decisions look only at the narrow effect of individual decisions rather than the whole effect. (Indeed, he is one of the founders of the sub-discipline of behavioural finance.) The Nobel committee also highlighted Mr Thaler’s research on self-control, that is, the tension between long-term planning and short-term temptations.

The new laureate has also worked to bring his arguments to a wider audience. For the benefit of fellow economists not well versed in (or dismissive of) behavioural theories, he wrote a regular column for the Journal of Economic Perspectives, a prestigious journal, recounting instances of economic behaviour that violated classical microeconomic theory. For a general audience, he wrote several books on behavioural economics, starting with “Quasi-Rational Economics” in 1991.
But Mr Thaler is perhaps most famous as a pioneer of “nudging”: the use of behavioural insights as a public-policy tool. Although the idea of nudging is not new, and firms have long employed behavioural science to shape their customers’ behaviour, governments of the past used psychology only sporadically.

That started to change when Mr Thaler and Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar at Harvard University, co-authored a book, “Nudge”, in 2008. The book attacked the assumption of rational decision-making in economic models and showed how context could be changed to “nudge” people to make better choices. In 2010 Mr Thaler advised the British government on the creation of the Behavioural Insights Team, a unit that sought to put their ideas into practice. The wildly successful government unit has since been spun out into a quasi-private company and now advises governments around the world.

From a renegade offshoot within economics departments just a few decades ago, behavioural economics has gained an established place not only within academia, but also within government departments around the world. From Australia to America, as well as within organisations like the World Bank and UN, the “nudging” approach has been copied. The Nobel Committee’s decision to honour Mr Thaler is of course a recognition of his personal achievements. But it is also a testament to the newfound importance of his discipline.
[500words]
Source: the economist

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
发表于 2017-10-11 18:07:06 | 显示全部楼层
T2
1'31"
T3
3'11"
T4
2'00"
T5
1'51"
T6
2'22"
发表于 2017-10-11 19:14:46 | 显示全部楼层
time2:2min29s
time3:1min18s
time4:2min8s
time5:2min24s
rest:1min27s
time6:1min5s
obstacle:2min20s
发表于 2017-10-11 19:52:21 | 显示全部楼层
掌管 5        00:02:10.01        00:14:09.85
掌管 4        00:02:43.62        00:11:59.83
掌管 3        00:03:09.20        00:09:16.21
掌管 2        00:02:12.30        00:06:07.01
掌管 1        00:03:54.70        00:03:54.70
发表于 2017-10-11 20:41:02 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lynetteL 于 2017-10-11 20:42 编辑

10/ 11  96-06 Economy

T2 03:03
T3 01:26
T4 02:33
T5 03:45
T6 02:02
发表于 2017-10-11 20:56:39 | 显示全部楼层
Speaker
Nobel price of economic has been awarded to the T.
T2  4.26
The article introduce the Trump’s tax plan made in the early stage of this month, but statistics demonstrates that almost no one knows this strategy. And the study has also investigated about the preference of taxpayers about what aspect they want to pay their tax for, the first in health care and the second is education ,and for some voters of ‘greater America’ puts the military at a third level.
T3   3.05
How large is the affect of the Russia’s attack like ISIS? It is threatened. And the most horrible and disgusted thing is that they can use the social tools like twitter/ Wechat which we use almost everyday sharing our life even our baby’s photos to transmit their doctrin. It is easy for them to buy an ad in those websites and in our daily life we would touch those things which may intrigue some people to enter in such groups.
T4   3.55
The media platforms have not realized their fault until June 2017,with a law coming out, however, the platforms have been attacked for a long time, posting many fake messages, including the shoot case in Las veges.
T5   3.20
The attack continued, because the platforms are easy to control. They are not a place for democracy,but an institution earning profit by attracting people attention. If they think something can appeal to the general, they would do it however horrible it is. We are vulnerable living in a such information generation.
Rest  2.06
T6  2.12
The FB has recently reported an ad purchased by the Russia company, people are wondering why it does so.
T7  4.20
T has been awarded the Noble Price recently for his new theory, he has been doing experiments for about 4 decades. And the last two was spent in the chicago university. The tendency of the economist price is that they prefer to the combination of economy and physical. For example ,T has found that there is a relationship between temper and people doing decision in a long time. This prize is also a testament of the new founds of T.
发表于 2017-10-11 21:32:36 | 显示全部楼层
t2 2;45
t3 2;11
t4 3;01
t5 2;18
the rest 1;24
t6 1;57
发表于 2017-10-11 23:17:42 | 显示全部楼层
T2 2:49 456
T3 1:30 261
T4 2:14 351
T5 1:46 299
T6 1:15 241
OB 2:33 500
发表于 2017-10-11 23:38:51 | 显示全部楼层
T2 03:21.11
T3 02:03.81
tax plan 47% not know part support part not
T5 01:56.77
T4 02:57.45
social network recoginize flaws
the rest:01:16.85
T6 01:49.54 Russia and scandal --influence of facebook--facebook benefits from ads

OB:  03:23.56
max utility--behavioural economics
T's career
N P brings T to auidence behavioural  against tradition but T pioneer of N  apply to society
British government--successful around the world
apply widely NP T's achievements and the importance of the displine
发表于 2017-10-11 23:39:09 | 显示全部楼层
T2:2:41.93
T3:1:36.34
T4:2:30.08
T5:2:17.59
T6:3:37.14
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|Archiver|ChaseDream ( 京ICP证101109号 )

GMT+8, 2017-10-19 05:49 , Processed in 0.087387 second(s), 7 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2017 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部