THE COLLECTION : 考研真题回顾
[TOC]
Text 1
source: 彭博商业周刊（20091105）
When Liam McGee departed as president of Bank of America in August, his explanation was surprisingly straight up. Rather than cloaking[掩盖，掩饰] his exit in the usual vague[含糊不清的] excuses, he came right out and said he was leaving “to pursue my goal of running a company.” Broadcasting his ambition was “very much my decision,” McGee says. Within two weeks, he was talking for the first time with the board of Hartford Financial Services Group, which named him CEO and chairman on September 29.
McGee says leaving without a position lined up gave him time to reflect on what kind of company he wanted to run. It also sent a clear message to the outside world about his aspirations[志向]. And McGee isn’t alone. In recent weeks the No.2 executives at Avon and American Express quit with the explanation that they were looking for a CEO post[邮件，职位]. As boards scrutinize[仔细审查] succession plans in response to shareholder pressure, executives who don’t get the nod also may wish to move on. A turbulent[骚乱的] business environment also has senior managers cautious of letting vague pronouncements cloud their reputations.
As the first signs of recovery begin to take hold, deputy chiefs may be more willing to make the jump without a net. In the third quarter, CEO turnover was down 23% from a year ago as nervous boards stuck with[被困住] the leaders they had, according to Liberum Research. As the economy picks up, opportunities will abound for aspiring leaders.
The decision to quit a senior position to look for a better one is unconventional[不因循守旧的]. For years executives and headhunters have adhered to the rule that the most attractive CEO candidates are the ones who must be poached[窃取]. Says Korn/Ferry senior partner Dennis Carey: “I can’t think of a single search I’ve done where a board has not instructed me to look at sitting CEOs first.” Those who jumped without a job haven’t always landed in top positions quickly. Ellen Marram quit as chief of Tropicana a decade ago, saying she wanted to be a CEO. It was a year before she became head of a tiny Internet-based commodities exchange. Robert Willumstad left Citigroup in 2005 with ambitions to be a CEO. He finally took that post at a major financial institution three years later.
Many recruiters say the old disgrace is fading for top performers. The financial crisis has made it more acceptable to be between jobs or to leave a bad one. “The traditional rule was it’s safer to stay where you are, but that’s been fundamentally inverted[倒转],” says one headhunter. “The people who’ve been hurt the worst are those who’ve stayed too long.”
Text 2
source:福布斯（20100112）
The rough guide to marketing success used to be that you got what you paid for. No longer. While traditional “paid” media – such as television commercials and print advertisements – still play a major role, companies today can exploit many alternative forms of media. Consumers passionate about a product may create “earned” media by willingly promoting it to friends, and a company may leverage “owned” media by sending e-mail alerts about products and sales to customers registered with its Web site. The way consumers now approach the process of making purchase decisions means that marketing’s impact stems from a broad range of factors beyond conventional paid media.
Paid and owned media are controlled by marketers promoting their own products. For earned media, such marketers act as the initiator[创始人] for users’ responses. But in some cases, one marketer’s owned media become another marketer’s paid media – for instance, when an e-commerce retailer sells ad space on its Web site. We define such sold media as owned media whose traffic[流量] is so strong that other organizations place their content or e-commerce engines within that environment. This trend, which we believe is still in its infancy, effectively began with retailers and travel providers such as airlines and hotels and will no doubt go further. Johnson & Johnson, for example, has created BabyCenter, a stand-alone media property that promotes complementary and even competitive products. Besides generating income, the presence of other marketers makes the site seem objective, gives companies opportunities to learn valuable information about the appeal of other companies’ marketing, and may help expand user traffic for all companies concerned.
The same dramatic technological changes that have provided marketers with more (and more diverse) communications choices have also increased the risk that passionate consumers will voice their opinions in quicker, more visible, and much more damaging ways. Such hijacked[劫持] media are the opposite of earned media: an asset or campaign becomes hostage to consumers, other stakeholders, or activists who make negative allegations about a brand or product. Members of social networks, for instance, are learning that they can hijack media to apply pressure on the businesses that originally created them.
If that happens, passionate consumers would try to persuade others to boycott[抵制] products, putting the reputation of the target company at risk. In such a case, the company’s response may not be sufficiently quick or thoughtful, and the learning curve has been steep[陡峭]. Toyota Motor, for example, alleviated[缓和] some of the damage from its recall crisis earlier this year with a relatively quick and well-orchestrated social-media response campaign, which included efforts to engage with consumers directly on sites such as Twitter and the social-news site Digg.
