经济学人 Democratic convention
The Economist 经济学人 常用词汇及解释
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结我眼泪都流出来了太珍贵了!!来源:商大就协的日志1、绝对优势(Absolute advantage)如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多,那么,这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相比就具有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择(Adverse choice)在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源,它所能生产的价值就是选择成本,也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性(Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 为第二组值,那么,弧弹性就等于-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非对称的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市场中,每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如,在旧车市场上,有关旧车质量的信息,卖者通常要比潜在的买者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(Average product)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(Average variable cost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta)β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言,它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时,一种股票的收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield)债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图(Break-even chart)收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必须卖出的最小数量。
MTI备考,外刊《经济学人》
外刊的语言积累在备考的过程中也是很有必要的,阅读外刊可以帮我们加强语感,同时在阅读的过程中也会学习他们的技巧,今天凯程陈老师给大家找了《经济学人》这本说的外刊好句,供大家参考。
外刊好句1:原文:Public disagreement between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats at the heart of the coalition government, as well as a widespread belief among Tory MPs that Lib Dems are steering the ship, has made dissent seem more acceptable.译文:保守党和自由民主党在联合政府的核心问题上公开不和,托利党议员也普遍认为自由民主党在掌舵,这就使异议看起来更可以接受。
读书笔记:dissent [də'sent]n. 异议;(大写)不信奉国教vi. 不一致,持异议;不信奉国教Eg: No one dissents from the decision to unify.无人对统一的决议持有异议。
外刊好句2:原文:The plan is still preliminary.译文:这仍是初步计划。
读书笔记:preliminary [prə'ləmən(ə)rə] adj. 初步的;开始的;预备的Eg: A physical examination is a preliminary to joining the army.体格检查是参军的初步。
外刊好句3:原文:The long economic slump and the rising price of food and energy have already made life harder for the very poorest.译文:漫长的经济衰退时期以及粮食和能源价格的不断上涨,使得贫困者的生活更加举步维艰。
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结
1、绝对优势(Absolute advantage)如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多,那么,这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相比就具有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择(Adverse choice)在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源,它所能生产的价值就是选择成本,也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性(Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 为第二组值,那么,弧弹性就等于-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非对称的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市场中,每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如,在旧车市场上,有关旧车质量的信息,卖者通常要比潜在的买者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(Average product)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(Average variable cost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta)β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言,它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时,一种股票的收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield)债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图(Break-even chart)收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必须卖出的最小数量。
13、预算线(Budget line)预算线表示消费者所能购买的商品X和商品Y的数量的全部组合。
TheEconomist《经济学人》常用词汇总结159页word文档
1、绝对优势(Absolute advantage)如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多,那么,这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相比就具有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择(Adverse choice)在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源,它所能生产的价值就是选择成本,也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性( Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 为第二组值,那么,弧弹性就等于-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非对称的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市场中,每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如,在旧车市场上,有关旧车质量的信息,卖者通常要比潜在的买者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(Average product)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(Average variable cost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta)β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言,它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时,一种股票的收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield)债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图(Break-even chart)收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必须卖出的最小数量。
13、预算线(Budget line)预算线表示消费者所能购买的商品X和商品Y的数量的全部组合。
TheEconomist《经济学人》常用词汇总结我眼泪都流出来了太珍.
两种变量系统地相互联系在一起的程度。
307、Cost ,average 平均成本等于总成本(参见 "总成本" , cost ,total )除以产出的单位数。
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结 我眼泪都流出来了 太珍The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结 我眼泪都流出来了 太珍贵了 !! 16 小时前 301、Consumption function 消费函数 总消费与个人可支配收人( PDI ) 认为会对消费产生影响。
的数值对应关系。
总财富和其他变量也常被 302、Consumption-possibility line 消费可能线 见预算线( budget line )。
303、Cooperative equilibrium合作性均衡 博弈论中,指各方协调行动,以求共同的支付( joint pay - offs )最优化的 策略而达到的结果。
304、Corporate income tax 公司所得税对公司年净收入课征的税收。
305、Corporation 公司 现代资本主义经济中企业组织的主要形式。
它是由个人或其他公司所拥有的 企业,具有与个人一样的购买、销售和签订合同的权利。
公司和对公司负 责任" 的所有人二者,在法律上是不同的概念。
"有限306、Correlation相关308、Cost ,average fixed 平均固定成本等于固定成本除以产出的单位数。
309、Cost,average variable 平均可变成本等于可变成本(参见" 可变成本" ,cost ,variable )除以产出的单位数。
310、Cost ,fixed 固定成本一企业在某时段即使在产量为零时也会发生的成本。
总固定成本由诸如利息支出、抵押支出、管理者费用等契约性开支所组成。
311、Cost ,marginal 边际成本多生产1 单位产品所增加的成本(或总成本的增加额),或少生产1 单位产品总成本的减少额。
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结
The Economist 《經濟學人》常用詞彙總結1、絕對優勢(Absolute advantage)如果一個國家用一單位資源生產的某種產品比另一個國家多,那麼,這個國家在這種產品的生產上與另一國相比就具有絕對優勢。
2、逆向選擇(Adverse choice)在此狀況下,保險公司發現它們的客戶中有太大的一部分來自高風險群體。
3、選擇成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一種方式使用的某種資源,它所能生產的價值就是選擇成本,也可以稱之為機會成本。
4、需求的弧彈性(Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分別是價格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 為第二組值,那麼,弧彈性就等於-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非對稱的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市場中,每個參與者擁有的資訊並不相同。
例如,在舊車市場上,有關舊車品質的資訊,賣者通常要比潛在的買者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是總成本除以產量。
也稱為平均總成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是總固定成本除以產量。
8、平均產品(Average product)平均產品是總產量除以投入品的數量。
9、平均可變成本(Average variable cost)平均可變成本是總可變成本除以產量。
10、投資的β(Beta)β度量的是與投資相聯的不可分散的風險。
對於一種股票而言,它表示所有現行股票的收益發生變化時,一種股票的收益會如何敏感地變化。
11、債券收益(Bond yield)債券收益是債券所獲得的利率。
12、收支平衡圖(Break-even chart)收支平衡圖表示一種產品所出售的總數量改變時總收益和總成本是如何變化的。
收支平衡點是為避免損失而必須賣出的最小數量。
13、預算線(Budget line)預算線表示消費者所能購買的商品X和商品Y的數量的全部組合。
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结 我眼泪都流出来了 太珍贵了 !!
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结1、绝对优势(Absolute advantage)如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多,那么,这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相比就具有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择(Adverse choice)在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源,它所能生产的价值就是选择成本,也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性(Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 为第二组值,那么,弧弹性就等于-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非对称的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市场中,每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如,在旧车市场上,有关旧车质量的信息,卖者通常要比潜在的买者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(Average product)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(Average variable cost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta)β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言,它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时,一种股票的收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield)债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图(Break-even chart)收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必须卖出的最小数量。
13、预算线(Budget line)预算线表示消费者所能购买的商品X和商品Y的数量的全部组合。
《经济学人》常用词汇总结02
101、市场(Market)市场是指为了买和卖某些商品而与其他厂商和个人相联系的一群厂商和个人。
102、市场需求曲线(Market demand curve)市场需求曲线表示在整个市场中产品的价格和它的需求量之间的关系。
103、市场周期(Market period)市场周期是指一种商品的供给量保持不变的一段时期。
104、市场结构(Market structure)四种一般的市场类型是完全竞争、垄断、垄断竞争和寡头垄断。
一个市场的结构依赖于买者和卖者的数量以及产品差别的大小。
105、市场供给表(Market supply schedule)市场供给表表示在各种价格下一种商品所能够供给的数量。
106、加成定价(Markup pricing)加成定价是指,为了确定一种产品的价格而把一个百分比(或绝对的)数量加到所估计的产品平均(或边际的)成本上,这就意味着该数量要计入某些无法化归任何具体产品中去的成本,并且旨在维持厂商的某一投资回报率。
107、最大最小策略(Maximin strategy)最大最小策略是指局中人使得能够获得的最小收益最大化的策略。
108、微观经济学(Microeconomics)微观经济学是经济学的一部分,它分析像消费者、厂商和资源所有者这些个体的经济行为(宏观经济学与之相反,它分析像国内总产品这样的经济总体行为)。
109、工厂的最小有效规模(Minimum efficient size of plant)在长期中平均成本处于或接近其最小值的最小的工厂规模。
110、模型(Model)模型是指以对现实进行简化和抽象的假设为基础的理论,根据它可以引申出对现实世界的预测或结论。
111、货币收人(Money income)货币收入是指用每个时期的实际美元数量度量的消费者的收入。
112、垄断竞争(Monopolistic competition)垄断竞争是指这样一种市场结构,在该市场中有很多有差别产品的卖者,进入很容易并且厂商之间没有勾结行为。
《经济学人》杂志原版英文(整理完整版)之欧阳体创编
Digest Of The. Economist. 2006(6-7)Hard to digestA wealth of genetic information is to be found in the human gutBACTERIA, like people, can be divided into friend and foe. Inspired by evidence that the friendly sort may help with a range of ailments, many people consume bacteria in the form of yogurts and dietary supplements. Such a smattering of artificial additions, however, represents but a drop in the ocean. There are at least 800 types of bacteria living in the human gut. And research by Steven Gill of the Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland, and his colleagues, published in this week's Science, suggests that the collective genome of these organisms is so large that it contains 100 times as many genes as the human genome itself.Dr Gill and his team were able to come to this conclusion by extracting bacterial DNA from the faeces of two volunteers. Because of the complexity of the samples, they were not able to reconstruct the entire genomes of each of the gut bacteria, just the individual genes. But that allowed them to make an estimate of numbers.What all these bacteria are doing is tricky to identify—the bacteria themselves are difficult to cultivate. So the researchers guessed at what they might be up to by comparing the genes theydiscovered with published databases of genes whose functions are already known.This comparison helped Dr Gill identify for the first time the probable enzymatic processes by which bacteria help humans to digest the complex carbohydrates in plants. The bacteria also contain a plentiful supply of genes involved in the synthesis of chemicals essential to human life—including two B vitamins and certain essential amino acids—although the team merely showed that these metabolic pathways exist rather than proving that they are used. Nevertheless, the pathways they found leave humans looking more like ruminants: animals such as goats and sheep that use bacteria to break down otherwise indigestible matter in the plants they eat.The broader conclusion Dr Gill draws is that people are superorganisms whose metabolism represents an amalgamation of human and microbial attributes. The notion of a superorganism has emerged before, as researchers in other fields have come to view humans as having a diverse internal ecosystem. This, suggest some, will be crucial to the success of personalised medicine, as different people will have different responses to drugs, depending on their microbial flora. Accordingly, the next step, says Dr Gill, is to see how microbial populations vary between people of different ages, backgrounds and diets.Another area of research is the process by which these helpful bacteria first colonise the digestive tract. Babies acquire their gut flora as they pass down the birth canal and take a gene-filled gulp of their mother's vaginal and faecal flora. It might not be the most delicious of first meals, but it could well be an important one. Zapping the bluesThe rebirth of electric-shock treatmentELECTRICITY has long been used to treat medical disorders. As early as the second century AD, Galen, a Greek physician, recommended the use of electric eels for treating headaches and facial pain. In the 1930s Ugo Cerletti and Lucio Bini, two Italian psychiatrists, used electroconvulsive therapy to treat schizophrenia. These days, such rigorous techniques are practised less widely. But researchers are still investigating how a gentler electric therapy appears to treat depression.Vagus-nerve stimulation, to give it its proper name, was originally developed to treat severe epilepsy. It requires a pacemaker-like device to be implanted in a patient's chest and wires from it threaded up to the vagus nerve on the left side of his neck. In the normal course of events, this provides an electrical pulse to the vagus nerve for 30 seconds every five minutes.This treatment does not always work, but in some cases whereit failed (the number of epileptic seizures experienced by a patient remaining the same), that patient nevertheless reported feeling much better after receiving the implant. This secondary effect led to trials for