阅读练习贴

Apolloemma

Confronting the Malefactors

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 6, 2011

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’texactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popularmovement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began threeweeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention theevents at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radiohad provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion ofthose involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventuallybecoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats nowexpressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street isstarting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen asa turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First thingsfirst: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force,economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will neverget served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myselfhave sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just howoutrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’veforgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage ofderegulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating hugebubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — butbankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached,even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on thepeople who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they stillpossessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keeptheir taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath ofthe crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud theprotesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddlydressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the opencharacter of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by thesight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth togovernment guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things aboutthem than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made itpainfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom,they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mockthe protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us thatthere was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budgetdeficits would send interest rates soaring.

A better critique of the protests is the absence ofspecific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agreeon at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But weshouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds ofthings the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job ofpolicy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian ofsocial movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become acentral plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, inaddition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economyrecover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment —not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to becomelaw in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is tochange that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here.Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with thoseTheodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, forexample — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than manymiddle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”

But Democrats are being given what amounts to asecond chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good willearly on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economicrecovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now,however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is takethese protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doingwhat they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been asmashing success.

1.devisive adj: showing that you think someone orsomething is stupid or silly.

2.testament n: proving or showing very clearly thatsomething exists or is true

3.qualified adj: limited in some way=partial.

4. indictment n law especially on official writtenstatement charging someone with criminal offence.

5.woe n: the problems and troubles affectingsomeone.

6.succumb v:to stop opposing someone or somethingthat is stronger than you, and allow them to take control.

7.plutocrat n: someone who has power because theyare rich-used to show disapproval

8.whine v: to complain in sad, annoying voice aboutsomething

9.ragtag adj: a ragtag group is not tidy or properlyorganized/底层社会

10 oracle n. a person of book that gives advice andinformation /智者

11 plank n. one of the main features or principlesof an argument

12 second v. to formally support a suggestion madeby another person in a meeting.

13 malefactor n: someone who does bad or illegalthing. /作恶者

14 dub v,: make a man a knight by touching him onthe shoulder with a sword

                Give someone a nickname

15 squander v to careless waste money, time, oropportunities.

16 smash v to break into pieces violently ornoisily, or to make something do this by dropping

               Smashing success=very good success.

17 goad v to make someone to do something byannoying or encouraging them until they do it

             Kathy goaded him into telling her what he had done.

1 The protestors’ indictment of Wall Street as adestructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

2 A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will neverget served, has taken over much of our political debate-and, yes, I myself havesometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just howoutrageous the story of our economic woes really it. So, in case you haveforgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage ofderegulation to run wildly (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating hugebubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubble burst-butbankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few string attached, evenas ordinary people continued to suffer the consequence of the bankers’ sins.And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning to the peoplewho saved them, throwing their support-and the wealth they still possessed thanksto the bailouts-behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes law anddismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

3. I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sightof exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth togovernment guarantee, whining that President Obama has said mean thing meanthings about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncingconsumerism.

4. Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historianof social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americansbecome a central plank of the protests. I will second that, because suchrelief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help theeconomy recovery.

5. Today’s Republicans, who instinctively side withthose Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, forexample- who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than manymiddle-class-was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare!”

Summary:

Occupy Wall Street is not success. This action didnot get the real benefits for the protestors because they do not explicitlypointed their policy demands, such as debt relief of working Americans. Authorsecond this requirement and he also suggested that protestors may askgovernment to make infrastructure investment. These demands would not only getthe economic justice, but they will also do a lot in American economyrecovery.  Republicans, on the other sideof the debate, take the Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of greatwealth.” Some Mitt Romney even say Occupy Wall Street is one “class warfare.”

Apolloemma

Credibility, Chutzpah and Debt

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 7, 2011

To understand the furor over the decision by Standard &Poor’s, the rating agency, to downgrade U.S. government debt, you have to holdin your mind two seemingly (but not actually) contradictory ideas. The first isthat America is indeed no longer the stable, reliable country it once was. Thesecond is that S.& P. itself has even lower credibility; it’s the last place anyoneshould turn for judgments about our nation’s prospects.

