The Anxiety Economy ,from《Economist》

合集下载

2021年《经济学人》杂志原版英文(整理完整版)

2021年《经济学人》杂志原版英文(整理完整版)

Digest Of The. Economist. 2006(6-7)欧阳光明(2021.03.07)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 they discovered withpublished 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 asthey 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 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 DrugAdministration 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” f aulty 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, scans taken 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's THE 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 immediatelyand 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 to what 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”. For a re actor, 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 onesare 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 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 mediaconglomerate'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 CompetitiveEnterprise Institute, with thedaft slogan “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life”. Besides, environmentalist critics say, some firmsare eng aged in superficial “greenwash” to boost 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, andev en 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, not es 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 theseconcerns 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 forgeneral 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 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 its way: those 140,000screenings look like a lucrative market, although nobody knowswhether 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 liningof 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 themoment, 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 is especially 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 inwomen, 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, asusual.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 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 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 powerbutnow 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 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 Americancompanies' 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 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, 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 outs tanding. 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。

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 我眼泪都流出来了 太珍贵了 !!
不变投入品是指生产过程中所使用的(如厂房和设备)、在考察的期间
数量不变的资源。
61、自由资源(Free resource)
自由资源是指特别富裕以致在零价格就可以获得的资源。
62、一般均衡分析(General equilibrium analysis)
一般均衡分析是指(与局部均衡分析相反)把各种市场和价格的相互作用都考虑进去的分析。
44、生产的经济区域(Economic region of production)
生产的经济区域是指等产量线斜率为负的投入品组合。没有一个厂商会在等产量线斜率为正的点上运行,因为在这种点上总会有一种投入品的边际产品为负。
45、经济资源(Economic resource)
经济资源是指一种稀缺的、要求一个非零价格的资源。
勾结是指一个厂商和同业内其他的厂商签订有关价格、产量和其他事宜的协议。
22、比较优势(Comparative advantage)
如果与生产其他商品的成本相比,一个国家生产的某种产品的成本比另一个国家低,那么,该国就在这种商品的生产上与另一个国家相比具有比较优势。
23、互补品(Complements)
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)
资本是指用于生产、销售及商品和服务分配的设备、厂房、存货、原材料和其他非人力生产资源。
16、资本收益(Capital gain)

The Economist常用经济学词汇

The Economist常用经济学词汇

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》常用词汇总结我眼泪都流出来了太珍.

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。

一篇《经济人学》翻译

一篇《经济人学》翻译

【翻译】有一群人最受其害。

在过去的半个世纪,发达国家教育程度不高的男性,在处理劳动力市场和家庭领域中的巨大变化时困难重重。

随着技术和贸易的发展使得有勇无谋之人的价值不断下滑,教育程度不高的男性努力在职场寻找自己应该扮演的角色。

另一方面,女性习得了高超的技艺之后,则在诸如医疗和教育等发展行业如鱼得水。

随着教育变得越来越重要,男孩在学校的表现常常不如女生。

在制造业,失去工作的男性也常常再难入职。

失业的男性会发现很难吸引长期配偶。

结果就是,对教育程度较低的男性来说,没有工作,没有家庭,没有未来,简直是雪上加霜。

左派和右派各抒己见。

但是他们的解释并不矛盾:造成这一现状,经济和社会变革均有责任,而两者也会彼此加强。

而且,现状有可能会恶化。

技术将会给更多产业带来变革,会造福社会,但是也会让那些无法学习提高的工人成为多余。

经合组织智库预测,在几乎所有的发达国家中,单亲家庭的绝对数量会继续增加。

没有父亲陪伴成长的男孩更有可能无法建立长久的关系,这会形成男性社会功能障碍的恶性循环。

能采取什么措施呢?部分解决问题的关键在于文化态度的改变。

在过去的一代人中,中产阶级男性认识到他们需要帮忙照顾孩子,并改变自己的行为。

工人阶层的男性需要跟上变化。

女性已经知道她们也能在不失去自身特质的前提下,成为医生和物理学家。

男性需要理解,传统的体力劳动不会再回来,他们也能在不失去自身男性特质的情况下成为护士或发型师。

【词汇短语】1. cope with 处理2. labor market 劳动力市场3. devalue [diː'væljuː] vt. 使贬值4*.brawn [brɔːn] n. 发达的肌肉5. surge [sɜːdʒ] vi. 激增6. sector ['sektə] n. 部门7. superior [suː'pɪərɪə; sjuː-] adj. 出众的8. permanent ['pɜːm(ə)nənt] adj. 永久的9. prospect ['prɒspekt] n. 前途10. contradictory [kɒntrə'dɪkt(ə)rɪ] adj. 矛盾的11. reinforce [riːɪn'fɔːs] vt. 加强•12. render ['rendə] vt. 致使13. redundant [rɪ'dʌnd(ə)nt] adj. 多余的14. think-tank 智囊团15. household ['haʊshəʊld] n. 家庭•16*.dysfunction [dɪs'fʌŋ(k)ʃ(ə)n] n. 功能紊乱17. child care 儿童保育18. catch up ['kætʃʌp] 赶上•19. surgeon ['sɜːdʒ(ə)n] n. 外科医生20. femininity [,femɪ'nɪnɪtɪ] n. 女子本性21. manual job 体力工作22. hairdresser ['heədresə] n. 美发师23. masculinity [,mæskjʊ'lɪnɪtɪ] n. 男子气(注:标*的为超纲词)【点评】段I分析了发达国家教育程度较低男性面临的不利局面。

The-Economist-常用词汇

The-Economist-常用词汇

The Economist 《经济学人》常用词汇总结,太珍贵了!!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。

001《经济学家》读译参考之一:重建美国梦机器

001《经济学家》读译参考之一:重建美国梦机器

TEXT 1Rebuilding the American dream machine重建美国梦机器Jan 19th 2006 | NEW YORKFrom The Economist print editionFOR America's colleges, January is a month of reckoning.Most applications for the next academic year beginning inthe autumn have to be made by the end of December, so auniversity's popularity is put to an objective standard: howmany people want to attend. One of the more unlikelyoffices to have been flooded with mail is that of the CityUniversity of New York (CUNY), a public college that lacks,among other things, a famous sports team, bucolic campusesand raucous parties (it doesn't even have dorms), and, untilrecently, academic credibility.对美国的大学而言,一月是一个清算的月份。