treating depression and, in 2005, America's Food and Drug Administration approved the therapy for depression that fails to respond to all conventional treatments, including drugs and psychotherapy.Not only does the treatment work, but its effects appear to be long lasting. A study led by Charles Conway of Saint Louis University in Missouri, and presented to a recent meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, has found that 70% of patients who are better after one year stay better after two years as well.The technique builds on a procedure called deep-brain stimulation, in which electrodes are implanted deep into the white matter of patients' brains and used to “reboot” faulty neural circuitry. Such an operation is a big undertaking, requiring a full day of surgery and carrying a risk of the patient suffering a stroke. Only a small number of people have been treated this way. In contrast, the device that stimulates the vagus nerve can be implanted in 45 minutes without a stay in hospital.The trouble is that vagus-nerve stimulation can take a long time to produce its full beneficial effect. According to Dr Conway, scanstaken using a technique called positron-emission tomography show significant changes in brain activity starting three months after treatment begins. The changes are similar to the improvements seen in patients who undergo other forms of antidepression treatment. The brain continues to change over the following 21 months. Dr Conway says that patients should be told that the antidepressant effects could be slow in coming.However, Richard Selway of King's College Hospital, London, found that his patients' moods improved just weeks after the implant. Although brain scans are useful in determining the longevity of the treatment, Mr Selway notes that visible changes in the brain do not necessarily correlate perfectly with changes in mood.Nobody knows why stimulating the vagus nerve improves the mood of depressed patients, but Mr Selway has a theory. He believes that the electrical stimulation causes a region in the brain stem called the locus caeruleus (Latin, ironically, for “blue place”) to flood the brain with norepinephrine, a neurotransmitter implicated in alertness, concentration and motivation—that is, the mood states missing in depressed patients. Whatever the mechanism, for the depressed a therapy that is relatively safe and long lasting is rare cause for cheer. The shape of things to comeHow tomorrow's nuclear power stations will differ from today'sTHE agency in charge of promoting nuclear power in America describes a new generation of reactors that will be “highly economical” with “enhanced safety”, that “minimise wastes” andwill prove “proliferation resistant”. No doubt they will bake a mean apple pie, too.Unfortunately, in the world of nuclear energy, fine words are not enough. America got away lightly with its nuclear accident. When the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania overheated in 1979 very little radiation leaked, and there were no injuries. Europe was not so lucky. The accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 killed dozens immediately and has affected (sometimes fatally) the health of tens of thousands at the least. Even discounting the association of nuclear power with nuclear weaponry, people have good reason to be suspicious of claims that reactors are safe.Yet political interest in nuclear power is reviving across the world, thanks in part to concerns about global warming and energy security. Already, some 441 commercial reactors operate in 31 countries and provide 17% of the planet's electricity, according to America's Department of Energy. Until recently, the talk was of how to retire these reactors gracefully. Now it is of how to extend their lives. In addition, another 32 reactors are being built, mostly in India, China and their neighbours. These new power stations belong towhat has been called the third generation of reactors, designs that have been informed by experience and that are considered by their creators to be advanced. But will these new stations really be safer than their predecessors?Clearly, modern designs need to be less accident prone. The most important feature of a safe design is that it “fails safe”. Fo r a reactor, this means that if its control systems stop working it shuts down automatically, safely dissipates the heat produced by the reactions in its core, and stops both the fuel and the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactions from escaping by keeping them within some sort of containment vessel. Reactors that follow such rules are called “passive”. Most modern designs are passive to some extent and some newer ones are truly so. However, some of the genuinely passive reactors are also likely to be more expensive to run.Nuclear energy is produced by atomic fission. A large atom (usually uranium or plutonium) breaks into two smaller ones, releasing energy and neutrons. The neutrons then trigger further break-ups. And so on. If this “chain reaction” can be controlled, the energy released can be used to boil water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. If it runs away, the result is a meltdown and an accident (or, in extreme circumstances, a nuclearexplosion—though circumstances are never that extreme in a reactor because the fuel is less fissile than the material in a bomb). In many new designs the neutrons, and thus the chain reaction, are kept under control by passing them through water to slow them down. (Slow neutrons trigger more break ups than fast ones.) This water is exposed to a pressure of about 150 atmospheres—a pressure that means it remains liquid even at high temperatures. When nuclear reactions warm the water, its density drops, and the neutrons passing through it are no longer slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedback stabilises the reaction rate.Can business be cool?Why a growing number of firms are taking global warming seriously RUPERT MURDOCH is no green activist. But in Pebble Beach later this summer, the annual gathering of executivesof Mr Murdoch's News Corporation—which last year led to a dramatic shift in the media conglomerate's attitude tothe internet—will be addressed by several leading environmentalists, including a vice-president turned climatechangemovie star. Last month BSkyB, a British satellite-television company chaired by Mr Murdoch and run by hisson, James, declared itself “carbon-neutral”, having taken various steps to cut or offset its discharges of carboninto the atmosphere.The army of corporate greens is growing fast. Late last year HSBC became the first big bank to announce that itwas carbon-neutral, joining other financial institutions, including Swiss Re, a reinsurer, and Goldman Sachs, aninvestment bank, in waging war on climate-warming gases (of which carbon dioxide is the main culprit). Last yearGeneral Electric (GE), an industrial powerhouse, launched its “Ecomagination” strategy, aiming to cut its output ofgreenhouse gases and to invest heavily in clean (ie, carbon-free) technologies. In October Wal-Mart announced aseries of environmental schemes, including doubling the fuel-efficiency of its fleet of vehicles within a decade.Tesco and Sainsbury, two of Britain's biggest retailers, are competing fiercely to be the greenest. And on June 7thsome leading British bosses lobbied Tony Blair for a more ambitious policy on climate change, even if that involvesharsher regulation.The greening of business is by no means universal, however. Money from Exxon Mobil, Ford and General Motorshelped pay for television advertisements aired recently in America by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, with thedaft slogan “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life”. Besides, environmentalist critics say, some firmsare engaged in superficial “greenwash” to boost the image of essentially climate-hurting businesses. Take BP, themost prominent corporate advocate of actionon climate change, with its “Beyond Petroleum” ad campaign, highprofileinvestments in green energy, and even a “carbon calculator” on its website that helps consumers measuretheir personal “carbon footprint”, or overall emissions of carbon. Yet, critics complain, BP's recent record profits arelargely thanks to sales of huge amounts of carbon-packed oil and gas.On the other hand, some free-market thinkers see the support of firms for regulation of carbon as the latestattempt at “regulatory capture”, by those who stand to profit from new rules. Max Schulz of the ManhattanInstitute, a conservative think tank, notes darkly that “Enron was into pushing the idea of climate change, becauseit was good for its business”.Others argue that climate change has no more place in corporate boardrooms than do discussions of other partisanpolitical issues, such as Darfur or gay marriage. That criticism, at least, is surely wrong. Most of the corporateconverts say they are acting not out of some vague sense of social responsibility, or even personal angst, butbecause climate change creates real business risks and opportunities—from regulatory compliance to insuringclients on flood plains. And although these concerns vary hugely from one company to the next, few firms can besure of remaining unaffected. Testing timesResearchers are working on ways to reduce the need for animal experiments, but new laws mayincrease the number of experiments neededIN AN ideal world, people would not perform experiments on animals. For the people, they are expensive. For theanimals, they are stressful and often painful.That ideal world, sadly, is still some way away. People need new drugs and vaccines. They want protection fromthe toxicity of chemicals. The search for basic scientific answers goes on. Indeed, the European Commission isforging ahead with proposals that will increase the number of animal experiments carried out in the EuropeanUnion, by requiring toxicity tests on every chemical approved for use within the union's borders in the past 25years.Already, the commission has identified 140,000 chemicals that have not yet been tested. It wants 30,000 of theseto be examined right away, and plans to spend between €4 billion-8 billion ($5 billion-10 billion) doing so. Thenumber of animals used for toxicity testing in Europe will thus, experts reckon, quintuple from just over 1m a yearto about 5m, unless they are saved by some dramatic advances in non-animal testing technology. At the moment,roughly 10% of European animal tests are for general toxicity, 35% for basic research, 45% for drugs andvaccines, and the remaining 10% avariety of uses such as diagnosing diseases.Animal experimentation will therefore be around for some time yet. But the hunt for substitutes continues, and lastweekend the Middle European Society for Alternative Methods to Animal Testing met in Linz, Austria, to reviewprogress.A good place to start finding alternatives for toxicity tests is the liver—the organ responsible for breaking toxicchemicals down into safer molecules that can then be excreted. Two firms, one large and one small, told themeeting how they were using human liver cells removed incidentally during surgery to test various substances forlong-term toxic effects.PrimeCyte, the small firm, grows its cells in cultures over a few weeks and doses them regularly with the substanceunder investigation. The characteristics of the cells are carefully monitored, to look for changes in theirmicroanatomy.Pfizer, the big firm, also doses its cultures regularly, but rather than studying individual cells in detail, it counts cellnumbers. If the number of cells in a culture changes after a sample is added, that suggests the chemical inquestion is bad for the liver.In principle, these techniques could be applied to any chemical. In practice, drugs (and, in the case of PrimeCyte,food supplements) are top of the list. But that might change if the commission has itsway: those 140,000screenings look like a lucrative market, although nobody knows whether the new tests will be ready for use by2009, when the commission proposes that testing should start.Other tissues, too, can be tested independently of animals. Epithelix, a small firm in Geneva, has developed anartificial version of the lining of the lungs. According to Huang Song, one of Epithelix's researchers, the firm'scultured cells have similar microanatomy to those found in natural lung linings, and respond in the same way tovarious chemical messengers. Dr Huang says that they could be used in long-term toxicity tests of airbornechemicals and could also help identify treatments for lung diseases.The immune system can be mimicked and tested, too. ProBioGen, a company based in Berlin, is developing anartificial human lymph node which, it reckons, could have prevented the near-disastrous consequences of a drugtrial