It was inevitable that any of President George W. Bushes fans had to be very disappointed by his decision to implement high tariffs on steel imported to the U.S. The president"s defense was pathetic: He argued that the steel tariffs were somehow consistent with free trade, that the domestic industry was important and struggling, and that the relief was a temporary measure to allow time for restructuring. One reason that this argument is absurd is that U.S. integrated steel companies ("Big Steel") have received various forms of government protection and subsidy for more than 30 years. Instead of encouraging the industry to restructure, the long-term protection has sustained inefficient companies and cost U.S. consumers dearly. As Anne O. Krueger, now deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a report on Big Steel: "The American Big Steel industry has been the champion lobbyist and seeker of protection. It provides a key and disillusioning example of the ability special interests to lobby in Washington for measures which hurt the general public and help a very small group. Since 1950s, Big Steel has been reluctant to make the investments needed to match the new technologies introduced elsewhere. It agreed to high wages for its unionized labor force. Hence, the companies have difficulty in competing not only with more efficient producers in Asia and Europe but also with technologically advanced U.S. mini mills, which rely on scrap metal as an input. Led by Nucor Cot., these mills now capture about half of overall U.S. sales. The profitability of U.S. steel companies depends also on steel prices, which, despite attempts at protection by the U.S. and other governments, are determined primarily in world markets. These prices are relatively high as recently as early 2000 but have since declined with the world recession to reach the lowest dollar values of the last 20 years. Although these low prices are unfortunate for U.S. producers, they are beneficial for the overall U.S. economy. The low prices are also signal that the inefficient Big Steel companies should go out of business even faster than they have been. Instead of leaving or modernizing, the dying Big Steel industry complains that foreigners dump steels by selling at low prices. However, it is hard to see why it is bad for the overall U.S. economy if foreign producers wish to sell us their goods at low prices. After all, the extreme case of dumping is one where foreigners give us their steel for free and why would that be a bad thing?
单选题 According to Anne Krueger, long-term government protection given to steel companies
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:题干问,"根据Anne Krueger的观点,长期政府对钢铁企业的保护将…"。根据原文第2、3、4自然段,长期政府对钢铁企业的保护将"伤害到消费者",答案选项表达了此意。而选项"增加政府的财富","威胁行业的垄断"以及"提高企业的竞争"皆与原文意思相反,不符合题意。
单选题 The U.S. integrated steel companies complain that, to modernize their technologies, they are in need of
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"美国合并的钢铁公司抱怨,为了使他们的技术现代化,他们急需…"。根据原文第 3自然段,美国钢铁公司急需"政府经济的支持",答案选项表达了此意。而选项"美国消费者做出的牺牲","钢铁生产价格的下降"以及"劳工的妥协"皆不符合题意。
单选题 Which of the following can be a disadvantage of U.S. "Big Steel" as pointed out in the text?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"根据原文提出的美国的"Big Steel"的不足之处是…"。根据原文第2、3自然段,美国的"Big Steel"的不足之处在于他们的生产力较低,即"低效率"。而选项"缺乏保护","公司重组"以及"对游说者的迷恋"皆不符合题意。
单选题 We can draw a conclusion from the text that the overall U.S. economy
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"根据文章我们可以推出,美国的总体经济…"。根据原文第4自然段,美国的总体经济"可能从世界钢铁市场的低价格得到了好处"。而选项"必须防范外国人以惊人的价格销售他们的钢铁","面对国外的竞争,他们在可持续发展方面很困难"以及"利用政府的保护提高效率"皆不是该段谈论的内容,不符合题意。
单选题 The author"s attitude towards the measure adopted by the President seems to be that of
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"作者对Bush总统采取的措施的态度是…"。根据原文最后一段,作者提出Bush总统不应该对关税进行限制,这样作者的态度是"反对的"。而选项"赞成","乐观"以及"无动于衷"皆不符合题意。