大多数要进入将于秋季开学的下一学年学习的申请必须在12月底前完成,因此一所大学的声望就有了客观依据:申请人的多少。

纽约城市大学,一所公立学院,与其他学校相比,它没有一支声名显赫的运动队,没有田园诗一般的校园,也没有喧嚣嘈杂的派对——甚至连宿舍都没有,而且,直到最近也没取得学术上的可信度,可就是这所大学的办公室塞满了学生们寄来的申请函,这简直有些令人难以置信。

《The Economist》《经济学人》中文版2009年12月

《The Economist》《经济学人》中文版2009年12月

全国气候:政治搭台,科学唱戏Climate change 气候变化heated debate 激辩Nov 26th 2009From The Economist print editionWhy political orthodoxy must not silence scientific argument为何有了政治说法,还应有科学的辩论?Illustration by Claudio Munoz“WHAT is truth?” That was Pontius Pilate’s answer to Jesus’s assertion that “Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.” It sounds suspiciously like the modern argument over climate change.“真理是什么?”耶稣说完“相信真理的人都能听到我”之后,彼拉多随即如此问道。

听起来耳熟?在当代,气候变化引起的争辩就与此有相似之处。

A majority of the world’s climate sc ientists have convinced themselves, and also a lot of laymen, some of whom have political power, that the Earth’s climate is changing; that the change, from humanity’s point of view, is for the worse; and that the cause is human activity, in the form of excessive emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.国际上,大多数气候科学家不但说服了自己,也说服了很多门外汉(其中包括一些有政治影响力的人)--地球的气候正在改变;这种改变,从人道主义角度来看,是消极的;这种改变的始作俑者是人类,是他们通过排放超量的诸如二氧化碳的温室气体而造成的。

The Economist常用词汇总结及经济学原理

The Economist常用词汇总结及经济学原理

The Economist《经济学人》常用词汇总结(全集)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。

economist经济学人文摘(中英双语):A mixed blessing

economist经济学人文摘(中英双语):A mixed blessing

A mixed blessing 喜忧参半The cheaper euro will be good for some European companies—up to a point欧元贬值有利于某些欧洲国家,仅限于一定程度May 27th 2010 | From The Economist print editionA FEW years ago even global celebrities bowed down before the almighty euro. Gisele Bündchen, a Brazilian supermodel, insisted on being paid in the currency. Jay-Z waved €500 notes in a rap video. The Wu-Tang Clan, fellow American rappers, listed the price of one of their CDs in euros rather than dollars on their official website.几年前,全球名流纷纷向万能的欧元顶礼膜拜。

巴西超级名模吉赛尔•邦辰坚持接受欧元报酬。

说唱歌手Jay-Z在音乐电视里点着一叠500欧元的钞票。

美国说唱团体武当派在官方网站上出售的专辑以欧元而不是美元标价。

Today the euro has lost much of its glamour, gangsta or otherwise. It has fallen by 15% against the dollar since December. Most analysts think that the decline still has some way to go. Some even talk of parity between the two currencies. This is a severe blow to Europe’s self-image. But is it such a bad thing for business in the euro zone?时下,欧元已经失去了往日的光辉和威力。

《经济学人》杂志原版英文(The Economist整理版4-5)

《经济学人》杂志原版英文(The Economist整理版4-5)