held in Britain three months ago, in which (despite the drug having passed animal tests) six men sufferedmultiple organ failure and nearly died. The drug the men were given made their immune systems hyperactive.Such a response would, the firm's scientists reckon, have been identified by their lymph node, which is made fromcells that provoke the immune system into a response. ProBioGen's lymph node could thus work better than animaltesting.Another way of cutting the number of animal experiments would be tochange the way that vaccines are tested, according to CoenraadHendriksen of the Netherlands Vaccine Institute. At the moment, allbatches of vaccine are subject to the same battery of tests. DrHendriksen argues that this is over-rigorous. When new vaccine culturesare made, belt-and-braces tests obviously need to be applied. But if abatch of vaccine is derived from an existing culture, he suggests that itneed be tested only to make sure it is identical to the batch from which itis derived. That would require fewer test animals.All this suggests that though there is still some way to go before drugs,vaccines and other substances can be tested routinely on cells ratherthan live animals, useful progress is being made. What is harder to see ishow the use of animals might be banished from fundamental research.Anger managementTo one emotion, men are more sensitive than womenMEN are notoriously insensitive to the emotional world around them. At least, that is the stereotype peddled by athousand women's magazines. And a study by two researchers at the University of Melbourne, in Australia,confirms that men are, indeed, less sensitive to emotion than women, with one important and suggestiveexception. Men are acutely sensitive to the anger of other men.Mark Williams and Jason Mattingley, whose study has just been published in Current Biology, looked at the way aperson's sex affects his or her response to emotionally charged facial expressions. People from all cultures agreeon what six basic expressions of emotion look like. Whether the face before you is expressing anger, disgust, fear,joy, sadness or surprise seems to be recognised universally—which suggests that the expressions involved areinnate, rather than learned.Dr Williams and Dr Mattingley showed the participants in their study photographs of these emotional expressions inmixed sets of either four or eight. They asked the participants to look for a particular sort of expression, andmeasured the amount of time it took them to find it. The researchers found, in agreement with previous studies,that both men and women identified angry expressions most quickly. But they also found that anger was morequickly identified on a male face than a female one.Moreover, most participants could find an angry face just as quickly when it was mixed in a group of eightphotographs as when it was part of a group of four. That was in stark contrast to the other five sorts of expression,which took more time to find when they had to be sorted from a larger group. This suggests that something in thebrain is attuned to picking out angry expressions, and that it isespecially concerned about angry men. Also, thishighly tuned ability seems more important to males than females, since the two researchers found that men pickedout the angry expressions faster than women did, even though women were usually quicker than men to recognizeevery other sort of facial expression.Dr Williams and Dr Mattingley suspect the reason for this is that being able to spot an angry individual quickly hasa survival advantage—and, since anger is more likely to turn into lethal violence in men than in women, the abilityto spot angry males quickly is particularly valuable.As to why men are more sensitive to anger than women, it is presumably because they are far more likely to getkilled by it. Most murders involve men killing other men—even today the context of homicide is usually aspontaneous dispute over status or sex.The ability to spot quickly that an alpha male is in a foul mood would thus have great survival value. It would allowthe sharp-witted time to choose appeasement, defence or possibly even pre-emptive attack. And, if it is right, thisstudy also confirms a lesson learned by generations of bar-room tough guys and schoolyard bullies: if you wantattention, get angry.The shareholders' revoltA turning point in relations between company owners and bosses?SOMETHING strange has been happening this year at company annual meetings in America:shareholders have been voting decisively against the recommendations of managers. Until now, mostshareholders have, like so many sheep, routinely voted in accordance with the advice of the people theyemploy to run the company. This year managers have already been defeated at some 32 companies,including household names such as Boeing, ExxonMobil and General Motors.This shareholders' revolt has focused entirely on one issue: the method by which members of the boardof directors are elected. Shareholder resolutions on other subjects have mostly been defeated, as usual.The successful resolutions called for directors to be elected by majority voting, instead of by thetraditional method of “plurality”—which in practice meant that only votes cast in favour were counted,and that a single vote for a candidate would be enough to get him elected.Several companies, led by Pfizer, a drug giant, saw defeat looming and pre-emptively adopted a formalmajority-voting policy that was weaker than in the shareholder resolution. This required any director whofailed to secure a majority of votes to tender his resignation to the board, which would then be free todecide whether or not to accept it. Under the shareholder resolution, any candidatefailing to secure amajority of the votes cast simply would not be elected. Intriguingly, the shareholder resolution wasdefeated at four-fifths of the firms that adopted a Pfizer-style majority voting rule, whereas it succeedednearly nine times out of ten at firms retaining the plurality rule.Unfortunately for shareholders, their victories may prove illusory, as the successful resolutions were all“precatory”—meaning that they merely advised management on the course of action preferred byshareholders, but did not force managers to do anything. Several resolutions that tried to imposemajority voting on firms by changing their bylaws failed this year.Even so, wise managers should voluntarily adopt majority voting, according to Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &Katz, a Wall Street law firm that has generally helped managers resist increases in shareholder power butnow expects majority voting eventually to “become universal”. It advises th at, at the very least,managers should adopt the Pfizer model, if only to avoid becoming the subject of even greater scrutinyfrom corporate-governance activists. Some firms might choose to go further, as Dell and Intel have donethis year, and adopt bylaws requiring majority voting.Shareholders may have been radicalised by the success last year of a lobbying effort by managersagainst a proposal from regulatorsto make it easier for shareholders to put up candidates in boardelections. It remains to be seen if they will be back for more in 2007. Certainly, some of the activistshareholders behind this year's resolutions have big plans. Where new voting rules are in place, they plancampaigns to vote out the chairman of the compensation committee at any firm that they think overpaysthe boss. If the 2006 annual meeting was unpleasant for managers, next year's could be far worse.Intangible opportunitiesCompanies are borrowing against their copyrights, trademarks and patentsNOT long ago, the value of companies resided mostly in things you could see and touch. Today it liesincreasingly in intangible assets such as the McDonald's name, the patent for Viagra and the rights toSpiderman. Baruch Lev, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, puts theimplied value of intangibles on American companies' balance sheets at about $6 trillion, or two-thirds ofthe total. Much of this consists of intellectual property, the collective name for copyrights, trademarksand patents. Increasingly, companies and their clever bankers are using these assets to raise cash.The method of choice is securitisation, the issuing of bondsbased on the various revenues thrown off byintellectual property. Late last month Dunkin' Brands, owner of Dunkin' Donuts, a snack-bar chain, raised$1.7 billion by selling bonds backed by, among other things, the royalties it will receive from itsfranchisees. The three private-equity firms that acquired Dunkin' Brands a few months ago have used thecash to repay the money they borrowed to buy the chain. This is the biggest intellectual-propertysecuritisation by far, says Jordan Yarett of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a law firm that hasworked on many such deals.Securitisations of intellectual property can be based on revenues from copyrights, trademarks (such aslogos) or patents. The best-known copyright deal was the issue in 1997 of $55m-worth of “Bowie Bonds”supported by the future sales of music by David Bowie, a British rock star. Bonds based on the films ofDreamWorks, Marvel comic books and the stories of John Steinbeck have also been sold. As well asDunkin' Brands, several restaurant chains and fashion firms have issued bonds backed by logos andbrands.Intellectual-property deals belong to a class known as operating-asset securitisations. These differ fromstandard securitisations of future revenues, such as bonds backed by the payments on a 30-yearmortgage or a car loan, in that the borrower has to make his asset work. If investors are to recoup theirmoney, theassets being securitised must be “actively exploited”, says Mr Yarett: DreamWorks mustcontinue to churn out box-office hits.The market for such securitisations is still small. Jay Eisbruck, of Moody's, a rating agency, reckons thataround $10 billion-worth of bonds ar e outstanding. But there is “big potential,” he says, pointing out thatlicensing patented technology generates $100 billion a year and involves thousands of companies.Raising money this way can make sense not only for clever private-equity firms, but also for companieswith low (or no) credit ratings that cannot easily tap the capital markets or with few tangible assets ascollateral for bank loans. Some universities have joined in, too. Yale built a new medical complex withsome of the roughly $100m it raised securitising patent royalties from Zerit, an anti-HIV drug.It may be harder for investors to decide whether such deals are worth their while. They are, after all,highly complex and riskier than standard securitisations. The most obvious risk is that the investorscannot be sure that the assets will yield what borrowers promise: technology moves on, fashions changeand the demand for sugary snacks may collapse. Valuing intellectual property—an exercise based onforecasting the timing and amount of future cashflows—is more art than science.。
经济学人economics2012年4月最新文章《美国总统大选开打》考研必备
美国总统大选开打作者:时间:2012年04月14 来源:Eco中文论坛已阅读386次爱思英语编者按:2012年1月3日的共和党艾奥瓦州党团会议正式拉开美国总统大选帷幕。
11月16日,美国全国选民将投票选出下一届美国总统。
12月17日,选举人团选出总统。
2013年1月6日,参众两院宣布获胜者。
2013年1月20日,新总统就职典礼。
America’s presidential election美国总统大选Game on大战开始The campaign looks likely to sharpen America’s divisions.总统竞选似乎深化了美国人的分歧。
AMERICA’S primary elections are not yet formally over, but with the exit of Rick Santorum it is at last plain that Mitt Romney will be the Republicans’ nominee. After the bruising primaries, Mr Romney starts from behind. Barack Obama leads in the head-to-head polls. But there are still seven months to election day, and Mr Romney has a fair chance of victory in November. Less than half of America’s voters approve of the way Mr Obama is doing his job. Six out of ten think the country is on the “wrong track”. The recovery is still weak and 12.7m Americans are unemployed. America added only 120,000 jobs in March, below expectations and fewer than in previous months.美国初选尚未正式结束,但随着里克·桑托利姆的退出,结果尘埃落定,米特·罗姆尼最终将成为共和党的提名人。
英文期刊《经济学人》汉译英时政词语点评