Let’s start with S.& P.’s lack of credibility.If there’s a single word that best describes the rating agency’s decision todowngrade America, it’s chutzpah— traditionally defined by the example of the young man who kills his parents,then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.

America’s large budget deficit is, after all,primarily the result of the economic slump that followed the 2008 financialcrisis. And S.& P., along with its sister rating agencies, played a majorrole in causing that crisis, by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed assetsthat have since turned into toxic waste.

Nor did the bad judgment stop there. Notoriously,S.& P. gave Lehman Brothers, whose collapse triggered a global panic, an Arating right up to the month of its demise. And how did the rating agency reactafter this A-rated firm went bankrupt? By issuing a report denying that it haddone anything wrong.

So these people are now pronouncing on thecreditworthiness of the United States of America?

Wait, it gets better. Before downgrading U.S. debt,S.& P. sent a preliminary draft of its press release to the U.S. Treasury.Officials there quickly spotted a $2 trillion error in S.& P.’scalculations. And the error was the kind of thing any budget expert should havegotten right. After discussion, S.& P. conceded that it was wrong — anddowngraded America anyway, after removing some of the economic analysis fromits report.

As I’ll explain in a minute, such budget estimatesshouldn’t be given much weight in any case. But the episode hardly inspiresconfidence in S.& P.’s judgment.

More broadly, the rating agencies have never givenus any reason to take their judgments about national solvency seriously. It’strue that defaulting nations were generally downgraded before the event. But insuch cases the rating agencies were just following the markets, which hadalready turned onthese problem debtors.

And in those rare cases where rating agencies havedowngraded countries that, like America now, still had the confidence ofinvestors, they have consistently been wrong. Consider, in particular, the caseof Japan, which S.& P. downgraded back in 2002. Well, nine years laterJapan is still able to borrow freely and cheaply. As of Friday, in fact, theinterest rate on Japanese 10-year bonds was just 1 percent.

So there is no reason to take Friday’s downgrade ofAmerica seriously. These are the last people whose judgment we should trust.

And yet America does have big problems.

These problems have very little to do withshort-term or even medium-term budget arithmetic. The U.S. government is having notrouble borrowing to cover its current deficit. It’s true that we’re buildingup debt, on which we’ll eventually have to pay interest. But if you actually dothe math, instead ofintoning big numbers in your best Dr. Evil voice, you discover that evenvery large deficits over the next few years will have remarkably little impacton U.S. fiscal sustainability.

No, what makes America look unreliable isn’t budgetmath, it’s politics. And please, let’s not have the usual declarations thatboth sides are at fault.Our problems are almost entirely one-sided — specifically, they’re caused by the rise ofan extremist right that is prepared to create repeated crises rather than givean inch on its demands.

The truth is that as far as the straight economicsgoes, America’s long-run fiscal problems shouldn’t be all that hard to fix.It’s true that an aging population and rising health care costs will, undercurrent policies, push spending up faster than tax receipts. But the UnitedStates has far higher health costs than any other advanced country, and verylow taxes by international standards. If we could move even part way towardinternational norms on both these fronts, our budget problems would be solved.

So why can’t we do that? Because we have a powerfulpolitical movement in this country that screamed “death panels” in the face of modest efforts to useMedicare funds more effectively, and preferred to risk financial catastrophe rather than agree to even apenny in additional revenues.

The real question facing America, even in purelyfiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there fromdeficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsiblepolicy can be defeated and marginalized.

1.slump : to fall or lean against something becauseyou are not strong enough to stand /(of prices, trade, business activity) fallsuddenly or greatly.

              The economic slump

2. notorious famous or well known for something bad

3. turn on: to suddenly attack someone, usingphysical violence or unpleasant words.