Digest Of The. Economist. 2006(4-5)Hot to trotA new service hopes to do for texting what Skype did for voice callsTALK is cheap—particularly since the appearance of voice-over-internet services such as Skype. Such services, which make possible very cheap (or even free) calls by routing part or all of each call over the internet, have forced traditional telecoms firms to cut their prices. And now the same thing could be about to happen to mobilephone text messages, following the launch this week of Hotxt, a British start-up.Users download the Hotxt software to their handsets, just as they would a game or a ringtone. They choose a user name, and can then exchange as many messages as they like with other Hotxt users for £1 ($1.75) per week. The messages are sent as data packets across the internet, rather than being routed through operators' textmessaging infrastructure. As a result, users pay only a tiny data-transport charge, typically of a penny or so per message. Since text messages typically cost 10p, this is a big saving—particularly for the cost-conscious teenagers at whom the service is aimed.Most teenagers in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, pay for their mobile phones on a “pre-paid” basis, rather than having a monthly contract with a regular bill. Pre-paid tariffs are far more expensive: bundles of free texts and other special deals, which can reduce the cost of text messaging, are generally not available. For a teenager who sends seven messages a day, Hotxt can cut the cost of texting by 75%, saving £210 per year, says Doug Richard, the firm's co-founder. For really intensive text-messagers, the savings could be even bigger: Josh Dhaliwal of mobileYouth, a market-research firm, says that some teenagers—chiefly boys aged 15-16 and girls aged 14-15—are “supertexters” who send as many as 50 messages per day.While this sounds like good news for users, it could prove painful for mobile operators. Text-messaging accounts for around 20% of a typical operator's revenues. With margins on text messages in excess of 90%, texting also accounts for nearly half of an operator's profits. Mr Richard is confident that there is no legal way that operators can block his service; they could raisedata-transport costs, but that would undermine their own efforts to push new services. Hotxt plans to launch in other countries soon.“The challenge is getting that initial momentum,” says Mr Dhaliwal. Hotxt needs to persuade people to sign up, so that they will persuade their friends to sign up, and so on. Unlike Skype, Hotxt is not free, so users may be less inclined to give it a try. But as Skype has also shown, once a disruptive, low-cost communications service starts to spread, it can quickly become very big indeed. And that in turn can lead to lower prices, not just for its users, but for everyone.A discerning viewA new way of processing X-rays gives much clearer imagesX-RAYS are the mysterious phenomenon for which Wilhelm Röntgen was awarded the first Nobel prize in physics, in 1901. Since then, they have shed their mystery and found widespread use in medicine and industry, where they are used to revealthe inner properties of solid bodies.Some properties, however, are more easily discerned than others. Conventional Xray imaging relies on the fact that different materials absorb the radiation to different degrees. In a medical context, for example, bones absorb X-rays readily, and so show up white on an X-radiograph, which is a photographic negative. But Xrays are less good at discriminating between different forms of soft tissue, such as muscles, tendons, fat and blood vessels. That, however, could soon change. For Franz Pfeiffer of the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen, Switzerland, and his colleagues report, in the April edition of Nature Physics, that they have manipulated standard X-ray imaging techniques to show many more details of the inner body.The trick needed to discern this fine detail, according to Dr Pfeiffer, is a simple one. The researchers took advantage not only of how tissues absorb X-rays but also of how much they slow their passage. This slowing can be seen as changes in the phase of the radiation that emerges—in other words of the relative positions of the peaks and troughs of the waves of which X-rays are composed.Subtle changes in phase are easily picked up, so doctors can detect even small variations in the composition of the tissue under investigation, such as might be caused by the early stages of breast cancer. Indeed, this trick—known as phase-contrast imaging—is already used routinely in optical microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. Until now, however, no one had thought to use it for medical X-radiography.To perform their trick, the researchers used a series of three devices called transmission gratings. They placed one between the source of the X-rays and the body under examination, and two between the body and the X-ray detector that forms the image. The first grating gathers information on the phases of the X-rays passing through it. The second and third work together to produce thedetailed phase-contrasted image. The approach generates two separate images—the classic X-ray image and the phase-contrasted image—which can then be combined to produce a high-resolution picture.The researchers tested their technique on a Cardinal tetra, a tiny iridescent fish commonly found in fish tanks and aquariums. The conventional X-ray image showed the bones and the gut of the fish, while the phase-contrasted image showed details of the fins, the ear and the eye.Dr Pfeiffer's technique would thus appear to offer a way to get much greater detail for the same amount of radiation exposure. Moreover, since it uses standard hospital equipment, it should be easy to introduce into medical practice. X-rays may no longer be the stuff of Nobel prizes, but their usefulness may just have increased significantly.Here be dragonsWith luck, you may soon be able to buy a mythological petPAOLO FRIL, chairman and chief scientific officer of GeneDupe, based in San Melito, California, is a man with a dream. That dream is a dragon in every home.GeneDupe's business is biotech pets. Not for Dr Fril, though, the mundane cloning of dead moggies and pooches. He plans a range of entirely new animals—or, rather, of really quite old animals, with the twist that even when they did exist, it was only in the imagination.Making a mythical creature real is not easy. But GeneDupe's team of biologists and computer scientists reckon they are equal to the task. Their secret is a new field, which they call “virtual cell biology”.Biology and computing have a lot in common, since both are about processing information—in one case electronic; in the other, biochemical. Virtual cell biology aspires to make a software model of a cell that is accurate in every biochemical detail. That is possible because all animal cells use the same parts list—mitochondria for energy processing, the endoplasmic reticulum for making proteins, Golgi body for protein assembly, and so on.Armed with their virtual cell, GeneDupe's scientists can customise the result so that it belongs to a particular species, by loading it with a virtual copy of that animal's genome. Then, if the cell is also loaded with the right virtual molecules, it will behave like a fertilised egg, and start dividing and developing—first into an embryo, and ultimately into an adult.Because this “growth” is going on in a computer, it happens fast. Passing from egg to adult in one of GeneDupe's enormous Mythmaker computers takes less than a minute. And it is here that Charles Darwin gets a look in. With such a short generation time, GeneDupe's scientists can add a little evolution to their products.Each computer starts with a search image (dragon, unicorn, gryphon, etc), and the genome of the real animal most closely resembling it (a lizard for the dragon, a horse for the unicorn and, most taxingly, the spliced genomes of a lion and an eagle for the gryphon). The virtual genomes of these real animals are then tweaked by random electronic mutations. When they have matured, the virtual adults most closely resembling the targets are picked and cross-bred, while the others are culled.Using this rapid evolutionary process, GeneDupe's scientists have arrived at genomes for a range of mythological creatures—in a computer, at least. The next stage, on which they are just embarking, is to do it for real.This involves synthesising, with actual DNA, the genetic material that the computer models predict will produce the mythical creatures. The synthetic DNA is then inserted into a cell that has had its natural nucleus removed. The result, Dr Fril and his commercial backers hope, will be a real live dragon, unicorn or what have you.Tales of the unexpectedWhy a drug trial went so badly wrongIN ANY sort of test, not least a drugs trial, one should expect the unexpected. Even so, on March 13th, six volunteers taking part in a small clinical trial of a treatment known as TGN1412 got far more than they bargained for. All ended up seriously ill, with multiple organ failure, soon after being injected with the drug at a special testing unit at Northwick Park Hospital in London, run by a company called Parexel. One man remains ill in hospital.Small, preliminary trials of this sort are intended to find out whether a drug is toxic. Nevertheless, the mishap was so serious that Britain's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), a government body, swiftly launched a full inquiry. On April 5th it announced its preliminary findings. These were that the trial was run correctly, doses of the drug were given as they were supposed to have been, and there was no contamination during manufacturing. In other words, it seems that despite extensive tests on animals and human-cell cultures, and despite the fact that the doses in the human trial were only a five-hundredth of those given to the animals, TGN1412 is toxic in people in a way that simply had not shown up.This is a difficult result for the drug business because it raises questions about the right way of testing medicines of this kind. TGN1412 is unusual in that it is an antibody. Most drugs are what are known as “small molecules”. Antibodies are big, powerful proteins that are the workhorses of the immune system. A mere 20 of