英文期刊《经济学人》汉译英时政词语点评As one of the most influential English-language periodicals, The Economist not only provides insightful analysis and commentary on economics, business, and finance, but also offers comprehensive coverage of global politics and current affairs. With its unique perspective and distinctive style, The Economist has been a valuable source ofinformation and inspiration for people around the world, especially for those who are interested in understanding the latest developments and trends in the ever-changing world.In recent years, the translation of political terms and phrases from Chinese to English has become a hot topic in the academic and professional circles. Many scholars, translators, and language experts have devoted considerable efforts to studying and analyzing the challenges and opportunities of translating political discourse from Chinese to English, as well as exploring the cultural and linguistic factors thatmay influence the translation process and the reception ofthe translated texts.Against this backdrop, this paper aims to provide acritical review and analysis of the translation of political terms and phrases from English to Chinese in The Economist, with a focus on the linguistic and cultural difficulties and the strategies and techniques adopted by the translators to overcome them. Specifically, the paper will examine five selected articles from The Economist that cover various aspects of global politics and current affairs, and analyzethe translation of the key terms and phrases in thesearticles from English to Chinese.The five articles selected for this study are: "The Rise of Populist Nationalism in Europe", "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis", "The Future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership", "The Rohingya Refugee Crisis", and "The Catalan Independence Referendum". These articles touch upon some of the most pressing and complex issues facing the world today, such as the rise of populism and nationalism in Western Europe, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, the challenges and opportunities of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, and the political turbulence in Catalonia. By examining the translation of these articles, we can gain a deeper understanding of the linguistic and cultural difficulties involved in translating political discourse, as well as the strategies and techniques that can be used to produce effective and accurate translations.One of the most important challenges of translating political discourse from English to Chinese is the linguistic and cultural gap between the two languages and cultures. English is a highly idiomatic and metaphorical language that often uses complex and abstract terms and phrases to convey its meanings. Chinese, on the other hand, is a relatively more literal and concrete language that relies more on context and syntax to convey its meanings. As a result, translating political discourse from English to Chinese requires a deep understanding of both languages and cultures, as well as a great deal of creativity and flexibility.In the article "The Rise of Populist Nationalism in Europe", the translator faces the challenge of translating the key phrase "populist nationalism" into Chinese. Thetranslator decides to use the term "民粹主义"(min4cui4zhu3yi4), which combines the Chinese words for "people" (民) and "pure" (粹), and the English word "ism". This translation effectively conveys the meaning of the term and captures its connotations in English. However, the use of the term "minzhu" (民主), which means "democracy" in Chinese, may cause confusion among Chinese readers who are notfamiliar with the concept of "populist nationalism" in the Western context.In the article "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis", the translator faces the challenge of translating the key term "denuclearization" into Chinese. The translator decides to use the term "无核化" (wu2he2hua4), which literally means "removal of nuclear weapons". This translation effectively conveys the meaning of the term and captures its connotations in English. However, the use of the term "he" (核), which means "nuclear" in Chinese, may cause confusion among Chinese readers who are not familiar with the context of the North Korean nuclear crisis.In the article "The Future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership", the translator faces the challenge of translating the key term "free trade" into Chinese. The translator decides to use the term "自由贸易"(zi4you2mao4yi4), which combines the Chinese words for "freedom" (自由) and "trade" (贸易). This translation effectively conveys the meaning of the term and captures its connotations in English. However, the use of the term "maoyi" (贸易), which means "trade" in Chinese, may not fully capture the complexity and depth of the term "free trade" in the Western context.In the article "The Rohingya Refugee Crisis", thetranslator faces the challenge of translating the key term "ethnic cleansing" into Chinese. The translator decides to use the term "种族清洗" (zhong3zu2qing1xi3), which combines the Chinese words for "ethnic group" (种族) and "cleaning" (清洗). This translation effectively conveys the meaning of the term and captures its connotations in English. However, the use of the term "qingxi" (清洗), which means "cleaning" in Chinese, may not fully capture the brutality and violence of the term "ethnic cleansing" in the Western context.In the article "The Catalan Independence Referendum", the translator faces the challenge of translating the key phrase "illegal referendum" into Chinese. The translator decides to use the term "非法公投" (fei1fa3gong1tou2), which combines the Chinese words for "illegal" (非法) and "referendum" (公投). This translation effectively conveys the meaning of the term and captures its connotations in English. However, the use of the term "gongtou" (公投), which means "referendum" in Chinese, may not fully capture the political significance and implications of the term "referendum" in the Western context.In conclusion, the translation of political terms and phrases from English to Chinese is a complex and challenging task that requires a deep understanding of both languages and cultures, as well as a great deal of creativity and flexibility. The five articles selected for this study provide a comprehensive and diverse sample of the political discourse in English and Chinese, and offer valuable insights and lessons for translators, scholars, and language learners who are interested in bridging the linguistic and cultural gap between the two languages and cultures.。
经济学人六月文章
America's European moment美国的欧洲时刻The troubling similarities between the fiscal mismanagement in Washington a nd the mess in the euro zone华盛顿的财政处置失当与欧元区的混乱不堪有着令人不安的相似之处Jan 5th 2013 | from the print editionFOR the past three years America's leaders have looked on Europe's manage ment of the euro crisis with barely disguised contempt. In the White House and on Capit ol Hill there has been incredulity that Europe's politicians could be so incompetent at handling an economic problem; so addicted to last-minute, short-term fixes; and so inca pable of agreeing on a long-term strategy for the single currency.Those criticisms were all valid, but now those who made them should take the planks fro m their own eyes. America's economy may not be in as bad a state as Europe&apo s;s, but the failures of its politicians—epitomised by this week's 11th-hour deal to a void the calamity of the “fiscal cliff”—suggest that Washington's pattern of dysfunct ion is disturbingly similar to the euro zone's in three depressing ways.Can-kicking* is a transatlantic sportThe first is an inability to get beyond patching up. The euro crisis deepened because Eur ope's politicians serially failed to solve the single currency's structural weakne sses, resorting instead to a succession of temporary fixes, usually negotiated well after mid night. America's problems are different. Rather than facing an imminent debt crisis, as many European countries do, it needs to deal with the huge long-term gap between tax revenue and spending promises, particularly on health care, while not squeezing the econ omy too much in the short term. But its politicians now show themselves similarly addict ed to kicking the can down the road at the last minute.This week's agreement, hammered out between Republican senators and the White House on New Year's Eve, passed by the Senate in the early hours of New Year's Day and by the House of Representatives later the same day, averted the spectre o f recession. It eliminated most of the sweeping tax increases that were otherwise due to t ake effect from January 1st, except for those on the very wealthy, and temporarily put off all the threatened spending cuts (see article). Like many of Europe's crisis summits, that staved off complete disaster: rather than squeezing 5% out of the economy (as the f iscal cliff implied) there will now be a more manageable fiscal squeeze of just over 1% of GDP in 2013. Markets rallied in relief.But for how long? The automatic spending cuts have merely been postponed for two mon ths, by which time Congress must also vote to increase the country's debt ceiling if the Treasury is to be able to go on paying its bills. So more budgetary brinkmanship wi ll be on display in the coming weeks.And the temporary fix ignored America's underlying fiscal problems. It did nothing to control the unsustainable path of “entitlement” spending on pensions and health care (th e latter is on track to double as a share of GDP over the next 25 years); nothing to ratio naliseAmerica's hideously complex and distorting tax code, which includes more tha n $1 trillion of deductions; and virtually nothing to close America's big structural b udget deficit. (Putting up tax rates at the very top simply does not raise much money.) V iewed through anything other than a two-month prism, it was an abject failure. The final deal raised less tax revenue than John Boehner, the Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, once offered during the negotiations, and it included none of the entitleme nt reforms that President Barack Obama was once prepared to contemplate.The reason behind this lamentable outcome is the outsize influence of narrow interest grou ps—which marks a second, unhappy parallel with Europe. The inability of Europeans to ri se above petty national concerns, whether over who pays for bail-outs or who controls bank supervision, has prevented them from making the big compromises necessary to secure the single currency's future. America's Democrats and Republicans have prov ed similarly incapable of reaching a grand bargain; both are far too driven by their parties’extremists and too focused on winning concessions from the other side to work steadily t ogether to secure the country's fiscal future.The third parallel is that politicians have failed to be honest with voters. Just as Chancell or Angela Merkel and President François Hollande have avoided coming clean to the Ger mans and the French about what it will take to save the single currency, so neither Mr O bama nor the Republican leaders have been brave enough to tell Americans what it will r eally take to fix the fiscal mess. Democrats pretend that no changes are necessary to Med icare (health care for the elderly) or Social Security (pensions). Republican solutions alway s involve unspecified spending cuts, and they regard any tax rise as socialism. Each side prefers to denounce the other, reinforcing the very polarisation that is preventing progress.Fixed today, hobbled tomorrowOptimists will point out that America is unlikely to face a European-style debt crisis in th e near future, but the slow-burning fuse is itself a problem. One positive side-effect of Eu rope's crisis is that it has forced euro-zone countries to raise their retirement ages a nd rationalise pensions and health-care promises. America, which has the biggest structural budget deficit in the rich world bar Japan, will become an outlier in its failure to deal with the fiscal consequences of an ageing population. Its ageing is slower than Europe&ap os;s but, as its debt piles up and business and consumer confidence is dampened, the eve ntual crunch will be more painful.The saddest thing about this week's deal is how unaware Messrs Obama and Boehner seem to be of the wider damage their petty partisanship is doing to their country. Nati onal security is not just about the number of tanks or rockets you have. As it has failed to deal with the single currency, Europe's standing has crumbled in the world. Why should developing countries trust American leadership, when it seems incapable of solvin g anything at home? And while the West's foremost democracy stays paralysed, Chi na is making decisions and forging ahead.This week Mr Obama boasted that he had fulfilled his mandate by raising taxes on the ri ch. In fact, by failing once again to clear up America's fundamental fiscal trouble, he and Republican leaders are building Brussels on the Potomac.。
《经济学人》中英双语报道:纪念中国的辛亥革命
近几个月来,阿拉伯世界的暴动让官员们更加紧张。今年4月,官员禁止了由北京几所顶尖学府的学生组织的辛亥革命研讨会,一家负责宣传本次活动的网站称,这次活动既是在回望“振奋人心的革命成果”,也是在探索与民主有关的更深层次的东西。
Two weeks ago the authorities suddenly cancelled the world premier of an opera, “Dr Sun Yat-sen”, which was due to be performed by a Hong Kong troupe at the National Centre for the Performing Arts close to Tiananmen Square in Beijing. “Logistical reasons” were cited, but Hong Kong media speculated that some of its content—including its portrayal of Sun’s love life—was deemed to be out of line.
