文档内容
政治经济类
即刻题库 www.jike.vip
1 、 英译汉
Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power. But the person who either acquires, or
succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily acquire or succeed to any political
power, either civil or military. His fortune may, perhaps, afford him the means of
acquiring both, but the mere possession of that fortune does not necessarily convey
to him either. The power which that possession immediately and directly conveys to
him, is the power of purchasing; a certain command over all the labor, or over all the
produce of labor which is then in the market. His fortune is greater or less, precisely
in proportion to the extent of this power; or to the quantity either of other men’s
labor, or what is the same thing, of the produce of other men’s labor, which it
enables him to purchase or command. The exchangeable value of every thing must
always be precisely equal to the extent of this power which it conveys to its owner.
But though labor be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all
commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. It is often
difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different quantities of labor. The
time spent in two different sorts of work will not always alone determine this
proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised,
must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labor in an hour's hard work
than in two hours easy business; or in an hour's application to a trade which it cost
ten years labor to learn, than in a month’s industry at an ordinary and obvious
employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure either of hardship or
ingenuity. In exchanging indeed the different productions of different sorts of labor
for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however,
not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market,
according to that sort of rough equality which thought not exact, is sufficient for
carrying on the business of common life.
2 、 英译汉
Europeans have long aspired to end American dominance as the world’s
economic leader. The single market and the euro are widely seen as essential steps in
this direction. But is Europe ready to lead? Do Europeans understand what it would
take?
Despite a budding recovery, the United States is hardly the model of economic
health that it once was. On several issues—from steel tariffs to the resurgent deficitto shady corporate practices—America has demonstrated a growing failure of
leadership. Over the past two decades the United States has shown what it takes to
be an economic superpower—a strong currency, openness to imports, concessions in
trade negotiations and articulating an economic philosophy for the rest of the world.
Now that it’s apparently fading on so many counts, the question becomes: is
Europe willing and prepared to do what the United States once did, in order to
supplant it?
First the exchange-rate issue. The euro will probably continue strengthening
against the dollar, if only because of America’s huge and growing $400 billion-a-
year current-account deficit. This means that, every year, the United States borrows
about 4 percent of its GDP on world markets. If international investors lose
confidence in the U.S. economy, fewer people will want to hold dollar assets. The
dollar will fall—and the euro will appreciate.
This may be a normal market cycle, but there will be consequences. Among
others, European companies will see their U.S. profits erode. What happens if the
dollar falls farther and faster than anticipated? Are European industrial companies
ready to compete with a euro worth $1.10, $1.15 or $1.25? The flip side of the much-
desired strong euro would almost certainly be a surge in imports from the United
States and the rest of the world. Exports might fall, resulting in job losses—perhaps
even a trade deficit for the European Union.
Europeans are rightfully angry at new U.S. steel tariffs. But given the sheer size of
America’s trade deficit, Washington’s policies are actually relatively moderate. The
question remains: if Europe were in a similar position, would its voters and politicians
be equally sensitive to what’s best for the global economy? Would European
politicians be able to face the incredible pressures that would build for protectionist
measures if it were Europe, and not the United States, that ran a persistent trade
deficit? Not likely, I fear.
America’s retreat from its leading role presents an opportunity for the
European Union. Trouble is, its political institutions have yet to mature to the point
where they can resolve trade disputes, say, by looking beyond the immediate and
narrow self-interests of its member states.
Europe’s chance for economic leadership may come sooner than expected. But
too many Europeans haven’t yet grasped the basic secret of America’s
leadership—the hard work and tough choices that are involved. That’s what
Europeans now face, in this season of elections and decision making that will shape
their future. Let’s hope they recognize that such sacrifices will pay off for them, as
well as for the rest of the world.
3 、 英译汉
There have been differences among most presidents’ advisers ever since.
Thomas Jefferson was accused of relying on an “invisible, inscrutable” group of
associates that engaged In backstairs influence.
Franklin Roosevelt managed to be a pretty good resident, though even his
idolatrous supporters concede that he took his advice from inside and outside the
White House and even took a mischievous delight in playing one staff or cabinet
member against another.
Ike followed the military staff system. He did not spend hours listening to the
disputes of his principal aides, but gave Sherman Adams and later General BedellSmith authority and responsibility for settling differences. When his chief of staff
could not settle differences, he insisted on a one-page memorandum defining the
problem, no matter how complicated, and then made his decision.
Harry Truman did not believe in the single chief of staff. He had six principal
advisers with whom he met every morning. At the end of the day, he would have a
little bourbon and branch-water with one of them in the Oval Office, then would take
a bundle of papers upstairs, put on his green eyeshade and read reports until late in
the night.
John F. Kennedy followed much the same system with his brother Robert, Larry
O’Brlen, Kenny O’Donnell and Ted Sorensen at his side, though their assignments
were not limited as rigidly as those of the Truman advisers. Lyndon Johnson did not
invite criticism or differences which his staff or cabinet, but bullied his advisers into
compliance, which helps explain his troubles in Vietnam.
Richard Nixon ran his staff by stealth. He did his homework and mastered the
details of policy, but he delegated vast powers to Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman
in an atmosphere of Byzantine secrecy and intrigue.