them have been approved for human therapy, or are in latestage clinical trails, in America and Europe, but hundreds are in pre-clinical development, and will soon need to be tried out on people.Most antibody drugs are designed to work in one of three ways: by recruiting parts of the immune system to kill cancer cells; by delivering a small-molecule drug or a radioactive atom specifically to a cancer; or by blocking unwanted immune responses. In that sense, TGN1412 was unusual because it worked in a fourth way. It is what is called a “superagonistic” antibody, designed to increase the numbers of a type of immune cell known as regulatory T-cells.Reduced numbers, or impaired function, of regulatory T-cells has been implicated in a number of illnesses, such as type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Boosting the pool of these antibodies seemed like a good treatment strategy. Unfortunately, that strategy fell disastrously to pieces and it will take a little longer to find out why.The result highlights concerns raised in a paper just published by the Academy of Medical Sciences, a group of experts based in London. It says there are special risks associated with novel antibody therapies. For example, their chemical specificity means that they might not bind to their targets in humans as they do in other species.Accidence and substanceTwo possible explanations for the bulk of realityTHE unknown pervades the universe. That which people can see, with the aid of various sorts of telescope, accounts for just 4% of the total mass. The rest, however, must exist. Without it, galaxies would not survive and the universe would not be gently expanding, as witnessed by astronomers. What exactly constitutes this dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, but physicists have recently uncovered some more clues, about the former, at least.One possible explanation for dark matter is a group of subatomic particles called neutrinos. These objects are so difficult to catch that a screen made of lead a light-year thick would stop only half the neutrinos beamed at it from getting through. Yet neutrinos are thought to be the most abundant particles in the universe. Some ten thousand trillion trillion—most of them produced by nuclear reactions in the sun—reach Earth every second. All but a handful pass straight through the planet as if it wasn't there.According to the Standard Model, the most successful description of particle physics to date, neutrinos come in three varieties, called “flavours”. These are known as electron neutrinos, tau neutrinos and muon neutrinos. Again, according to the Standard Model, they are point-like, electrically neutral and massless. But in recent years, this view has been challenged, as physicists realised that neutrinos might have mass.The first strong evidence came in 1998, when researchers at an experiment called SuperKamiokande, based at Kamioka, in Japan, showed that muon neutrinos produced by cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere had gone missing by the time they should have reached an underground detector. SuperKamiokande's operators suspect that the missing muon neutrinos had changed flavour, becoming electron neutrinos or—more likely—tau neutrinos. Theory suggests that this process, called oscillation, can happen only if neutrinos have mass.Since then, there have been other reports of oscillation. Results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada suggest that electron neutrinos produced by nuclear reactions in the sun change into either muon or tau neutrinos on their journey to Earth. Two other Japanese experiments, one conducted at Kamioka and one involving the KEK particle-accelerator laboratory in Tsukuba, near Tokyo, also hint at oscillation.Last week, researchers working on the MINOS experiment at Fermilab, near Chicago, confirmed these results. Over the coming months and years, they hope to produce the most accurate measurements yet. The researchers created a beam of muon neutrinos by firing an intense stream of protons into a block of carbon. On the other side of the target sat a particle detector that monitored the number of muon neutrinos leaving the Fermilab site. The neutrinos then traveled 750km (450 miles) through the Earth to a detector in a former iron mine in Soudan, Minnesota.Myths and migrationDo immigrants really hurt American workers' wages?EVERY now and again America, a nation largely made up of immigrants and their descendants, is gripped by a furious political row over whether and how it should stem the flood of people wanting to enter the country. It is in the midst of just such a quarrel now. Congress is contemplating the erection of a wall along stretches of the Mexican border and a crackdown on illegalworkers, as well as softer policies such as a guest-worker programme for illegal immigrants. Some of the arguments are plain silly. Immigration's defenders claim that foreigners come to do jobs that Americans won't—as if cities with few immigrants had no gardeners. Its opponents say that immigrants steal American jobs—succumbing to the fallacy that there are only a fixed number of jobs to go around.One common argument, though not silly, is often overstated: that immigration pushes down American workers' wages, especially among high-school dropouts. It isn't hard to see why this might be. Over the past 25 years American incomes have become less equally distributed, typical wages have grown surprisingly slowly for such a healthy economy and the real wages of the least skilled have actually fallen. It is plausible that immigration is at least partly to blame, especially because recent arrivals have disproportionately poor skills. In the 2000 census immigrants made up 13% of America's pool of workers, but 28% of those without a high-school education and over half of those with eight years' schooling or less.In fact, the relationship between immigration and wages is not clear-cut, even in theory. That is because wages depend on the supply of capital as well as labour. Alone, an influx of immigrants raises the supply of workers and hence reduces wages. But cheaper labour increases the potential return to employers of building new factories or opening new valet-parking companies. In so doing, they create extra demand for workers. Once capital has fully adjusted, the final impact on overall wages should be a wash, as long as the immigrants have not changed the productivity of the workforce as a whole.However, even if wages do not change on average, immigration can still shift the relative pay of workers of different types. A large inflow of low-skilled people could push down the relative wages of low-skilled natives, assuming that they compete for the same jobs. On the other hand, if the immigrants had complementary skills, natives would be relatively better off. To gauge the full effect of immigration on wages, therefore, you need to know how quickly capital adjusts and how far the newcomers are substitutes for local workers.Roaming holidayThe EU hopes to slash the price of cross-border mobile calls“TODAY it is only when using your mobile phone abroad that you realise there are still borders in Europe,” lamented Viviane Reding, the European commissioner responsible for telecoms and media regulation, as she announced plans to slash the cost of mobile roaming last month. It is a laudable aim: European consumers typically pay €1.25 ($1.50) per minute to call home from another European country, and €1 per minute to receive calls from home while abroad. With roaming margins above 90%, European mobile operators make profits of around €10 billion a year from the trade, the commission estimates.Ms Reding's plan, unveiled on March 28th and up for discussion until May 12th, is to impose a “home pricing” scheme. Even while roaming, callers would be charged whatever they would normally pay to use their phones in their home countries; charges for incoming calls while roaming would be abolished. That may sound good. But, as the industry is understandably at pains to point out, it could have some curious knock-on effects.In particular, consumers could sign up with operators in foreign countries to take advantage of lower prices. Everyone would take out subscriptions to the cheapest supplier and bring them back home, says John Tysoe of the Mobile World, a consultancy. “You'd end up with a complete muddle. An operator might have a network, bu t no customers, because they've all migrated.”Another problem with Ms Reding's plan, he says, is that operators would compensate for the loss of roaming fees— thought to account for around 3% of their revenues and 5% of profits—by raising prices elsewhere. This would have the perverse effect of lowering prices for international business travellers, a big chunk of roaming traffic, while raising prices for most consumers.The commission's proposals are “economically incoherent”, says Richard Feasey of Vodafo ne, which operates mobile networks in many European countries. Imposing price caps on roaming is legally questionable, he says, and Vodafone has, in any case, been steadily reducing its roaming charges. (European regulators prevented it from doing so for three years on antitrust grounds after its takeover of Mannesmann in 2000.) Orange, another multinational operator, says it is planning to make price cuts, too. “Of course, now everybody's got price cuts,” says Stefano Nicoletti of Ovum, a consultancy.But perhaps Ms Reding's unspoken plan is to use the threat of regulation as a way to prompt action. Operators are right that her proposals make no sense, but they are charging too much all the same. So expect them to lobby hard against the proposals over the next couple of years, while quietly cutting their prices—an outcome that would, of course, allow both sides to claim victory.Devices and their desiresEngineers and chemists get togetherTHERE used to be a world of difference between treating a patient with a device—such as a fake hip or a pacemaker—and using biology and biochemistry. Different ailments required wholly different treatments, often with little in common. But that is changing as medical advances—such as those being trumpeted at the biotechnology industry's annual gathering this week in Chicago—foster combinations of surgical implants and other hardware with support from medicines. Drug-releasing stents were one