Text 3
source:新闻周刊（20100709）
It’s no surprise that Jennifer Senior’s insightful[富有洞察力的], provocative[煽动性的] magazine cover story, “I love My Children, I Hate My Life, ” is arousing much chatter[喋喋不休] – nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing[抚养] is anything less than a completely fulfilling, life-enriching experience. Rather than concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable[悲惨], Senior suggests we need to redefine happiness: instead of thinking of it as something that can be measured by moment-to-moment joy, we should consider being happy as a past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can be soul-crushingly hard, Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment dampen[抑制] our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.”
The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also stories about newly adoptive – and newly single – mom Sandra Bullock, as well as the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically[事实上] every week features at least one celebrity mom, or mom-to-be, smiling on the newsstands.
In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation[生殖], is it any wonder that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support kitten-killing? It doesn’t seem quite fair, then, to compare the regrets of parents to the regrets of the childless. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to wonder if they shouldn’t have had kids, but unhappy childless folks are bothered with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world: obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in their lives.[很明显他们的不幸一定是在他们的人生中抚养孩子这段时间的缺失的直接结果]
Of course, the image of parenthood that celebrity[名人] magazines like Us Weekly and People present is hugely unrealistic, especially when the parents are single mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are less happy than childless couples, single parents are the least happy of all. No shock there, considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to lean on[依赖，依靠]; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it, raising a kid on their “own” (read: with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake.
It’s hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous[迷人的，富有魅力的]: most adults understand that a baby is not a haircut[发型]. But it’s interesting to wonder if the images we see every week of stress-free, happiness-enhancing parenthood aren’t in some small, subconscious[潜意识的] way contributing[增加，增进] to our own dissatisfactions with the actual experience, in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “the Rachel” might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston.
Text 4
source:波士顿环球报（20110424）
A deal is a deal – except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging[违背] on a longstanding commitment[承诺] to abide[遵守] by the state’s strict nuclear regulations. Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality[宪法] of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning[令人震惊] move.
The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor[反应堆] in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments[承诺], or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management – especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged[激怒] by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.
Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.
The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
Text 5
source:经济学人（20110317）
If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servants. When Hoffa’s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America’s public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized.
There are three reasons for the public-sector unions’ thriving. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America’s public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain’s Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions.
At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state’s budget is patrolled[巡逻，监视] by unions. The teachers’ unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.
In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded[偷偷提高]” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.
Reform has been vigorously[精神旺盛地，活泼地] opposed, perhaps most notoriously[臭名昭著] in education, where charter[颁发许可证] schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers’ unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.
As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down[压制]. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too. John Donahue at Harvard’s Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but is bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers’ fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.
Text 6
source:自然（20110420）
Since the days of Aristotle[亚里士多德], a search for universal principles has characterized the scientific enterprise[企业]. In some ways, this quest for commonalities[共同点] defines science. Newton’s laws of motion and Darwinian evolution each bind a host of different phenomena into a single explicatory framework.
(46) In physics, one approach takes this impulse[冲动] for unification to its extreme, and seeks a theory of everything – a single generative equation for all we see. It is becoming less clear, however, that such a theory would be a simplification, given the dimensions and universes that it might entail[需要，承担]. Nonetheless, unification of sorts remains a major goal.
This tendency in the natural sciences has long been evident in the social sciences too. (47) Here, Darwinism seems to offer justification, for if all humans share common origins, it seems reasonable to suppose that cultural diversity could also be traced to more constrained[约束、限制的] beginnings. Just as the bewildering[令人困惑的] variety of human courtship[求爱期] rituals[程序] might all be considered forms of sexual selection, perhaps the world’s languages, music, social and religious customs and even history are governed by universal features. (48) To filter out what is unique from what is shared might enable us to understand how complex cultural behavior arose and what guides it in evolutionary or cognitive[认知的] terms.
That, at least, is the hope. But a comparative study of linguistic traits published online today supplies a reality check. Russell Gray at the University of Auckland and his colleagues consider the evolution of grammars in the light of two previous attempts to find universality in language. The most famous of these efforts was initiated by Noam Chomsky, who suggested that humans are born with an innate language-acquisition capacity that dictates a universal grammar. A few generative rules are then sufficient to unfold the entire fundamental structure of a language, which is why children can learn it so quickly.