In the past year, officials have tried to stop discussion of the 1911 revolution straying into such realms. In November 2010 the Xiaoxiang Morning Herald, a newspaper in south China’s Hunan Province, got into trouble with the censors after publishing a supplement on the revolution. It quoted from a letter written by Vaclav Havel in 1975, when he was still a Czech dissident, to the country’s communist president, Gustav Husak: “history again demands to be heard”. The newspaper did not explain the context, which was Mr Havel’s lament about the Communist Party’s sanitisation of history. It did not need to. Its clear message was that the democratic demands of 1911 could not be repressed forever.
The_Economist_《经济学人》常用词汇总结[1]1
The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结我眼泪都流出来了太珍贵了!!来源:石小磊的日志1、绝对优势(Absolute advantage)如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多,那么,这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相比就具有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择(Adverse choice)在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(Alternative cost)如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源,它所能生产的价值就是选择成本,也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性(Arc elasticity of demand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值,P2 和Q2 为第二组值,那么,弧弹性就等于-(Q1-Q2)(P1+P2)/(P1-P2)(Q1+Q2)5、非对称的信息(Asymmetric information)在某些市场中,每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如,在旧车市场上,有关旧车质量的信息,卖者通常要比潜在的买者知道得多。
6、平均成本(Average cost)平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(Average product)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(Average variable cost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta)β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言,它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时,一种股票的收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield)债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图(Break-even chart)收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必须卖出的最小数量。
经济学人常用短语及解释
经济学人常用短语及解释1、绝对优势(absoluteadvantage)如果一个国家比另一个国家生产更多具有特定资源的产品。
2.逆向选择在此状况下,保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本(alternativecost)如果一种资源以最佳的其他方式使用,它能产生的价值就是选择成本,也可以称为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性(arcelasticityofdemand)如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求的初始值,P2和Q2是第二组值,那么弧弹性等于-(q1-q2)(p1+p2)/(p1-p2)(q1+q2)5、非对称的信息(asymmetricinformation)在某些市场,每个参与者都有不同的信息。
例如,在二手车市场,卖家通常比潜在买家更了解二手车的质量。
6.平均成本平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本(averagefixedcost)平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品(averageproduct)平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本(averagevariablecost)平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(beta)β衡量与投资相关的不可分散风险。
对于一只股票来说,它表明当所有流通股票的收益率发生变化时,股票收益率的变化有多敏感。
21.勾结如果x和y是互补品,x的需求量就与y的价格成反向变化。
24、成本不变行业(constant-costindustry)固定成本行业是指具有水平长期供给曲线的行业,其扩张不会导致投入价格的上升或下降。
25、规模收益不变(constantreturnstoscale)如果所有投入的数量以相同的百分比增加,而产出也以相同的百分比增加,规模回报率保持不变。
26、消费者剩余(consumersurplus)消费者剩余是指消费者愿意为某种商品或服务支付的最高金额与实际支付金额之间的差额。
《经济学人》杂志原版英文(整理完整版)之欧阳历创编
Digest Of The. Economist. 2006(6-7)Hard to digestA wealth of genetic information is to be found in the human gutBACTERIA, like people, can be divided into friend and foe. Inspired by evidence that the friendly sort may help with a range of ailments, many people consume bacteria in the form of yogurts and dietary supplements. Such a smattering of artificial additions, however, represents but a drop in the ocean. There are at least 800 types of bacteria living in the human gut. And research by Steven Gill of the Institute for Genomic Researchin Rockville, Maryland, and his colleagues, published in this week's Science, suggests that the collective genome of these organisms is so large that it contains 100 times as many genes as the human genome itself.Dr Gill and his team were able to come to this conclusion by extracting bacterial DNA from the faeces of two volunteers. Because of the complexity of the samples, they were not able to reconstruct the entire genomes of each of the gut bacteria,just the individual genes. But that allowed them to make an estimate of numbers.What all these bacteria are doing is tricky to identify—the bacteria themselves are difficult to cultivate. So the researchers guessed at what they might be up to by comparing the genes they discovered with published databases of genes whose functions are already known.This comparison helped Dr Gill identify for the first time the probable enzymatic processes by which bacteria help humans to digest the complex carbohydrates in plants. The bacteria also contain a plentiful supply of genes involved in the synthesis of chemicals essential to human life—including two B vitamins and certain essential amino acids—although the team merely showed that these metabolic pathways exist rather than provingthat they are used. Nevertheless, the pathways they found leave humans looking more like ruminants: animals such as goats and sheep that use bacteria to break down otherwise indigestible matter in the plants they eat.The broader conclusion Dr Gill draws is that people are superorganisms whose metabolism represents an amalgamation of human and microbial attributes. The notion of a superorganism has emerged before, as researchers in other fields have come to view humans as having a diverse internal ecosystem. This, suggest some, will be crucial to the success of personalised medicine, as different people will have different responses to drugs, depending on their microbial flora. Accordingly, the next step, says Dr Gill, is to see how microbial populations vary between people of different ages, backgrounds and diets.Another area of research is the process by which these helpful bacteria first colonise the digestive tract. Babies acquire their gut flora as they pass down the birth canal and take a gene-filled gulp of their mother's vaginal and faecal flora. It might not be the most delicious of first meals, but it could well be an important one.Zapping the bluesThe rebirth of electric-shock treatmentELECTRICITY has long been used to treat medical disorders. As early as the second century AD, Galen, a Greek physician, recommended the use of electric eels for treating headaches and facial pain. In the 1930s Ugo Cerletti and Lucio Bini, two Italian psychiatrists, used electroconvulsive therapy totreat schizophrenia. These days, such rigorous techniques are practised less widely. Butresearchers are still investigating how a gentler electric therapy appears to treat depression.Vagus-nerve stimulation, to give it its proper name, was originally developed to treat severe epilepsy. It requires a pacemaker-like device to be implanted in a patient's chest and wires from it threaded up to the vagus nerve on the left side of his neck. In the normal course of events, this provides an electrical pulse to the vagus nerve for30 seconds every five minutes.This treatment does not always work, but in some cases where it failed (the number of epileptic seizures experienced by a patient remaining the same), that patient nevertheless reported feeling much better after receiving the implant. This secondary effect led to trials for treating depression and, in 2005, America's Food and Drug Administration approved the therapy for depression that fails to respond to all conventional treatments, including drugs and psychotherapy.Not only does the treatment work, but its effects appear to be long lasting. A study led by Charles Conway of Saint Louis University in Missouri, and presented to a recent meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, has found that 70% of patients who are better after one year stay better after two years as well.The technique builds on a procedure called deep-brain stimulation, in which electrodes are implanted deep into the white matter of patients' brains and used to “reboot” faulty neural circuitry.Such an operation is a big undertaking, requiring a full day of surgery and carrying a risk of thepatient suffering a stroke. Only a small number of people have been treated this way. In contrast, the device that stimulates the vagus nerve can be implanted in 45 minutes without a stay in hospital.The trouble is that vagus-nerve stimulation can take a long time to produce its full beneficial effect. According to Dr Conway, scans taken using a technique called positron-emission tomography show significant changes in brain activity startingthree months after treatment begins. The changesare similar to the improvements seen in patientswho undergo other forms of antidepression treatment. The brain continues to change over the following 21 months. Dr Conway says that patients should be told that the antidepressant effects could be slow in coming.However, Richard Selway of King's College Hospital, London, found that his patients' moods improved just weeks after the implant. Althoughbrain scans are useful in determining the longevityof the treatment, Mr Selway notes that visible changes in the brain do not necessarily correlate perfectly with changes in mood.Nobody knows why stimulating the vagus nerve improves the mood of depressed patients, but Mr Selway has a theory. He believes that theelectrical stimulation causes a region in the brain stem called the locus caeruleus (Latin, ironically, for “blue place”) to flood the brain with norepinephrine, a neurotransmitter implicated in alertness, concentration and motivation—that is, the mood states missing in depressed patients. Whatever the mechanism, for the depressed a therapy that is relatively safe and long lasting is rare cause for cheer.The shape of things to comeHow tomorrow's nuclear power stations will differ from today'sTHE agency in charge of promoting nuclear power in America describes a new generation of reactors that will be “highly economical” with “enhanced safety”, that “minimise wastes” and will prove“proliferation resistant”. No doubt they will bake a mean apple pie, too.Unfortunately, in the world of nuclear energy, fine words are not enough. America got away lightly with its nuclear accident. When the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania overheated in 1979 very little radiation leaked, and there were no injuries. Europe was not so lucky. The accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 killed dozens immediately and has affected (sometimes fatally) the health of tens of thousands at the least. Even discounting the association of nuclear power with nuclear weaponry, people have good reason to be suspicious of claims that reactors are safe.Yet political interest in nuclear power is reviving across the world, thanks in part to concerns about global warming and energy security. Already, some 441 commercial reactors operate in 31 countries and provide 17% of the planet's electricity, according to America's Department of Energy. Until recently, the talk was of how to retire these reactors gracefully. Now it is of howto extend their lives. In addition, another 32 reactors are being built, mostly in India, Chinaand their neighbours. These new power stationsbelong to what has been called the third generation of reactors, designs that have been informed by experience and that are considered by theircreators to be advanced. But will these newstations really be safer than their predecessors?Clearly, modern designs need to be lessaccident prone. The most important feature of asafe design is that it “fails safe”. For a reactor, this means that if its control systems stop workingit shuts down automatically, safely dissipates the heat produced by the reactions in its core, andstops both the fuel and the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactions from escaping by keeping them within some sort of containment vessel. Reactors that follow such rules are called “passive”. Most modern designs are passive to some extent and some newer ones are truly so. However, some of the genuinely passive reactors are also likely to be more expensive to run.Nuclear energy is produced by atomic fission. A large atom (usually uranium or plutonium) breaks into two smaller ones, releasing energy and neutrons. The neutrons then trigger further break-ups. And so on. If this “chain reaction” can be controlled, the energy released can be used to boil water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. If it runs away, the result is a meltdown and an