of the first fruits of this trend, which increasingly requires vastly different sorts of health-care firms to mesh their research efforts.That will be a challenge. While pharmaceutical and biotech firms are always in search of the next big thing, devicemakers prefer gradual progress. Instead of hanging out with breathless entrepreneurs near America's east and west coasts, where most drug and biotechnology firms are based, many of the device-makers huddle in midwestern cities such as Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Kalamazoo. And unlike Big Pharma, which uses marketing blitzes to tell ailing consumers about its new drugs, medical-device sales teams act more as instructors, showing doctors how to install their latest creations.Several companies, however, are now trying to bring these two business cultures together. Earlier this year, for example, Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian firm, bought American Medical Instruments (AMI). Angiotech's managers reckon their company has devised a good way to apply drug coatings to all sorts of medical paraphernalia, from sutures and syringes to catheters, in order to reduce the shock to the body. AMI makes just the sorts of medical supplies to which Angiotech hopes to apply its techniques.One of America's biggest makers of medical devices, Medtronic, has been doing joint research with Genzyme, a biotechnology company that is also keen on broader approaches to health care. Genzyme says that it was looking for better ways to treat ailments, such as coronary and kidney disease, and realised that it needed to understand better how electro-mechanical devices and information technology work. But combining its efforts with those of Medtronic “on a cultural level is very hard”, the company says. Biotechnology firms are used to much more risky projects and far longer development cycles.Another difference is that device-makers know that if a problem emerges with their hardware, the engineers will tinker around and try to resolve the glitch. Biotech and pharmaceutical firms have no such option. If a difficulty emerges after years of developing and testing a new pill, as with Merck's Vioxx, there may be little they can do about it. “You can't futz with a molecule”, says Debbie Wang, a health-care industry analyst.Strangely, says Ms Wang, some of the most promising engineering outfits were once divisions of pharmaceutical andhealth-care companies, which got rid of them precisely because they did not appear to offer the rapid growth that managers saw in prescription drugs. Guidant, a maker of various cardiovascular devices, was spun off by Eli Lilly in 1994 and a decade later became the prize in a bidding war between Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific, which Boston won earlier this year.Pfizer sold Howmedica, which makes joint replacements and prosthetics, to Kalamazoo-based Stryker in 1998. Anotherjoint-replacement maker, Zimmer, was spun off from Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2001. Now both those companies are looking for ways to add “anti-interactive coatings”—ie, drugs—to their business. One of the most troublesome complications in joint replacement is infection.The big drug companies might be tempted to reacquire the firms that they let go. But, given the potential for cultural and strategic clashes, it may make more sense for a few big and broad medical-device makers, such as Medtronic, Boston Scientific and St Jude Medical, to continue consolidating their own industry while co-operating, along the lines of the Medtronic-Genzyme venture, with biotech and pharmaceutical firms as they see fit. There would still be irritation; but probably less risk of wholesale rejection.Eat less, live moreHow to live longer—maybeDIETING, according to an old joke, may not actually make you live longer, but it sure feels that way. Nevertheless, evidence has been accumulating since the 1930s that calorie restriction—reducing an animal's energy intake below its energy expenditure—extends lifespan and delays the onset of age-related diseases in rats, dogs, fish and monkeys. Such results have inspired thousands of people to put up with constant hunger in the hope of living longer, healthier lives. They have also led to a search for drugs that mimic the effects of calorie restriction without the pain of going on an actual diet.Amid the hype, it is easy to forget that no one has until now shown that calorie restriction works in humans. That omission, however, changed this month, with the publication of the initial results of the first systematic investigation into the matter. Thisstudy, known as CALERIE (Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy), was sponsored by America's National Institutes of Health. It took 48 men and women aged between 25 and 50 and assigned them randomly to either a control group or a calorie-restriction regime. Those in the second group were required to cut their calorie intake for six months to 75% of that needed to maintain their weight.The CALERIE study is a landmark in the history of the field, because its subjects were either of normal weight or only slightly overweight. Previous projects have used individuals who were clinically obese, thus confusing the unquestionable benefits to health of reducing obesity with the possible advantages of calorie restriction to the otherwise healthy.At a molecular level, CALERIE suggests these advantages are real. For example, those on restricted diets had lower insulin resistance (high resistance is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes) and lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (high levels are a risk factor for heart disease). They showed drops in body temperature and blood-insulin levels—both phenomena that have been seen in long-lived, calorie-restricted animals. They also suffered less oxidative damage to their DNA.Eric Ravussin, of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, who is one of the study's authors, says that such results provide support for the theory that calorie restriction produces a metabolic adaptation over and above that which would be expected from weight loss alone. (He also points out that it will be a long time before such work reveals whether calorie restriction actually extends life.) Nevertheless, such metabolic adaptation could be the reason why calorie restriction is associated with longer lifespans in other animals—and that is certainly the hope of those who, for the past 15 years, have been searching for ways of triggering that metabolic adaptation by means other than semi-starvation.The search for a drug that will stave off old age is itself as old as the hills—as is the wishful thinking of the suckers who finance such efforts. Those who hope to find it by mimicking the effect of calorie restriction are not, however, complete snake-oil salesmen, for there is known to be a family of enzymes called sirtuins, which act both as sensors of nutrient availability and as regulators of metabolic rate. These might provide the necessary biochemical link between starving and living longer.Universal service?Proponents of “software as a service” say it will wipe out traditional softwareSOMETHING momentous is happening in the software business. Bill Gates of Mi crosoft calls it “the next sea change”. Analysts call it a “tectonic shift” in the industry. Trade publications hail it as “the next big thing”. It is software-as-a-service (SaaS)—the delivery of software as an internet-based service via a web browser, rather than as a product that must be purchased, installed and maintained. The appeal is obvious: SaaS is quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy than traditional software, which means technology budgets can be focused on providing competitive advantage, rather than maintenance.This has prompted an outbreak of iconoclasm. “Traditional software is dead,” says Jason Maynard, an analyst at Credit Suisse. Just as most firms do not own generators, but buy electricity from the grid, so in future they will buy software on the hoof, he says. “It's the end of software as we know it. All software is becoming a service,” declares Marc Benioff of , thebest-known proponent of the idea. But while SaaS is growing fast, it still represents only a tiny fraction of the overall software industry—a mere $3.35 billion last year, estimates Mr Maynard. Most observers expect it to be worth around $12 billion by 2010—but even that is equal only to Microsoft's quarterly sales today. There is no denying that SaaS is coming. But there is much debate, even among its advocates, about how quickly it will grow, and how widely it will be adopted.At the moment, small and medium-sized businesses are the most enthusiastic adopters of SaaS, since it is cheaper and simpler than maintaining rooms of server computers and employing staff to keep them running. Unlike the market for desktop software, which is dominated by Microsoft, or for high-end enterprise software, which is dominated by SAP and Oracle, the middle ground is still highly f ragmented, which presents an opportunity. “This is the last great software market left—the last unconsolidated market,” says Zach Nelson of NetSuite, which provides a suite of software services including accounting, sales-force automation and customer service. His firm is targeting small and medium-sized businesses by providing “verticalised” services—that is, versions of its software adapted to particular types of company, such as professional-service firms, wholesale distributors and software firms.Large companies, says Mr Nelson, have already made big investments in traditional software. “They've already been through the pain,” he says. So they will not be in a hurry to ditch their existing investments in traditional software from the likes of SAP and Or acle. “I have no fantasy of replacing those guys,” says Mr Nelson. But Mr Benioff of disagrees. His firm provides customer-relationship management (CRM) software as a service, which is already used by many big firms including Cisco, Sprint a nd Merrill Lynch. “The world's largest companies are now using for the world's largest CRM implementations,” he says. “It's the future of our industry that everything will be a service.”Even so, Mr Maynard reckons it will be some time before large companies fully embrace the service model. However,。