Jimmy Carter had his troubles between his White House staff and his cabinet,
particularly over the conduct of foreign policy. But his White House staff was drawn
from a group of Georgia friends who got along with one another comparatively well.
He met with the principal members every morning, held a foreign policy meeting
often for hours every Friday morning, invited, and listened to disputes, sometimes
over the most intricate details of policy.
Mr. Reagan’s way is a reflection of his character and his personality. He is more
interested in, presenting policy than forming it. He does not have a controlling chief
of staff; he does not limit his principal advisers to a special field of concentration like
Mr. Truman, but lets the Big Four—Mr. Baker, Mr. Clark, Michael Deaver and Edwin
Meese play the field and run across one another; he does not dominate or intimidate
his staff, like Mr. Johnson; and he does not read and work like Mr. Carter.
4 、 英译汉
A certain historical distance has always existed between the Asian region and the
international organization. Most of New York’s energy is consumed by the Middle
East and Africa, not Asia. The UN is Atlanticist in structure and sometimes in
orientation.
There have been several signs in recent years, however, of a quickening of
interactions between the UN and Asia. First, the end of the cold war broke the
superpower deadlock in the Security Council, conjured up new confidence about the
organization’s place in international relations and was followed by the
establishment of two of the UN’s largest and most complex peace operations, in
Cambodia and East Timor.
Second, the emergence of new and interconnected5?security threats in the
region, including infectious diseases, resource scarcity, environmental catastrophes
such as the 2004 tsunami, trafficking in drugs and people, and state failure, has
demonstrated the advantages of international cooperation. As these threats escalate,
so will the work of the UN and its agencies.
Third, as the focus of international power moves towards them6, Asian states are
stepping up their engagement with the world body. The top five contributors of
peacekeeping personnel are all from the UN’s Asian regional group. Both Japan andIndia remain intent on permanent membership of the Security Council. Most striking
of all is China’s increasingly practical behavior in New York. China was once poorly
represented, defensive in the Council and uninterested in peacekeeping: now it is
ably represented, confident and skillful in the chamber8?and before the media, and
deploys more peacekeeping personnel than any other permanent member.
5 、 英译汉
The momentum is building ahead of next month’s G8 summit in Scotland
where the leaders of the world’s richest nations will debate what they can do to
help some of the world’s poorest. Africa is the priority and the politicians will
discuss reducing the debt burden, ending trade regulations which put the
continent’s economy at a disadvantage, and giving more aid. Mark Doyle, who’s
reported from Africa for many years, looks at why aid is necessary, and why much of
what’s been donated in the past has not worked.
All around the edge of Africa-along the coastline, near the continents’
ports—are monuments to exploitation. On the island of Goree, for example, just off
the coast of Senegal, there’s: the Slave House. This was the last place many Africans
saw before being shipped off to a lifetime of slavery in American or, just as often, to
death on the high seas.
There are many more places like this dating from the three hundred and fifty
years or so of the African slave trade. When people wonder why Africa is so poor,
they need look no further for the start of an explanation.
6 、 英译汉
It was the anti-globalization movement that really put globalization on the map.
As a word it has existed since the 1960s, but the protests against this allegedly new
process, which its opponents condemn as a way of ordering people’s lives, brought
globalization out of the financial and academic worlds and into everyday current
affairs.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the business model called the “globalized”
financial market came to be seen as an entity that could have more than just an
economic impact on the parts of the world it touched. Globalization came to be seen
as more than simply a way of doing business, or running financial markets—it
became a process. From then on the word took on a life of its own.
So how does the globalized market work? It is modern communications that
make it possible; for the British service sector to deal with its customers through a
call center in India, or for a sportswear (运动服) manufacturer to design its products
in Europe, make them in south east Asia and sell them in north America.
But this is where the anti-globalization side gets stuck in (关注). If these practices
replace domestic economic life with an economy that is heavily influenced or
controlled from overseas. Then the creation of a globalized economic model and the
process of globalization can also be seen as a surrender of power to the
corporations, or a means of keeping poorer nations in their place.
Not everyone agrees that globalization is necessarily evil, or that globalized
corporations are running the lives of individuals or are more powerful than nations.Some say that the spread of globalization, free markets and free trade into the
developing world is the best way to beat poverty—the only problem is that free
markets and free trade do not yet truly exist.
Globalization can be seen as a positive, negative or even marginal process. And
regardless of whether it works for good or ill, globalization’s exact meaning will
continue to be the subject of debate among those who oppose, support or simply
observe it.
7 、 英译汉
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a
new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are
created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any
nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-
field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting
place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether
fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate we can not consecrate we can not
hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note,
nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is
for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated
to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion— that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain —
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the
earth.
8 、 英译汉
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you’ve
bestowed, ?mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush
for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown
throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have
been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every
so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these
moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in
high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our
forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war,
against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly
weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also
our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly;
our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use
energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable
but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land—a nagging fear that
America’s decline is inevitable, and the next generation must lower its sights. Today
I say to you that the challenges we face arc real. They are serious and they are many.
They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America—they
will be met.