4. intone v: to say something slowly and clearlywithout making your voice rise and fall much as you speak

5. arithmetic n: the science of numbers involvingadding, multiplying

6. at fault: in the wrong

Let us not have the usualdeclarations that both sides are at fault.

7. orphan

8. demise n. the end or failureof an enterprise.

　This loss led to the demise of thebusiness.

1.To understand the furor overthe decision by S&P’s the rating agency, to downgrade U.S. government debt,you have to hold in your mind two seemingly (but not actually) contradictoryideas. The first is that American is indeed no longer the stable, reliable  country it once was. The second is thatS&P itself has even lower credibility; it is the last place anyone shouldturn for judgment about our nation’s prospects.

2. Let us begin with S&P’slack of credibility. If there is a single word that best describes the ratingagency’s decision to downgrade America. It is chutzpah-traditionally defined bythe example of the young man who kills his parents, then pleads for mercybecause he is an orphan.

America’s huge budget deficit is,after all, primarily the result of the economic slump that followed the 2008 financialcrisis. And S&P, along with its sister rating agencies, played major rolein causing that crisis, by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed assets thathave since turned into toxic waste.

Nor did bad judgment stop there.Notoriously, S&P gave Lehmann Brothers, whose collapse triggered a globalpanic, an A rating right up to the month of its demise. And how did the ratingagency react after this A-rated firm went bankrupt? By issuing a report denyingthat it had done anything wrong.

3. The United States has farhigher health costs than any other advanced country, and very low taxes byinternational standards. If we could move even part toward international normson both these fonts, our budget problems would be solved.

Summary:

The main topic in this article isthat S&P downgraded the American nation rating. Author analyzed in twoways. On one hand, using his language skill , author condemned rating agencyS&P bitterly and thoroughly. On the other hand, when talking about theAmerican national deficit. Author expressed his confidence toward nationalsolvency. He think if American can lower health cost and rise tax, make boththese parts toward to the international norm, his nation was a still a stableand reliable country and his country still can borrow money from internationalfinancial market. But the main problem blocking on the road of Americaneconomic recovery is a powerful political movement. These extremists preferredto risk financial catastrophe rather than agreed to even penny in additionalrevenues.

Apolloemma

AN AMERICANpresident’s most important power is not the veto pen or the ability to launchmissiles. It is the bully pulpit. When a president speaks, the world listens.That is why Barack Obama’s credibility matters. If people do not believe whathe says, his power to shape events withers. And recent events have seriouslyshaken people’s belief in Mr Obama. At home, the chaos of his health reform hasmade it harder for him to get anything else done. Abroad, he is seen as weakand disengaged, to the frustration of America’s allies.

Not all the barbsaimed at Mr Obama are fair. Our specialreport this week on American foreign policy notes that he inherited twomiserable wars. He began his first term during the worst recession in 80 years.And the Republicans who shut down parts of the federal government last monthand flirted recklessly with default bear much of the blame for Washington’sdisarray. But the excuse that it is all someone else’s fault is wearing thin.Under Mr Obama, America seems rudderless and its power is being squandered. Amore engaged president would handle the Republicans—and the rest of the world—withmore skill.

An exchangeyou can believe in

The debacle ofObamacare has gravely weakened the president (see article).In the days before October 1st, when the online health-insurance exchangeopened, he seemed blithely unaware that anything was amiss. Using it would be“real simple”, he told voters in Maryland on September 26th; it would work the“same way you shop for a TV on Amazon”. Alas, it did not. Millions tried to logon; few succeeded. The website was never properly tested, it transpires.Although this was Mr Obama’s most important domestic reform, no one was reallyin charge. Crucial specifications were changed at the last moment. Contractorswarned that the website was not ready, but the message never reached the OvalOffice. Big government IT projects often go awry, but rarely as spectacularlyas this.