TheEconomist《经济学人》常用

TheEconomist《经济学人》常用

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。

The Economist经济学人常用词汇757个

The Economist经济学人常用词汇757个

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。

3英语阅读-经济学人《Economics》双语版-Foodfirmsandfat-fighters

3英语阅读-经济学人《Economics》双语版-Foodfirmsandfat-fighters

(2):食品公司与减肥斗士【翻译交流】Feb 9th 2006From The Economist Global AgendaFood firms and fat-fighters食品公司与减肥斗士Five leading food companies have introduced a labelling scheme for their products in the British market, in an attempt to assuage critics who say they encourage obesity. But consumer groups are unhappy all the same. Is the food industry, like tobacco before it, about to be *engulfed[1]by a wave of lawsuits brought on health grounds?五家业内领先的食品公司采取了一项方案,就是在其投入英国市场的食品上作出标注,力图堵住那些说他们鼓励肥胖的批评人士的嘴。

不过,消费者团体仍然不开心。

食品业会像之前的烟草一样,被卷入一场关乎健康的诉讼之中吗?KEEPING fit requires a combination of healthy eating and regular exercise. On the second of these at least, the world’s food companies can claim to be setting a good example :they have been working up quite a sweat in their attempts to fend off assaults by governments, consumer groups and lawyers who accuse them of peddling products that encourage obesity. This week saw the unveiling of another industry initiative :five leading food producers—Danone, Kellogg, Nestlé, Kraft and PepsiCo—introduced a labelling scheme for the British market which will show “guideline daily amounts” for calories, fats, sugar and salt on packaging. The new labels will start to appear on the firms’ crisps, chocolate bars, cheese slices *and the like[2] over the next few months. A number of other food giants, such as Cadbury Schweppes and Masterfoods, have already started putting guideline labels on their products.将健康的饮食习惯和经常性的锻炼二者结合才可以让身体保持健康。

economist(经济学人)精品文章中英对照(合集五篇)

economist(经济学人)精品文章中英对照(合集五篇)

economist(经济学人)精品文章中英对照(合集五篇)第一篇:economist(经济学人)精品文章中英对照Whopper to go 至尊汉堡,打包带走Will Burger King be gobbled up by private equity? 汉堡王是否会被私人股本吞并?Sep 2nd 2010 | NEW YORKSHARES in Burger King(BK)soared on September 1st on reports that the fast-food company was talking to several private-equity firms interested in buying it.How much beef was behind these stories was unclear.But lately the company famous for the slogan “Have It Your Way” has certainly not been having it its own way.There may be arguments about whether BK or McDonald’s serves the best fries, but there is no doubt which is more popular with stockmarket investors: the maker of the Big Mac has supersized its lead in the past two years.有报道披露,快餐企业汉堡王(BK)正在与数个有收购意向的私人股本接洽,9月1日,汉堡王的股值随之飙升。

这些报道究竟有多少真材实料不得而知。

汉堡王的著名口号是“我选我味”,但如今显然它身不由己,心中五味杂陈。

汉堡王和麦当劳哪家薯条最好吃,食客们一直争论不休,但股票投资人更喜欢哪家股票,却一目了然:过去两年里,巨无霸麦当劳一直在扩大自己的优势。

The-Economist常用词汇总结及经济学原理

The-Economist常用词汇总结及经济学原理

The Economist《经济学人》常用词汇总结(全集)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。

12英语阅读-经济学人《Economics》双语版-Not science fiction

12英语阅读-经济学人《Economics》双语版-Not science fiction

经济学家》读译参考(第12篇):并非科幻小说——《直觉》畅销书书评From The Economist print edition[size=4][b]Not science fictionTHE recent stem-cell scandal in South Korea may have made front-page news across the world, but(1)few readers are likely to bet that a literary novel set in a laboratory and based on scientific research might end up being a ★page-turner[1]. Readers of “Intuition”, however, will battle with themselves over whether to savour Allegra Goodman's exquisite★filleting[2] of character, as the scientists are themselves dissected like their experimental mice, or to rush ★headlong[3] to find out what h________① next.In an under-funded Harvard laboratory, the ★dogged[4], unglamorous★slog[5] towards finding a cure for cancer is u_______② way. Suddenly one research assistant's experiment ★bears [6]fruit. After mice infected with human breast-cancer cells are injected with Cliff's R-7 virus, their tumours melt away in 60% of the population. But are Cliff's results too good to be true? (2)The question of whether the R-7 results were★fiddled[7] powers the remainder of the book.Ms Goodman follows the good novelist's ★credo[8] that plot ★proceeds from[9] character; and (3)she follows the good scientist's credo that objective truth is inexorably ★coloured[10] by whoever ★stands[11] to lose or gain by it. All the researchers in “Intuition” are sympathetic, and they are all ★screwed up[12]. Sandy, co-director of the lab, is a ★charismatic[13] dynamo[14], but too enamoured with worldly glory. His brilliant, shy partner Marion has ★impeccable[15] research standards, but is undermined by chronic self-doubt. By contrast, Cliff is ★glibly[16] over-c_________③. Robin, R-7's ★whistle-blower[17] (also Cliff's former girlfriend), is a natural scientist, but her determination to uncover fraud may be driven by romantic disappointment. Robin is heeding her intuition, and “young researchers had their intuition ★tamped down[18] lest, like the ★sorcerer's[19] apprentice, they flood the lab with their conceits.”What a relief to find a novel that does not take place in the literary salons of London or New York. (4)Ms Goodman manages fully to inhabit another profession's world. Her characters so live and breathe on the page that they could get up and m_______④you a cup of coffee while you finish another chapter. (5)Her writing is rich, so rich it would be easy tomiss how skilful is the prose itself. Exciting and, for most, exotic as well, “Intuition” is a ★stunning[20] achieve ment.参考译文(TRANSLATED BY CHENJILONG)并非科幻小说韩国最近发生的干细胞丑闻或许已成为世界各地的头条新闻,不过几乎没有读者会相信,一本以实验室为背景、基于科学研究的小说到头来竟然让他们爱不释手。