(49) The second, by Joshua Greenberg, takes a more empirical approach to universality, identifying traits[特征，特点] (particularly in word order) shared by many languages, which are considered to represent biases that result from cognitive constraints.
Gray and his colleagues have put them to the test by examining four family trees that between them represent more than 2,000 languages. (50) Chomsky’s grammar should show patterns of language change that are independent of the family tree or the pathway tracked through it, whereas Greenbergian universality predicts strong co-dependencies between particular types of word-order relations. Neither of these patterns is borne out[证实] by the analysis, suggesting that the structures of the languages are lineage-specific and not governed by universals.
Text 7
source:经济学人（20120609）
An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted – the trouble is, no one knows which half. In the internet age, at least in theory, this fraction can be much reduced. By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.
In the past couple of weeks a quarrel[口角，争吵，抱怨] has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?
In December 2010 America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed adding a “do not track” (DNT) option to internet browsers, so that users could tell advertisers that they did not want to be followed. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Apple’s Safari both offer DNT; Google’s Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking[崩溃] on responding to DNT requests.
On May 31st Microsoft set off the row[引发了争执]. It said that Internet Explorer 10, the version due to appear with Windows 8, would have DNT as a default.
Advertisers are horrified. Human nature being what it is, most people stick with default settings. Few switch DNT on now, but if tracking is off it will stay off. Bob Liodice, the chief executive of the Association of National Advertisers, says consumers will be worse off if the industry cannot collect information about their preferences. People will not get fewer ads, he says. “They’ll get less meaningful, less targeted ads.”
It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Getting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.
Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. After all[毕竟，居然], it has an ad business too, which it says will comply[遵守] with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on advertising, it has chosen an indirect method: there is no guarantee that DNT by default will become the norm[标准]. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8 – though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably[有利的，顺利的] with Google’s on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft’s chief privacy officer, blogged: “We believe consumers should have more control.” Could it really be that simple?
Text 8
source:华尔街日报（20120627）
On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out[淘汰，击败] much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday – a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset[扰乱] the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned[撤销，击败] three of the four contested provisions[争议性条款] of Arizona’s controversial[引起争议的] plan to have state and local police enforce[执行，强制执行] federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial[不具争议]. Arizona had attempted to fashion[塑造] state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun[亚利桑纳州对联邦政府的挑战已经越界]. On the overturned provisions the majority held Congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded[侵犯] on the federal’s privileged powers.
However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly[明确的] encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.
Two of the three objecting Justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion[断言，主张] of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities[优先，首先], even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate[使无效，证明错误，使作废] any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence[实质上] asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
Text 9
source:未找到来源
It is speculated that gardens arise from a basic human need in the individuals who made them: the need for creative expression. There is no doubt that gardens evidence an irrepressible[不可抑制的，热情高涨的] urge to create, express, fashion, and beautify and that self-expression is a basic human urge; (46) yet when one looks at the photographs of the gardens created by the homeless, it strikes one that, for all their diversity of styles, these gardens speak of various other fundamental urges, beyond that of decoration and creative expression.
One of these urges has to do with creating a state of peace in the midst of turbulence[骚乱], a “still point of the turning world,” to borrow a phrase from T. S. Eliot.
(47) A sacred place of peace, however crude it may be, is a distinctly human need, as opposed to shelter, which is a distinctly animal need. This distinction is so much so that where the latter is lacking, as it is for these unlikely gardeners, the former becomes all the more urgent. Composure is a state of mind made possible by the structuring of one’s relation to one’s environment. (48) The gardens of the homeless, which are in effect[实际上] homeless gardens, introduce form into an urban environment where it either didn’t exist or was not discernible[不可辨别] as such. In so doing they give composure to a segment of the inarticulate environment in which they take their stand.