The Economist supported Obamacare when it passed Congressin 2010. We worried that the law was too complex (see article)and did too little to curb medical inflation, but it extended health insuranceto the millions of Americans who lack it. The basic idea is sound: everyonemust have insurance or pay a penalty. The cash-strapped receive big subsidies,and insurers are barred from charging more to those who are already sick. Amore modest version of this reform works quite well in Massachusetts. A manwith little interest in details and a disdain for business, Mr Obama tried toimpose a gigantic change on the whole country all at once and far too casually.

The longer ittakes to fix the website, the greater the chance that Obamacare will fail.Insurers have set their premiums on the assumption that lots of young, healthypeople would be compelled to buy their policies. But if it takes dozens ofattempts to sign up, the people who do so will be disproportionately the sickand desperate. Insurers could be stuck with a far more expensive pool ofcustomers than they were expecting, and could have no choice but to raiseprices next year. That would make Obamacare even less attractive to the young “invincibles”it needs to stay afloat.

To make mattersworse, this sorry saga has caused American voters to doubt Mr Obama’s honesty.Time after time, when selling his reform, he told voters that if they likedtheir health insurance, they could “keep that insurance. Period. End of story.”Policy wonks knew this was untrue. Mr Obama’s number-crunchers quietlypredicted that up to two-thirds of people with individual policies would beforced to change them, since the law would make many bare-bones plans illegal.But ordinary Americans took their president at his word; many were furious tolearn last month that their old policies would be cancelled.

The poisonouspolitics of health care point to another common complaint about Mr Obama: thathe gives great speeches but fails to build relationships. Abroad, he has coolrelations with foreign heads of government. The leaders of allies such asIsrael and Saudi Arabia scorn him. Europeans grumble that they are ignored whenthey want to be heard and spied on when they want to be left alone. LatinAmericans feel neglected. Mr Obama’s “pivot” to Asia has made China feelthreatened, without reassuring other Asians that America will be there in acrisis. Many doubt Mr Obama’s word—remember his “red line” over the use of chemicalweapons in Syria?—and lament his inability to get things done.

At home, heseldom schmoozes with his political opponents—or even with his own side. Pastpresidents put in far more effort to charm and bully lawmakers, business mogulsand anyone who could help them. Lyndon Johnson was famous for blackmailingcongressmen to do the right thing, which is a hard art to practise if youbarely know them. Mr Obama remains aloof—he has no regular breakfast or luncheven with the main Democrats in Congress. You cannot slap backs and twist armsif you are not in the same room.

Forget theNobel halo—and roll up your sleeves

There is apersonal tragedy in this: a talented man who too often does not follow through.As Bill Clinton is reputed to have said, Mr Obama got all the hard stuff right,“but didn’t do the easy stuff at all”. Assuming that he still has the stomachfor the fight, what can Mr Obama do to win back that lost credibility?

At home, thepriority is simply to get his health exchange fixed. His announcement last weekthat people who have lost their old insurance will be allowed to get it back isa sham: he has given insurers neither the time nor the incentive to recreatethe policies he previously ordered them to ditch. He should stop making emptypromises, get rid of the aides who filter out bad news and roll up his sleeves.

Can he get anymore done? Immigration reform is still just possible. He now says he is open totackling it piecemeal, rather than in a comprehensive bill, which raises thechance that it will happen. An even bigger prize would be a long-term fix forAmerica’s finances, with Republicans accepting some tax rises and Democratstolerating cuts to entitlements. He has little to lose: at present he will godown in history, alongside George W. Bush, as a skipper who ignored the loomingfiscal iceberg.

Fixing thoseproblems would require Mr Obama to discover both Clintonian skills oftriangulation and some Republicans who don’t hate him. As with othersecond-term presidents, foreign policy may offer more opportunity. The Obamabrand is less tarnished abroad. And American power is sold short by a lot ofpeople—including, sometimes, Mr Obama. With its matchless armed forces, a webof alliances and omnipresent soft power, the United States is still the world’sindispensable nation—as it has shown in the rescue efforts in the Philippines(see Banyan).When Mr Obama ordered a strike against Osama bin Laden, he proved that he canbe decisive; when he patiently built the case with China and Russia forimposing sanctions on Iran, he was persuasive.