Economist(经济学人)

Economist(经济学人)

What's wrong with America's economy?Its politicians are failing to tackle the country’s real problems. Believe it or not, they could learn from EuropeApr 28th 2011 | from the EconomistPESSIMISM about the United States rarely pays off in the long run. Time and again, when Americans have felt particularly glum, their economy has been on the brink of a revival. Think of Jimmy Carter’s cardigan-clad gloom in the inflation-ridden late 1970s, or the fear of competition from Japan that marked the “jobless recovery” of the early 1990s. Both times the United States bounced back, boosted on the first occasion by Paul V olcker’s conquest of inflation and on the second by a productivity spurt that sent growth rates soaring in the mid-1990s even as Japan stalled.That record is worth bearing in mind today. Americans are unhappy, and becoming more so, about their country’s prospects and politicians’ efforts to improve them. In a new New York Times/CBS News poll, seven out of ten respondents said America is on the wrong track. Almost 60% of Americans disapprove of Barack Obama’s handling of the economy, and three out of four think Congress is doing a lousy job.This malaise partly reflects the sluggishness of the recovery. Though unemployment has been falling and share prices are close to a three-year high, house prices are still in the dumps and the price of petrol has soared to levels not seen since the summer of 2008. But it’s not all about oil or indeed the short term. A careful reading of the polls suggests that Ameri cans’ worries stretch well beyond the next couple of years: about stagnating living standards and a dark future in an economy slow to create jobs, saddled with big government deficits and under threat from China. Tellingly, a majority now regard China, not America, as the world’s leading economy.Are these worries justified? On the plus side, it is hard to think of any large country with as many inherent long-term advantages as America: what would China give to have a Silicon Valley? Or Germany an Ivy League? But it is also plain that the United States does indeed have long-term economic weaknesses—and ones that will take time to fix. The real worry for Americans should be that their politicians, not least their president, are doing so little to tackle these underlying problems. Three failings stand out.The competitiveness canardThe first failing, of which Mr Obama in particular is guilty, is misstating the problem. He likes to frame America’s challenges in terms of “competitiveness”, particularly versus China. America’s prosperity, he argues, depends on “out-innovating, out-educating and out-building” China. This is mostly nonsense. America’s prosperity depends not on other countries’ productivity growth, but on its own (actually pretty fast) pace. Ideas spill over from one economy to another: when China innovates Americans benefit.Of course, plenty more could be done to spur innovation. The system of corporate taxation is a mess and deters domestic investment. Mr. Obama is right that America’s infrastru cture is creaking. But the solution there has as much to do with reforming Neanderthal funding systems as it does with the greater public spending he advocates. Too much of the “competitiveness” talk is a canard—one that justifies misguided policies, such as subsidies for green technology, and diverts attention from the country’s real to-do list.High on that list is sorting out America’s public finances. The budget deficit is huge and public debt, at over 90% of GDP when measured in an internationally comparable manner, is high and rising fast. Apart from Japan, America is the only big rich economy that does not have a plan for getting its public finances under control. The good news is that politicians are at last paying attention: deficit reduction is just about all anybody talks about in Washington, DC, these days. The bad news—and the second reason for gloom about what the politicians are up to—is that neither party is prepared to make the basic compromises that are essential to a deal. Republicans refu se to accept that taxes will have to rise, Democrats that spending on “entitlements” such as health care and pensions must fall. No real progress is likely until after the 2012 presidential election. And the antagonism of today’s deficit debate may even ha rm the economy, as Republicans push for excessive cuts in next year’s budget.When growth doesn’t bring jobsMeanwhile, the biggest dangers lie in an area that politicians barely mention: the labour market. The recent decline in the jobless rate has been misleading, the result of a surprisingly small growth in the workforce (as discouraged workers drop out) as much as fast job creation. A stubborn 46% of America’s jobless, some 6m people, have been out of work for more than six months. The weakness of the recovery is mostly to blame, but there are signs that America may be developing a distinctly European disease: structural unemployment.Youth unemployment is especially high, and joblessness among the young leaves lasting scars. Strong productivity growth has been achieved partly through the elimination of many mid-skilled jobs. And what makes this all the more worrying is that, below the radar screen, America had employment problems long before the recession, particularly for lesser-skilled men. These were caused not only by sweeping changes from technology and globalisation, which affect all countries, but also by America’s habit of locking up large numbers of young black men, which drastically diminishes their future employment prospects. America has a smaller fraction of prime-age men in work and in the labour force than any other G7 economy. Some 25% of men aged 25-54 with no college degree, 35% of high-school dropouts and almost 70% of black high-school dropouts are not working.Beyond the toll to individuals, the lack of work among less-skilled men could have huge fiscal and social consequences. The cost of disability payments is some $120 billion (almost 1% of GDP) and rising fast. Male worklessness has been linked with lower marriage rates and weakening family bonds.All this means that grappling with entrenched joblessness deserves to be far higher on America’s policy agenda. Unfortunately, the few (leftish) politicians who acknowledge the problem tend to have misguided solutions, such as trade barri ers or industrial policy to prop up yesterday’s jobs or to spot tomorrow’s. That won’t work: government has a terrible record at picking winners. Instead, America needs to get its macro-medicine right, in particular by committing itself to medium-term fiscal and monetary stability without excessive short-term tightening. But it also needs job-marketreforms, from streamlining and upgrading training to increasing employers’ incentives to hire the low-skilled. And there, strange as it may seem, America could learn from Europe: the Netherlands, for instance, is a good model for how to overhaul disability insurance. Stemming the decline in low-skilled men’s work will also demand more education reform to boost skills, as well as a saner approach to drugs and imprisonment.Technology and globalisation are remaking labour markets across the rich world, to the relative detriment of the lower-skilled. That’s why a rosier outlook for America’s economy does not necessarily mean a rosy future for all Americans. Mr Obama and his opponents can help to shape the process. Sadly, they are doing so for the worse rather than the better.美国的经济怎么了?——它的政客们都未能解决国家的真正的问题。

