2. 财经
  3. Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both c

Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both c

admin2015-04-09  36
问题     Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists both conservative and liberal concluded that an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching.
    Why the consensus? International free trade, economists agree, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
    The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners benefit, otherwise they wouldn’t trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spent, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong(or anywhere else).
    The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices.
    Americans pay an enormous price for protectionism over $60 billion a year, or $1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
    Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil shale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Trade between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
    Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that raise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special interest groups, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.
According to the free trade principle, the author suggests that______.
选项 A、Saudi Arabia build its own food industry
B、Saudi Arabia import food from U. S.
C、U. S. become self-sufficient with its oil
D、U. S. explore its oil shale
答案B
解析 细节题。题目意思是“根据自由贸易规则，作者提出什么建议”。根据第六段所列举的例子可知，美国在食品生产上占优势，而沙特阿拉伯在石油方面占优势。沙特能够通过大规模的灌溉实现食品方面自给，但通过卖石油购买食品更经济一些。同样，美国也可以通过从油页岩上挤出石油实现自给，但这样比从沙特直接购买石油耗资更大，由此可知B项“沙特应该从美国进口食品”为正确答案。其言外之意是“发展自己的食品业就不够经济”；同样道理，“美国自己在石油方面自给自足耗资巨大”，也就是说“使用油页岩开采石油”也是不值得提倡的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/D8gc777K
本试题收录于： 英语题库银行系统招聘考试分类
0

英语

银行系统招聘考试

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)