Another urge or need that these gardens appear to respond to, or to arise from, is so intrinsic that we are barely ever conscious of its abiding[长久以来的] claims on us. When we are deprived of green, of plants, of trees, (49) most of us give in to a demoralization[萎缩] of spirit which we usually blame on some psychological conditions, until one day we find ourselves in a garden and feel the oppression[压迫] vanish as if by magic. In most of the homeless gardens of New York City the actual cultivation of plants is unfeasible[不可实现的], yet even so the compositions often seem to represent attempts to call forth the spirit of plant and animal life, if only symbolically, through a clumplike[丛林状的] arrangement of materials, an introduction of colors, small pools of water, and a frequent presence of petals[花瓣] or leaves as well as of stuffed animals. On display here are various fantasy elements whose reference, at some basic level, seems to be the natural world. (50) It is this implicit[含蓄的] or explicit reference to nature that fully justifies the use of the word garden, though in a “liberated” sense, to describe these synthetic[合成的] constructions. In them we can see biophilia – a yearning for contact with nonhuman life – assuming uncanny[不可思议的] representational forms.
Text 10
source:华盛顿邮报（20140428）
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant[许可证] if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has asked the justices to refrain[克制] from a sweeping[清扫] ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption[假设] that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.
The court would be recklessly[不顾一切地，鲁莽地] modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable[可辨别的], even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
They should start by discarding[丢弃] California’s lame[站不住脚的] argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone – a vast storehouse of digital information – is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing”, meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing[路线图，线描]. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled[使享有权利，使符合资格] to more freedom.
But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive[引发混乱的] technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
Text 11
source:经济学人（20150625）
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, “That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut[一目了然]. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies – at least when they are prosecuted[指控] for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect,” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery[行贿] prosecutions under America’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient[宽大，慈善] penalties[惩罚]. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms’ political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.[他们的分析排除了公司的政治影响力导致了宽大处理的可能（而不是他们的CSR行为）-对政治运动献金的公司并没有得到更低的罚金。]
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial[巨大的，大量的] labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials,” says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Text 12
source:独立报（20160722）
Robert F. Kennedy once said that a country’s GDP measures “everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” With Britain voting to leave the European Union, and GDP already predicted to slow as a result, it is now a timely moment to assess what he was referring to.
The question of GDP and its usefulness has annoyed policymakers for over half a century. Many argue that it is a flawed[错误的，有缺陷的] concept. It measures things that do not matter and misses things that do. By most recent measures, the UK’s GDP has been the envy of the Western world, with record low unemployment and high growth figures. If everything was going so well, then why did over 17 million people vote for Brexit, despite the warnings about what it could do to their country’s economic prospects?
A recent annual study of countries and their ability to convert growth into well-being sheds some light on that question. Across the 163 countries measured, the UK is one of the poorest performers in ensuring[保证] that economic growth is translated into meaningful improvements for its citizens. Rather than just focusing on GDP, over 40 different sets of criteria from health, education and civil society engagement have been measured to get a more rounded assessment of how countries are performing.
While all of these countries face their own challenges, there are a number of consistent themes. Yes, there has been a budding[发芽] economic recovery since the 2008 global crash, but in key indicators in areas such as health and education, major economies have continued to decline. Yet this isn’t the case with all countries. Some relatively poor European countries have seen huge improvements across measures including civil society, income equality and the environment.
This is a lesson that rich countries can learn: When GDP is no longer regarded as the sole measure of a country’s success, the world looks very different.
So, what Kennedy was referring to was that while GDP has been the most common method for measuring the economic activity of nations, as a measure, it is no longer enough. It does not include important factors such as environmental quality or education outcomes – all things that contribute to a person’s sense of well-being.
The sharp hit to growth predicted around the world and in the UK could lead to a decline in the everyday services we depend on for our well-being and for growth. But policymakers who refocus efforts on improving well-being rather than simply worrying about GDP figures could avoid the forecasted doom and may even see progress.
Text 13
source:基督科学箴言报（20160627）
In a rare unanimous[一致同意] ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct[行为的伦理], which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari automobile from a company seeking access to government.
The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell’s trial failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his “official acts,” or the former governor’s decisions on “specific” and “unsettled” issues related to his duties.
Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found.
The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is “distasteful[令人反感，讨厌]” and “nasty[肮脏].” But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete[具体、实在的] benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an “official act”.
The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism[偏爱，偏袒] that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic[官僚主义的] problems without fear of prosecution for bribery. “The basic compact underlying representative government,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents[选民] and act on their concerns.”
But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity[整合] requires well-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying[游说], and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.
Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions[意识] of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise[前提] of democratic society – that all are equal in treatment by government – is undermined. Good governance rests on an understanding of the inherent[固有的] worth of each individual.