  1. 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. 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. 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)。

The Anxiety Economy: Why the Future of Work Will Be All About StressMAY 7 2012, 12:59 PM ET63(But don't stress out. It's a good thing.)I want a wantologist.On Sunday, I learned that a "wantologist" -- what, you don't have one? -- is somebody paid to figure out what you want. Arlie Russell Hochschild, writing in the New York Times, quotes Katherine Ziegler, wantologist, helping a client t o figure out what it is that she wants. The conversation went something like this:What do you want? "A bigger house."How would you feel if you lived in a bigger house? "Peaceful."What other things make you feel peaceful? "Walks by the ocean."Do you ever take walks nearer where you live that remind you of the ocean? "Certain ones, yes."What do you like about those walks? "I hear the sound of water and feel surrounded by green."After realizing that the thing she wanted wasn't a bigger house so much as the thing a bigger house would afford --peace of mind -- the client built a little room filled with green plants. This decision no doubt saved many tens of th ousands of dollars in the process, depending on the price of the plants. The wantologist earned her salary.***Two generations ago, there was no such thing as a wantologist, a dating company, a nameologist, a life coach, a pa rty animator, or a paid graveside visitor, Hochschild informs us. Today, they're everywhere.Is that bad? Hochschild claims it is. She predicts that we're entering a dark age of emotional emptiness. We, an anxi ous people, work harder and harder to afford the salaries of people to make us less anxious, which ironically deprives us of family time, which makes us more anxious. Apparently, paying people for emotional and psychological needs i s turning us into emotional psychos.Maybe she's right. I see it the other way. I think wantology sounds pretty great. I love party animators. I don't curr ently employ a life coach, but I like knowing I could, in the future. Rather than mark the beginning of something tru ly dark, the wantologist represents the continuation of one of the happiest long-term trends in modern history -- the explosion in wealth that we often don't take for granted when we write about the miserable short-term prospects of the economy.FEEDING OUR NEUROSESFood is not an obvious place to begin in the Defense of the Wantologist, but anyway, that's where we're starting. Fo r 100,000 years, the great priority of all societies was the production of food. The inability to make enough of it is o ne reason why real wages famously stagnated for the hundreds of years (if not thousands, or tens of thousands) bef ore the industrial revolution. This graph of subsistence wages in various cities around the world gives you a good ide a of what economists call the Malthusian Trap. When populations collapsed, as they did after the Black Death, wages rose. When populations grew, wages collapsed over time to the subsistence level, indicated in the Y-axis by "1" in t he graph below.Across the centuries, more than 70 percent of a typical family's income went to food, and more than 70 percent of these countries worked in food production. You can't afford much creativity in the services sector when wages hover around the subsistence level and the vast majority of your money and time is dedicated to growing and eating. It is safe to say that 16th century Dehli did not have a thriving wantology sector. This also explains why, for example, you would not expect to find much of a yoga industry in Mali, nor an "party animator" sector in Haiti. These industries are luxuries that only wealth and high production efficiency can afford.So why, all of a sudden, can we afford them? In the early 19th century, something changed. Wages started rising ... and rising and rising and rising. In the industrial revolution that began in England and spread around the world, we became more efficient at growing food, more efficient at transporting goods, more efficient at heating our homes, and more efficient at doing lots of other things.The efficiency monster is still on the prowl. For a long time, we didn't think we could make retail more efficient. Now, thanks to Walmart and the Internet, we're selling more stuff than ever with flat or declining employment in retail. Today, we don't think we can make health care and education more efficient. But if history is any indication, the forces of efficiency will triumph in these dinosaur sectors, as well. Perhaps they already are.Right now, most of the fastest-growing occupations are in health care and the worst cost inflation is in education. What happens when the efficiency revolution does to medicine and teaching what it's done to basically every other sector of the economy? We'll need fewer doctors and teachers per person, and we'll need new jobs for people to do -- jobs that we can't replace with software or Indians. Jobs that are local, personal, emotional. Jobs that look an awful lot like wantologists.MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF JOBSIn 1943, Abraham Maslow published in Psychological Review an instant classic of modern science, "A Theory of Human Motivation." Seven decades later, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the touchstones of basic psychology. It's also a pretty good framework for understanding evolution of employment, from wheat to wantology.For practically all of human history, most people labored to satisfy their basic need for food. Eating forms the foundational level of Maslow's pyramid. Now that rich countries like the U.S. and Canada can feed ourselves while employing less than 3% of the country in agriculture, workers are moving up the pyramid.Government, health care, and education have made up more than half of all employment gains since 1990, according to economist Michael Spence. Modern government is in the business of defense and insurance. Health care and education are in the business of building and protecting human capital. These categories of employment fit snuggly in the next level of Maslow's hierarchy.If employment in these sectors slows down, the Maslow Theory of Employment suggests that jobs will appear closer tothe top of the pyramid. We will pay more and more people to help us solve problems of love, confidence, andself-esteem. We already are."In the late 1940s, there were 2,500 clinical psychologists licensed in the United States," Hochschild reports. "By 2010, there were 77,000 -- and an additional 50,000 marriage and family therapists." In the 1940s, there were no life coaches. Today there are about 30,000. A few years ago, nobody had heard of a wantology. Now it's on the cover of the New York Times Sunday Review.Your takeaway: We have found cheaper and cheaper ways to afford the base of Maslow's pyramid. That leaves more money to invest in the pyramidion.***Arlie Russell Hochschild concludes in the Times: "What would we say if a wantologist put us on a couch and asked, 'Is this the kind of society we want?'"Of course it is! Wantology does not create vacuous wanting any more than psychologists invented anxiety. They are solutions to old and lasting elements of being a human. The basic needs are only now appearing in the market because only now do we have enough money to satisfy our foundational needs.It seems to me that we should want, if not desperately crave, the kind of affluence that makes food so cheap, and shelter so available, and medical care so affordable, that we have money left over to pay people to help us meet our "higher" needs. Rather than fear the anxiety economy, I welcome it with anxious and trembling arms. It's a badge of wealth and something of a miracle that today, uniquely within the sweep of history, we finally have the time and cause to debate whether we're spending too much money nursing our neuroses and investing directly in our happiness.。

相关文档
最新文档