So Mr Obama canget things done when he puts the effort in. Our special report lays out theopportunities that a more committed and confident president could seize. Inmany regions, such as Latin America, just a little bit of attention could yieldimpressive results. Free-trade deals could tie in allies across the Atlanticand the Pacific. Having over-reached in Asia and with a string of domesticproblems, China needs Mr Obama to keep the world stable. If Mr Obama can builda better relationship with China, he will advance both countries’ interests. Animmediate test is Iran: an interim agreement to halt its nuclear programmewould be a first step towards re-engaging America in the Middle East. But onlyif Mr Obama works at it and sells a deal to Israel and his Arab allies.

Mr Obama may notbe able to walk on water. That is now painfully clear, perhaps even to him. ButAmerica’s first black president still has it in his power to leave the OvalOffice famous for what he did, not just what he was.

1.disengaged adj.: not involved with or interested in some thing or someone, andfeeling separate from them

2. disarrary n: the state of being untidy or not organized.

3. wear thin: decrease, grow less or less interests thing.

     The excuses that it is allsomeone else’s fault is wearing thin.

4. rudderless adj: without someone to lead you or give you an aim ordirection.

5. debacle n: an event or situation about how a car, building, piece ofequipment should be made.

6. specification n: a detailed instruction about how a car, building, pieceof equipment should be made.

7.disdain n.: a complete lack of respect you show for someone or somethingbecause you think they are not important or good enough.

8. saga n: along and complicated series of events, or a description ofthis.

9. lament n.: to express feelings of great sadness about something.

10. wonk n.: someone who works hard and is serious /书呆子

11.schmooze v: to talk in a friendly way about unimportant things at asocial event, especially because you want to gain an advantage for yourselflater.

      Politicians spent much of theirtime schmoozing with contributors.

12. follow through: the things that someone does in order to complete aplan.

13.tarnish v: if an event or fact tarnished someone’s reputation, record,image, etc, it makes it worse.

14 omnipresent adj: present everywhere at all times.

1. Recent events have seriously shaken people’s belief in Mr. Obama. Athome, the chaos of his health reform has made it harder for him to get anythingelse done. Abroad, he is seen as week and disengaged, to the frustration ofAmericans allies.

2. Under Mr. Obama, America seem rudderless and its power is beingsquandered. A more engaged president would handle the Republicans-and the restof the world-with more skill.

3. The Economist supportedObamacare when it passed Congress in 2010. We worried that the law was toocomplex and did too little to curb medical inflation, but it extended  health insurance to the millions of Americanswho lacked it. The basic idea is sound: everyone must have insurance or pay apenalty. The cash-strapped receive big subsidies, and insurers are barred fromcharging more to those who are already sick. A more modest version of thisreform works quite well in Massachusetts. A man with little interest in detailsand distain for business, Mr. Obama tried to impose a gigantic change on thewhole country all at once and far too casually.

4. Abroad, he has cool relations with foreign heads of government. Theleaders of allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabian scorned him. Europeansgrumble that they are ignored when they do want to be heard and spied when theywant to left alone. Latin Americas feel neglected. Mr. Obama’s “pivot” to Asiahas made China feel threatened, without reassuring other Asians that Americawill be there in a crisis. Many doubt Mr. Obama’s word-remember his “red line”over the use of chemical weapons in syrian?-and lament his inability to getthins done.

5.There is a personal tragedy in this: a talented man who too often do notallow follow through . As Bill Clinton is reputed to have said, Mr. Obama gotall the hard stuff right, “but did not do the easy stuff at all.”

6. Immigration reform is still just possible. He says he is often totackling piece meal, rather than in a comprehensive bill, which raises thechance that it will happen.

7. Fixing those problems would require Mr. Obama to discover bothClintonian skills of triangulation and some Republicans who do not hate him.

Summary:

It seems that President Obama is a very good person and lack some hardskills to solve the urgent political stuff.