The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
Text 14
source:书籍《English Next》
The growth of the use of English as the world’s primary language for international communication has obviously been continuing for several decades.
(46) But even as the number of English speakers expands further there are signs that the global predominance of the language may fade within the foreseeable future.
Complex international, economic, technological and cultural changes could start to diminish the leading position of English as the language of the world market, and UK interests which enjoy advantage from the breadth of English usage would consequently face new pressures. Those realistic possibilities are highlighted in the study presented by David Graddol. (47) His analysis should therefore end any self-contentedness[自我满足] among those who may believe that the global position of English is so stable that the young generations of the United Kingdom do not need additional language capabilities.
David Graddol concludes that monoglot[只会一种语言的人] English graduates face a bleak economic future as qualified multilingual youngsters from other countries are proving to have a competitive advantage over their British counterparts[职位] in global companies and organisations. Alongside that, (48) many countries are introducing English into the primary-school curriculum[课程] but British schoolchildren and students do not appear to be gaining greater encouragement to achieve fluency in other languages.
If left to themselves, such trends will diminish the relative strength of the English language in international education markets as the demand for educational resources in languages, such as Spanish, Arabic or Mandarin grows and international business process outsourcing[交外办理，外购] in other languages such as Japanese, French and German, spreads.
(49) The changes identified by David Graddol all present clear and major challenges to the UK’s providers of English language teaching to people of other countries and to broader education business sectors. The English language teaching sector directly earns nearly ￡1.3 billion for the UK in invisible exports and our other education related exports earn up to ￡10 billion a year more. As the international education market expands, the recent slowdown in the numbers of international students studying in the main English-speaking countries is likely to continue, especially if there are no effective strategic policies to prevent such slippage[下滑].
The anticipation of possible shifts in demand provided by this study is significant:
It gives a basis to all organisations which seek to promote the learning and use of English, a basis for planning to meet the possibilities of what could be a very different operating environment. That is a necessary and practical approach. In this as in much else, those who wish to influence the future must prepare for it.
Text 15
source:华盛顿邮报（20170213）
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) continues to bleed red ink. It reported a net loss of $5.6 billion for fiscal[财政] 2016, the 10th straight year its expenses have exceeded revenue[收入]. Meanwhile, it has more than $120 billion in unfunded liabilities[负债], mostly for employee health and retirement costs. There are many reasons this formerly stable federal institution finds itself at the brink[边缘] of bankruptcy. Fundamentally, the USPS is in a historic squeeze between technological change that has permanently decreased demand for its bread-and-butter product, first-class mail, and a regulatory structure that denies management the flexibility to adjust its operations to the new reality.
And interest groups ranging from postal unions to greeting-card makers exert self-interested pressure on the USPS’s ultimate overseer[监督] – Congress – insisting that whatever else happens to the Postal Service, aspects of the status quo[说] they depend on get protected. This is why repeated attempts at reform legislation have failed in recent years, leaving the Postal Service unable to pay its bills except by deferring[延迟] vital modernization.
Now comes word that everyone involved – Democrats, Republicans, the Postal Service, the unions and the system’s heaviest users – has finally agreed on a plan to fix the system. Legislation is moving through the House that would save USPS an estimated $28.6 billion over five years, which could help pay for new vehicles, among other survival measures. Most of the money would come from a penny-per-letter permanent rate increase and from shifting postal retirees into Medicare. The latter step would largely offset the financial burden of annually pre-funding retiree health care, thus addressing a long-standing complaint by the USPS and its unions.
If it clears the House, this measure would still have to get through the Senate – where someone is bound to[必定] point out that it amounts to the bare, bare minimum necessary to keep the Postal Service afloat[维持下去], not comprehensive reform. There’s no change to collective bargaining at the USPS, a major omission[省略，忽略] considering that personnel accounts for 80 percent of the agency’s costs. Also missing is any discussion of eliminating Saturday letter delivery. That common-sense change enjoys wide public support and would save the USPS $2 billion per year. But postal special-interest groups seem to have killed it, at least in the House. The emerging consensus[共识] around the bill is a sign that legislators are getting frightened about a politically embarrassing short-term collapse at the USPS. It is not, however, a sign that they’re getting serious about transforming the postal system for the 21st century.