accident (or, in extreme circumstances, a nuclear explosion—though circumstances are never that extreme in a reactor because the fuel is less fissile than the material in a bomb). In many new designs the neutrons, and thus the chain reaction, are kept under control by passing them through water to slow them down. (Slow neutrons trigger more break ups than fast ones.) This water is exposed to a pressure of about 150 atmospheres—a pressure that means it remains liquid even at high temperatures. When nuclear reactions warm the water, its density drops, and the neutrons passing through it are no longer slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedbackstabilises the reaction rate.Can business be cool?Why a growing number of firms are taking global warming seriouslyRUPERT MURDOCH is no green activist. But in Pebble Beach later this summer, the annualgathering of executivesof Mr Murdoch's News Corporation—which last year led to a dramatic shift in the media conglomerate's attitude tothe internet—will be addressed by several leading environmentalists, including a vice-presidentturned climatechangemovie star. Last month BSkyB, a British satellite-television company chaired by Mr Murdoch and run by hisson, James, declared itself “carbon-neutral”, having taken various steps to cut or offset its discharges of carboninto the atmosphere.The army of corporate greens is growing fast. Late last year HSBC became the first big bank to announce that itwas carbon-neutral, joining other financial institutions, including Swiss Re, a reinsurer, and Goldman Sachs, aninvestment bank, inwaging war on climate-warming gases (of whichcarbon dioxide is the main culprit). Last yearGeneral Electric (GE), an industrial powerhouse, launched its “Ecomagination” strategy, aiming to cut its output ofgreenhouse gases and to invest heavily in clean (ie, carbon-free) technologies. In October Wal-Mart announced aseries of environmental schemes, including doubling the fuel-efficiency of its fleet of vehicles within a decade.Tesco and Sainsbury,two of Britain's biggest retailers, are competing fiercely to be the greenest. And on June 7thsome leading British bosses lobbied Tony Blair for amore ambitious policy on climate change, even ifthat involvesharsher regulation.The greening of business is by no means universal, however. Money from Exxon Mobil, Fordand General Motorshelped pay for television advertisements aired recently in America by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, with thedaftslogan “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life”. Besides, environmentalist critics say, some firmsare engaged in superficial “greenwash” toboost the image of essentially climate-hurting businesses. Take BP, themost prominent corporate advocate of action on climate change, with its “Beyond Petroleum” ad campaign, highprofileinvestments in green energy, and even a “carbon calculator” on its website that helps consumers measuretheir personal “carbon footprint”, or overall emissions of carbon. Yet, critics complain, BP's recent record profits arelargely thanks to sales of huge amounts of carbon-packed oil and gas.On the other hand, some free-market thinkers see the support of firms for regulation of carbon as the latestattempt at “regulatory capture”, by those who stand to profit from new rules. Max Schulz of the ManhattanInstitute, a conservative think tank, notes darkly that “Enron was into pushing the idea of climate change, becauseit was good for its business”.Others argue that climate change has no more place in corporate boardrooms than do discussions of other partisanpolitical issues, such as Darfuror gay marriage. That criticism, at least, issurely wrong. Most of the corporateconverts saythey are acting not out of some vague sense ofsocial responsibility, or even personal angst, butbecause climate change creates real businessrisks and opportunities—from regulatory complianceto insuringclients on flood plains. And although these concerns vary hugely from one company to the next, few firms can besure of remaining unaffected. Testing timesResearchers are working on ways to reduce the needfor animal experiments, but new laws mayincrease the number of experiments neededIN AN ideal world, people would not perform experiments on animals. For the people, they are expensive. For theanimals, they are stressful and often painful.That ideal world, sadly, is still some way away. People need new drugs and vaccines. They want protection fromthe toxicity of chemicals. Thesearch for basic scientific answers goes on. Indeed, the European Commission isforging ahead withproposals that will increase the number of animal experiments carried out in the EuropeanUnion, by requiring toxicity tests on every chemical approved for use within the union's borders in the past25years.Already, the commission has identified 140,000 chemicals that have not yet been tested. It wants 30,000 of theseto be examined right away, and plans to spend between €4 billion-8 billion ($5 billion-10 billion) doing so. Thenumber of animals used for toxicity testing in Europe will thus, experts reckon, quintuple from just over 1m a yearto about 5m, unless they are saved by some dramatic advances in non-animal testing technology. At themoment,roughly 10% of European animal tests are for general toxicity, 35% for basic research, 45% for drugs andvaccines, and the remaining 10% a variety of uses such as diagnosing diseases.Animal experimentation will therefore be around for some time yet. But the hunt for substitutes continues, and lastweekend the Middle European Society for Alternative Methods to Animal Testingmet in Linz, Austria, to reviewprogress.A good place to start finding alternatives for toxicity tests is the liver—the organ responsible for breaking toxicchemicals down into safer molecules that can then be excreted. Two firms, one large and one small, told themeeting how they were using human liver cells removed incidentally during surgery to test various substances forlong-term toxic effects.PrimeCyte, the small firm, grows its cells in cultures over a few weeks and doses them regularly with the substanceunder investigation. The characteristics of the cells are carefully monitored, to look for changes in theirmicroanatomy.Pfizer, the big firm, also doses its cultures regularly, but rather than studying individual cells in detail, it counts cellnumbers. If the number of cells in a culture changes after a sample is added, that suggests the chemical inquestion is bad for the liver.In principle, these techniques could be applied to any chemical. In practice, drugs (and, in thecase of PrimeCyte,food supplements) are top of the list. But that might change if the commission hasits way: those 140,000screenings look like alucrative market, although nobody knows whether the new tests will be ready for use by2009, when the commission proposes that testing should start.Other tissues, too, can be tested independently of animals. Epithelix, a small firm in Geneva, has developed anartificial version of the lining of the lungs. According to Huang Song, one of Epithelix's researchers, the firm'scultured cells have similar microanatomy to those found in natural lung linings, and respond in the same way tovarious chemical messengers. Dr Huang says that they could be usedin long-term toxicity tests of airbornechemicalsand could also help identify treatments for lung diseases.The immune system can be mimicked and tested, too. ProBioGen, a company based in Berlin, is developing anartificial human lymph node which, it reckons, could have prevented the near-disastrous consequences of a drugtrial held in Britain threemonths ago, in which (despite the drug having passed animal tests) six men sufferedmultiple organ failure and nearly died. The drug the men were given made their immune systems hyperactive.Such a response would, the firm's scientists reckon, have been identified by their lymph node, which is made fromcells that provoke the immune system into a response. ProBioGen's lymph node could thus work better than animaltesting.Another way of cutting the number of animal experiments would be tochange the way that vaccines are tested, according to CoenraadHendriksen of the Netherlands Vaccine Institute. At the moment, allbatches of vaccine are subject to the same battery of tests. DrHendriksen argues that this is over-rigorous. When new vaccine culturesare made, belt-and-braces tests obviously need to be applied. But if abatch of vaccine is derived from anexisting culture, he suggests that itneed be tested only to make sure it is identical to the batch from which itis derived. That would require fewer test animals.All this suggests that though there isstill some way to go before drugs,vaccines andother substances can be tested routinely on cells ratherthan live animals, useful progress is being made. What is harder to see ishow the use ofanimals might be banished from fundamental research. Anger managementTo one emotion, men are more sensitive than women MEN are notoriously insensitive to theemotional world around them. At least, that is the stereotype peddled by athousand women's magazines. And a study by two researchers at the University of Melbourne, in Australia,confirms that men are, indeed, less sensitive to emotion than women, with one important and suggestiveexception. Men are acutely sensitive to the anger of other men.Mark Williams and Jason Mattingley, whose study has just been published in Current Biology, looked at the way aperson's sex affects his or her response to emotionally charged facial expressions. People from all cultures agreeon what six basic expressions of emotion look like. Whether the face before you is expressing anger, disgust, fear,joy,sadness or surprise seems to be recognised universally—which suggests that the expressions involved areinnate, rather than learned.Dr Williams and Dr Mattingley showed the participants in their study photographs of these emotional expressions inmixed sets of either fouror eight. They asked the participants to look for a particular sort of expression, andmeasured the amount of time it took them to find it. The researchers found, in agreement with previous studies,that both men and women identified angry expressions most quickly. But they also found that anger was morequickly identified on a male facethan a female one.Moreover, most participants could find an angry face just as quickly when it was mixed in a groupof eightphotographs as when it was part of a groupof four. That was in stark contrast to the otherfive sorts of expression,which took more time tofind when they had to be sorted from a larger group. This suggests that something in thebrain is attuned to picking out angry expressions, and that it isespecially concerned about angry men. Also, thishighly tuned ability seems more important to males than females, since the two researchers found that men pickedout the angry expressions fasterthan women did, even though women were usually quicker than men to recognizeevery other sort of facial expression.Dr Williams and Dr Mattingley suspect the reason for this is that being able to spot an angry individual quickly hasa survival advantage—and, since anger is more likely to turn into lethal violence in men than in women, the abilityto spot angry males quickly is particularly valuable.As to why men are more sensitive to anger than women, it is presumably because they are far more likely to getkilled by it. Most murders involve men killing other men—even today the context of homicide is usually aspontaneous dispute over status or sex.The ability to spot quickly that an alpha male is in a foul mood would thus have great survival value. It would allowthe sharp-witted time to choose appeasement, defence or possibly even pre-emptive attack. And, if it is right, thisstudy also confirms a lesson learned by generations of bar-room tough guys and schoolyard bullies: if you wantattention, get angry.The shareholders' revoltA turning point in relations between company owners and bosses?SOMETHING strange has been happening this year at company annual meetings in America:shareholders have been voting decisively against the recommendations of managers. Until now, mostshareholders have, like so many sheep,routinely voted in accordance with the advice of the people theyemploy to run the company. This year managers have already been defeated at some 32 