2. 外语
  3. Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal

Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal

admin2014-09-18  91
问题     Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not ac- cord with the requirements of the free market. A price that is determined by the seller or, for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. Ac- cordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price-fixing(the determination of prices by the seller)as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is nor- mal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning re- quires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explic- it agreements among large firms; it is not.
    Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
    Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by a free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices.
According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union’s change in economic policy in the 1970’s?
选项 A、Soviet firms show greater profit.
B、Soviet firms have less control over the free market.
C、Soviet firms are able to adjust to technological advances.
D、Soviet firms have some authority to fix prices.
E、Soviet firms are more responsive to the free market.
答案D
解析 70年代苏联经济政策结果是什么?见原文最后一段。A．苏联企业得到更大利润。无。B．苏联企业对自由市场控制减少。原文L69—72指出这次改革和市场自由无关。C．苏联企业能顺利适应技术进步。无。D．苏联企业有了一些定价的权力。见原文最后一句。正确。E．苏联企业更要受市场影响。理由同B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/UMtO777K
本试题收录于： GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

GMAT VERBAL

GMAT

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)