Text 16
source:书籍《The Facts about Shakespeare》
Shakespeare’s lifetime was coincident[在同一地方发生的] with a period of extraordinary activity and achievement in the drama. (46) By the date of his birth Europe was witnessing the passing of the religious drama, and the creation of new forms under the incentive[激励] of classical tragedy and comedy. These new forms were at first mainly written by scholars and performed by amateurs, but in England, as everywhere else in western Europe, the growth of a class of professional actors was threatening to make the drama popular, whether it should be new or old, classical or medieval, literary or farcical[荒唐]. Court, school, organizations of amateurs[业余爱好者], and the traveling actors were all rivals in supplying a widespread desire for dramatic entertainment; and (47) no boy who went to a grammar school could be ignorant that the drama was a form of literature which gave glory to Greece and Rome and might yet bring honor to England.
When Shakespeare was twelve years old the first public playhouse was built in London. For a time literature showed no interest in this public stage. Plays aiming at literary distinction were written for schools or court, or for the choir boys of St.Paul’s and the royal chapel, who, however, gave plays in public as well as at court. (48) But the professional companies prospered[繁荣] in their permanent theaters, and university men with literary ambitions were quick to turn to these theaters as offering a means of livelihood. By the time that Shakespeare was twenty-five, Lyly, Peele, and Greene had made comedies that were at once popular and literary; Kyd had written a tragedy that crowded the pit; and Marlowe had brought poetry and genius to triumph on the common stage – where they had played no part since the death of Euripides. (49) A native literary drama had been created, its alliance with the public playhouses established, and at least some of its great traditions had been begun.
The development of the Elizabethan drama for the next twenty-five years is of exceptional interest to students of literary history, for in this brief period we may trace the beginning, growth, blossoming, and decay of many kinds of plays, and of many great careers. We are amazed today at the mere number of plays produced, as well as by the number of dramatists writing at the same time for this London of two hundred thousand inhabitants. (50) To realize how great was the dramatic activity, we must remember further that hosts of plays have been lost, and that probably there is no author of note whose entire work has survived.
Text 17
source:大西洋月刊（201806）
Grade inflation – the gradual increase in average GPAs (grade-point averages) over the past few decades – is often considered a product of a consumer era in higher education, in which students are treated like customers to be pleased. But another, related force – a policy often buried deep in course catalogs called “grade forgiveness” – is helping raise GPAs.
Grade forgiveness allows students to retake a course in which they received a low grade, and the most recent grade or the highest grade is the only one that counts in calculating a student’s overall GPA.
The use of this little-known practice has accelerated in recent years, as colleges continue to do their utmost to keep students in school (and paying tuition) and improve their graduation rates. When this practice first started decades ago, it was usually limited to freshmen, to give them a second chance to take a class in their first year if they struggled in their transition to college-level courses. But now most colleges, save for many selective campuses, allow all undergraduates, and even graduate students, to get their low grades forgiven.
College officials tend to emphasize that the goal of grade forgiveness is less about the grade itself and more about encouraging students to retake courses critical to their degree program and graduation without incurring a big penalty. “Ultimately,” said Jack Miner, Ohio State University’s registrar, “we see students achieve more success because they retake a course and do better in subsequent courses or master the content that allows them to graduate on time.”
That said, there is a way in which grade forgiveness satisfies colleges’ own needs as well. For public institutions, state funds are sometimes tied partly to their success on metrics such as graduation rates and student retention – so better grades can, by boosting figures like those, mean more money. And anything that raises GPAs will likely make students – who, at the end of the day, are paying the bill – feel they’ve gotten a better value for their tuition dollars, which is another big concern for colleges.
Indeed, grade forgiveness is just another way that universities are responding to consumers’ expectations for higher education. Since students and parents expect a college degree to lead to a job, it is in the best interest of a school to turn out graduates who are as qualified as possible – or at least appear to be. On this, students’ and colleges’ incentives seem to be aligned.
Text 18
source:美联社（20180621）
States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that will leave shoppers with lighter wallets but is a big financial win for states.
The Supreme Court’s opinion Thursday overruled a pair of decades-old decisions that states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. The decisions made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax on certain online purchases.