companies,including household names such as Boeing, ExxonMobil and General Motors.This shareholders' revolt has focused entirely on one issue: the method by which members of the boardof directors are elected. Shareholder resolutions on other subjects have mostly been defeated, as usual.The successful resolutionscalled for directors to be elected by majority voting, instead of by thetraditional method of “plurality”—which in practice meant that only votes cast in favour were counted,and that a single vote for a candidate would be enough to get him elected.Several companies, led by Pfizer, a drug giant, saw defeat looming and pre-emptively adopted a formalmajority-voting policy that was weaker than in the shareholder resolution. This required any director whofailed to secure a majority of votes to tender his resignation to the board, which would then be free todecide whether or not to accept it. Under the shareholder resolution, any candidate failing to secure amajority of the votes cast simply would not be elected. Intriguingly, the shareholder resolution wasdefeated at four-fifths of the firms that adopted a Pfizer-style majority voting rule, whereas it succeedednearly nine times out of ten at firms retaining the plurality rule.Unfortunately for shareholders, their victories may prove illusory, as the successful resolutions were all“precatory”—meaning that they merely advisedmanagement on the course of action preferred byshareholders, but did not force managers to do anything. Several resolutions that tried to imposemajority voting on firms by changing their bylaws failed this year.Even so, wise managers should voluntarily adopt majority voting, according to Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &Katz, a Wall Street law firm that has generally helped managers resist increases in shareholder power butnow expects majority voting eventually to “become universal”. It advises that, at the very least,managers should adopt the Pfizer model, if only to avoid becoming the subject of even greater scrutinyfrom corporate-governance activists. Some firms might choose to go further, as Dell and Intel have donethis year, and adopt bylaws requiring majority voting.Shareholders may have been radicalised by the success last year of a lobbying effort by managersagainst a proposal from regulators to make it easier for shareholders to put up candidates in boardelections. It remains to be seen if they willbe back for more in 2007. Certainly, some of the activistshareholders behind this year's resolutions have big plans. Where new voting rules are in place, they plancampaigns to vote out the chairman of the compensation committee at any firm that they think overpaysthe boss. If the 2006 annual meeting was unpleasant for managers, next year's could be far worse.Intangible opportunitiesCompanies are borrowing against their copyrights, trademarks and patentsNOT long ago, the value of companies resided mostly in things you could see and touch. Today it liesincreasingly in intangible assets such as the McDonald's name, the patent for Viagra and therights toSpiderman. Baruch Lev, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, puts theimplied value of intangibles on American companies' balance sheets at about $6 trillion, or two-thirds ofthe total. Much of this consists of intellectual property, the collective name for copyrights, trademarksand patents. Increasingly,companies and their clever bankers are using these assets to raise cash.The method of choice is securitisation, the issuing of bonds based on the various revenues thrown off byintellectual property. Late last month Dunkin' Brands, owner of Dunkin' Donuts, a snack-bar chain, raised$1.7 billion by selling bonds backed by, among other things, the royalties itwill receive from itsfranchisees. The threeprivate-equity firms that acquired Dunkin' Brands a few months ago have used thecash to repay the money they borrowed to buy the chain. This is the biggest intellectual-propertysecuritisation by far, says Jordan Yarett of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a law firm that hasworked on many such deals.Securitisations of intellectual property can be based on revenues from copyrights, trademarks (such aslogos) or patents. The best-known copyright deal was the issue in 1997 of $55m-worth of “Bowie Bonds”supported by the future sales of music by David Bowie, a British rock star. Bonds based onthe films ofDreamWorks, Marvel comic books and the stories of John Steinbeck have also been sold. As well asDunkin' Brands, several restaurant chains and fashion firms have issued bonds backed by logos andbrands.Intellectual-property deals belong to a class known as operating-asset securitisations. These differ fromstandard securitisations of future revenues, such as bonds backed by the payments on a 30-yearmortgage or a car loan, in that the borrower has to make his asset work. If investors are to recoup theirmoney, the assets being securitised must be “actively exploited”, says Mr Yarett: DreamWorks mustcontinue to churn out box-office hits.The market for such securitisations is still small. Jay Eisbruck, of Moody's, a rating agency, reckons thataround $10 billion-worth of bonds are outstanding. But there is “big potential,” he says, pointing out thatlicensing patented technology generates $100 billion a year and involves thousands of companies.Raising money this way can make sense not only for clever private-equity firms, but also for companieswith low (or no) credit ratings that cannot easily tap the capital markets or with few tangible assets ascollateral for bank loans. Some universities have joined in, too. Yale built a new medical complex withsome of the roughly $100m it raised securitising patent royalties from Zerit, an anti-HIV drug.It may be harder for investors to decide whether such deals are worth their while. They are, after all,highly complex and riskier than standard securitisations. The most obvious risk is that the investorscannot be sure that the assets will yield what borrowers promise: technology moves on, fashions changeand the demand for sugary snacks may collapse. Valuing intellectual property—an exercise based onforecasting the timing and amount of future cashflows—is more art than science.So far, says Mr Eisbruck, these bonds have generally matched investors' hopes. But regulators say thatonly institutional investors, such as。
每日单词:convention
每日单词:conventionconvention /kənˈvenʃn/CET6丨IELTS丨TOEFL外刊例句Could history repeat itself? To avoid such an outcome, the Democrats distribute delegates in proportion to votes. But this carries its own hazard. If no one wins a majority, delegates to the party’s convention choose the victor. That could leave the nominee without democratic legitimacy.历史会重演吗?为了避免这样的结果,民主党按投票比例分配代表。
但这也有其自身的风险。
如果没有人赢得多数选票,参加党代会的代表将选出获胜者。
这可能会使提名人失去民主合法性。
——《经济学人》基本释义convention: A convention is a large meeting of anorganization or political group, or an official agreement between countries or groups of people.n. 会议;惯例;公约追根溯源单词convention来自拉丁语,由词根ven/vent扩展而来,表示come,即“来”的意思,很多扩展的单词都与“来”这个动作有关,例如:convene /kənˈviːn/ v. 聚集;召集intervene /ˌɪntəˈviːn/ vi. 干涉;插话contravene /ˌkɒntrəˈviːn/ vt. 违反;抵触convenience /k ənˈviːniəns/ n. 方便,便利设施ventilation /ˌventɪˈleɪʃn/ n. 通风设备;空气流通恺撒大帝是罗马帝国的奠基者,他在泽拉战役获胜后写给罗马元老院的著名捷报中用了3个拉丁词汇:VENI VIDI VICI,音标是 /weːniː wiːdiː wiːkiː/,翻译过来就是“我来,我见,我征服”,听上去就很霸气的感觉!其实这句名言就用到了三个词根,ven 表示“来”,vid 表示“看”,vic 表示“征服”。
经济学人Privateeffort,commongood
经济学⼈Privateeffort,commongoodThe Democratic conventionPrivate effort, common goodDemocrats and Republicans are now arguing over who can best be trusted with the American DreamSep 8th 2012 | CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA| from the print editionBARACK OBAMA’S Republican challengers have a plan for defeating the president. They want to confront him with a question so weighty that he cannot use his charm, personal popularity or powers of lofty rhetoric to escape from it, namely: is America better off today than it was four years ago, when he took office?For some months Mr Obama and the Democratic Party have struggled to craft a response, seemingly hesitating to run on the president’s record at a time of high unemployment, soaring energy prices and other indicators of tough times for ordinary Americans. Instead, the Democratic campaign has been largely negative, blaming the Republicans for leaving behind a mess when they lost the White House in 2008, and attacking their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as an out-of-touch capitalist raider.In this sectionPrivate effort, common goodUrban nationAnd then there was oneThe good old waysVive la révolutionBreathing roomShindig fatigueReprintsRelated topicsPolitical familiesU.S. Democratic Party PoliticsPoliticsPolitical partiesGovernment and politicsThat unimpressive stalemate budged a bit this week, as Democrats gathered in Charlotte in the battleground state of North Carolina from September 4th-6th for their national convention. True, the meeting offered its fair share of cheap shots at Mr Romney (were the Republican candidate Santa Claus, one speaker suggested, he would “fire the reindeer and outsource the elves”). It left questions unanswered about how Mr Obama, in a second term, might tackle America’s looming crisis of debt and public spending. Indeed, too many of the governors, senators, congressmen and union bosses invited to speak seemed to see no crisis at all, as they hailed the importance of continued government spending (or “investment”) on everything from new infrastructure to preserving middle-class jobs.But, more interestingly, leading Democrats attempted a political and philosophical counter-attack, directly tackling arguments unveiled by Republicans at their own convention the week before in Florida. That gathering had heard repeated calls for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and an end to what conservative speakers called un-American levels of welfare and redistribution.In Charlotte several speakers, among them a former president, Bill Clinton, the First Lady, Michelle Obama, and a young Hispanic mayor from Texas, Julián Castro, accused today’s Republicans of misrepresenting the American dream, and even their party’s own traditions. Speaker after speaker reached into their country’s mythic past to paint a communitarian vision of American success. The mayor of Minneapolis hailed “pioneer ancestors” who had not settled the prairies alone but in wagon trains. Success in America was a “relay”, not a lone marathon, said Mr Castro. The governor of Colorado declared that western history was not just about “rugged individuals”but communities comingtogether to “raise barns”.Mr Clinton gave a bravura speech that deftly recalled Mr Obama’s nasty primary fight with Mrs Clinton, but turned it into a positive by noting that Mr Obama now pragmatically worked with his former party rival. The 42nd president, who enjoys high approval ratings from a public that remembers his two terms as a time of prosperity, solemnly painted the present-day Republican Party as captured by a hate-filled far-right and living in an “alternative universe” in which all those who have achieved success are “completely self-made”. This he suggested, ignored a centrist case for business and government working together to promote growth and “broadly share prosperity”.For her part, Mrs Obama gave an unusually partisan speech for a First Lady, taking swipes at the privileged background and competence of Mr Romney, which she contrasted with the humble upbringings of her and her husband. More interestingly, she also queried Republican arguments about the individualistic nature of American success.Republicans have spent weeks attacking Mr Obama for a garbled remark in July in which he appeared to say that successful entrepreneurs “didn’t build” their firms—though in truth he was making a more complicated (but still pretty statist) point about the importance of good schools, roads and other public infrastructure. Their convention in T ampa rang to angry cries of “We did build it.”In Charlotte, Mrs Obama attempted to recast that Republican slogan as betraying bad manners and ingratitude. She and the president had been brought up to be grateful and humble and to remember that many people had a hand in their success,“from the teachers who inspired us to the janitors who kept our school clean”, she said. She described how her father