The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a customer’s purchase to a state where the business didn’t have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn’t have to collect sales tax for the state. Customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax to the state themselves if they weren’t charged it, but most didn’t realize they owed it and few paid.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed. “Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States,” he wrote in an opinion joined by four other justices. Kennedy wrote that the rule “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”
The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states, since they usually collect sales tax on online purchases already. Now, rivals will be charging sales tax where they hadn’t before. Big chains have been collecting sales tax nationwide because they typically have physical stores in whatever state a purchase is being shipped to. Amazon.com, with its network of warehouses, also collects sales tax in every state that charges it, though third-party sellers who use the site don’t have to.
Until now, many sellers that have a physical presence in only a single state or a few states have been able to avoid charging sales taxes when they ship to addresses outside those states. Sellers that use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also haven’t been collecting sales tax nationwide. Under the ruling Thursday, states can pass laws requiring out-of-state sellers to collect the state’s sales tax from customers and send it to the state.
Retail trade groups praised the ruling, saying it levels the playing field for local and online businesses. The losers, said retail analyst Neil Saunders, are online-only retailers, especially smaller ones. Those retailers may face headaches complying with various state sales tax laws. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council advocacy group said in a statement, “Small businesses and internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”
Text 19
source:每日电讯报（20200102）
How can the train operators possibly justify yet another increase to rail passenger fares? It has become a grimly reliable annual ritual: every January the cost of travelling by train rises, imposing a significant extra burden on those who have no option but to use the rail network to get to work or otherwise. This year’s rise, an average of 2.7 per cent, may be a fraction lower than last year’s, but it is still well above the official Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation.
Successive governments have permitted such increases on the grounds that the cost of investing in and running the rail network should be borne by those who use it, rather than the general taxpayer. Why, the argument goes, should a car-driving pensioner from Lincolnshire have to subsidise the daily commute of a stockbroker from Surrey? Equally, there is a sense that the travails of commuters in the South East, many of whom will face among the biggest rises, have received too much attention compared to those who must endure the relatively poor infrastructure of the Midlands and the North.
However, over the past 12 months, those commuters have also experienced some of the worst rail strikes in years. It is all very well train operators trumpeting the improvements they are making to the network, but passengers should be able to expect a basic level of service for the substantial sums they are now paying to travel. The responsibility for the latest wave of strikes rests on the unions. However, there is a strong case that those who have been worst affected by industrial action should receive compensation for the disruption they have suffered.
The Government has pledged to change the law to introduce a minimum service requirement so that, even when strikes occur, services can continue to operate.This should form part of a wider package of measures to address the long-running problems on Britain’s railways.Yes, more investment is needed, but passengers will not be willing to pay more indefinitely if they must also endure cramped, unreliable services, punctuated by regular chaos when timetables are changed,or planned maintenance is managed incompetently. The threat of nationalisation may have been seen off for now, but it will return with a vengeance if the justified anger of passengers is not addressed in short order.
Text 20
source:洛杉矶时报（20191002）
From the early days of broadband, advocates for consumers and web-based companies worried that the cable and phone companies selling broadband connections had the power and incentive to favor affiliated websites over their rivals’. That’s why there has been such a strong demand for rules that would prevent broadband providers from picking winners and losers online, preserving the freedom and innovation that have been the lifeblood of the Internet.
Yet that demand has been almost impossible to fill—in part because of pushback from broadband providers, anti-regulatory conservatives and the courts. A federal appeals court weighed in again Tuesday, but instead of providing a badly needed resolution, it only prolonged the fight. At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the latest take of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on net neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017. The Republican-penned order not only eliminated the strict net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted when it had a Democratic majority in 2015, but rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything. The order also declared that state and local governments couldn’t regulate broadband providers either.
The commission argued that other agencies would protect against anti-competitive behavior, such as a broadband-providing conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV.Yet the FCC also ended the investigations of broadband providers that imposed data caps on their rivals’ streaming services but not their own.
On Tuesday, the appeals court unanimously upheld the 2017 order deregulating broadband providers, citing a Supreme Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move.But Judge Patricia Millett rightly argued in a concurring opinion that “the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service,” and said Congress or the Supreme Court could intervene to “ avoid trapping Internet regulation in technological anachronism.”
In the meantime, the court threw out the FCC’s attempt to block all state rules on net neutrality, while preserving the commission’s power to preempt individual state laws that undermine its order. That means more battles like the one now going on between the Justice Department and California, which enacted a tough net neutrality law in the wake of the FCC’s abdication.
The endless legal battles and back-and-forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act. It needs to give the commission explicit authority once and for all to bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network and to create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online.