had hardly missed a day of work despite suffering from multiple sclerosis, and had saved and scrimped to pay that share of his children’s college tuition that was not covered by government grants and student loans. The rebuke to Republicans was there to be heard: this was Mrs Obama asserting that the poor (or less than wealthy) can be just as deserving as the bosses whose hard work was the focus of so much attention at the Republican convention.Yet if the chasm between the two parties is astonishingly wide, the Democratic convention revealed that Mr Obama’s party also suffers from its own internal tensions. Democrats are able to unite around a belief that the government has a role in promoting opportunity and ensuring a “level playing field”. But what that means in practice is less clear, as was demonstrated by the speech that preceded Mr Clinton’s. In that address, Elizabeth Warren, an academic running for the Senate in Massachusetts, described the American economic system as “rigged”against small businessmen and workers and evoking the era when Theodore Roosevelt, a century ago, had fought against the forces of “corrosive greed”. Mr Clinton preferred to focus on practical measures to educateAmericans for new sorts of jobs, telling an adoring audience bluntly: “The old economy is not coming back.”Diversity’s problemsMr Obama’s fellow Democrats, gathered for a convention, are a far more diverse bunch than their Republican counterparts, whether racially, politically or by age (today’s Republican activist base is remarkably white-skinned and grey-haired). But that diversity poses its own headaches.Explore our interactive guide to the 2012presidential electionTo win in November, Mr Obama must revive the enthusiasm that saw black, Hispanic and young supporters turn out to vote for him in 2008 in record numbers. His convention duly placed huge weight on a rainbow array of policies dear to different segments of his core coalition. Sitting in the hall, it would have been possible to imagine that the bail-out of Michigan’s unionised car industry was the biggest economic story of the past five years, and that allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces ranked alongside killing Osama bin Laden in terms of military importance.Yet for victory, Mr Obama must also win over a separate group: independents who backed him in 2008, but who are now gravely disappointed by the gap between his promises to transform Washington politics, and a reality that has seen him look like a prisoner of congressional dysfunction and obstructionism.On September 6th the president was due to address just such wavering supporters, in a speech that would have to explain not just how things could be worse with Republicans in the White House, but how a second Obama term would move the country forwards, and preserve its spirit of opportunity.Politicians have lauded America as a land of opportunity in every election in living memory. As it enters its final weeks, the 2012 election campaign is seeing the argument move from rhetoric to something crunchier: a debate about how to balance freedom, fairness, the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the state. This is, in short, an election about which party can be trusted with the American Dream itself.from the print edition | United States。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Michelle Obama at the Democratic conventionIf you built that, still say thank youSep 5th 2012, 5:00 by D.R. | CHARLOTTEAMERICAN first ladies occupy an odd position, somewhere on the regal extremities of a presidential system that gives the country a cross between a chief executive in the Oval Office, and an elected monarch. A politician’s wife who is not a politician, expected to use the privilege of her position to advance only the most wholesome, patriotic causes (reading, childhood obesity, the welfare of military families), a first lady may still—with skill and guile—be used as an effective partisan weapon.At last week’s Republican convention in T ampa, Ann Romney performed useful service in vouching for the humanity, decency, trustworthiness and hard work of her husband Mitt. It was not ground-breaking oratory, but because the humanity of Mr Romney had been under attack from his opponents, the evident sincerity of her love for the Republican presidential candidate had some power.On Tuesday night in Charlotte, as the Democrats opened their convention, Michelle Obama delivered a much more obviously political speech that did several different things.Firstly, it sought to harness the advantage of incumbency to defend Mr Obama’s patriotism, that of his administration and (more quietly) that of his allies in the broader Democratic movement. In her most queenly manner, the first lady talked of the privilege and honour of meeting military families, brave civilians and “wounded warriors”as a presidential consort—playing up Mr Obama’s record as a war president who brought troops home from Iraq and who killed Osama bin Laden. Matching praise for “teachers in a near-bankrupt school district who vowed to keep teaching without pay” was more of a present for the Democratic base, in which teachers and members of public-sector unions angry at spending cuts loom large. These sections were fine, but nothing special.Secondly, she delivered a series of nakedly partisan swipes at the privileged background and competence of Mr Romney, her husband’s challenger, and these bits were not very good. Thus she stressed, clunkingly, how she and her husband were “both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions”, but made up for it with love, self-sacrifice and ambition for their children—unlike (we were supposed to conclude) Mr Romney, the son of a wealthy executive turned politician. She also talked of how presidents constantly take hard decisions “where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer”. That was a nod to those asking whether Mitt Romney’s success as a private-equity boss, which saw him patiently sift and weigh screeds of data and financial information to identify low-risk, high-return investments, gave him the right sort of executive experience, given the rapid-fire, high-stakes nature of Oval Office decision-making.There was lots of stuff about what a sweet, loving and admirable husband and father Mr Obama is, which frankly did not advance the cause of human understanding very much: the Democrats in the crowd lapped it up, while those watching at home who dislike the current president will not have had their minds changed.But in other passages, the first lady’s speech did one last thing: it mounted a rebuttal of the core argument advanced at the Republican convention about the individualistic nature of American success, and how it is government’s first job to get out of the way of wealth creators, rather than smothering them with regulations or cosseting and unmanning citizens with un-American levels of welfare. Those bits of Mrs Obama’s speech were more clever, and interesting. Mrs Obama did not mount a straightforward defence of the public sector or government intervention—indeed, she did not need to, as half the speakers on Tuesday spent their time defending the public sector and praising government spending, or investment, as they called it. Instead, she set out to chip away atthat Republican praise for success, and to imply that it ungratefully claims too much personal credit for things that go right.Now this is, of course, dangerous territory for the Obamas. The president is still being whacked with attack ads over his garbled "you didn't build that" remarks. Though he was talking about the importance of good schools, roads and other public infrastructure, the Republicans used the line as a central rallying cry at their convention. Speaker after speaker expressed resentment over the idea that their own hard work was not integral to their success. “You did built that”, they told the crowd in Tampa, while assuring them that Barack Obama both hated success and was bent on turning America into a “nightmare of dependency” (as Rick Santorum put it).In Charlotte on Tuesday Mrs Obama suggested that this was slightly bad manners, not to mention arrogant. She described how her father had “hardly ever missed a day of work” despite suffering from multiple sclerosis, and how he had saved and scrimped to pay the “tiny portion” of his children’s college tuition that was not covered by grants and student loans, because paying for his children’s education was “what it meant to be a man”. She talked of Barack Obama’s grandmother, who spent years working tirelessly in a community bank without complaining when less able male colleagues were promoted above her. The rebuke to Republicans was there to be heard: this was Mrs Obama praising the dignity of the loyal employee, and arguing that the poor (or less than wealthy) can be just as deserving as employers and bosses.The first lady also rebutted the charge that she and her husband dislike private-sector success, adding her own moral twist. She revisited her husband’s “you didn’t build that” remarks and tried to make them into a broader moral argument about gratitude.Like so many American families, our families weren’t asking for much. They didn’t begrudge anyone else’s success or care that others had much more than they did...in fact, they admired it. They simply believed in that fundamental American promise that, even if you don’t start out with much, if you work hard and do what you’re supposed to do, then you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids.That’s how they raised us…that’s what we learned from their example. We learned about dignity and decency—that how hard you work matters more than how much you make…that helping others means more than just getting ahead yourself.We learned about honesty and integrity—that the truth matters…that you don’t take shortcuts or play by your own set of rules…and success doesn’t count unless you earn it fair and square.We learned about gratitude and humility—that so many people had a hand inour success, from the teachers who inspired us to the janitors who kept our school clean…and we were taught to value everyone’s contribution and treat everyone with respect.Those are the values Barack and I—and so many of you—are trying to pass on to our own children. That’s who we are.Some will find that an unconvincing line of attack. It is arguable that even if Mr Obama garbled his remarks about the role played by government infrastructure, he does have a poor relationship with many business leaders, four years into his presidency.But I thought the line about “gratitude and humility” was clever, because in their worst moments in Tampa the Republicans did sound shrill and self-congratulatory, not to mention hypocritical (this reporter’s favourite moment involved a testimonial on stage from a Hispanic businessman whose main gripe, it turned out, was that his firm had not secured fat enough contracts from the government).The first lady’s communitarian counter-blast had one last interesting aspect. Like many speakers on this first evening in Charlotte, she sought to cast her message of community support and mutual solidarity as rooted in the country’s most ancient traditions.There was almost a sense of poker at work. In Tampa, Republicans talked a lot about their parents, the second world war and the "greatest generation", and the founding fathers. On the first night in Charlotte, speaker after speaker spoke about their grandparents (ie, I’ll see your mother, and raise you my granny).From Democratic governors, senators and mayors speaking in Charlotte there was talk of pioneers heading west in wagon trains and of George Washington fighting the British redcoats. Mrs Obama traced her community-based version of the American dream back to the American revolution, in which patriotic farmers and blacksmiths came together to “win independence from an empire”.In short, the Democrats are on offence against what they clearly think was a purely individualistic narrative of success from the Republicans in Tampa last week. And while never quite mentioning Mitt Romney by name, the first lady was a key player in that offensive strategy. Politics by another means. It certainly fired up the hall, who gave her repeated standing ovations. Whether it impresses swing voters in the country remains to be seen.(Photo credit: AFP)。