单选题Which of the following does the "Labor market problems" refer to?

单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} "WHAT'S the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" asks an old software industry joke. Answer: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. The boss of Oracle is hardly alone among corporate chiefs in having a reputation for being rather keen on himself. Indeed', until the bubble burst and the public turned nasty at the start of the decade, the cult of the celebrity chief executive seemed to demand bossly narcissism, as evidence that a firm was being led by an all-conquering hero. Narcissus met a nasty end, of course. And in recent years, boss-worship has come to be seen as bad for business. In his management bestseller, "Good to Great", Jim Collins argued that the truly successful bosses were not the serf-proclaimed stars who adorn the covers of Forbes and Fortune, but instead self-effacing, thoughtful, monkish sorts who lead by inspiring example. A statistical answer may be at hand. For the first time, a new study, "It's All About Me", to be presented next week at the annual gathering of the American Academy of Management, offers a systematic, empirical analysis of what effect narcissistic bosses have on the firms they run. The authors, Arijit Chatterjee and Donald Hambrick, of Pennsylvania State University, examined narcissism in the upper levels of 105 firms in the computer and software industries. To do this, they bad to solve a practical problem: studies of narcissism have hitherto relied on surveying individuals personally, something for which few chief executives are likely to have time or inclination. So the authors devised an index of narcissism using six publicly available indicators obtainable without the co-operation of the boss. These are: the prominence of the boss's photo in the annual report; his prominence in company press releases; the length of his "Who's Who" entry; the frequency of his use of the first person singular in interviews; and the ratios of his cash and non-cash compensation to those of the firm's second-highest paid executive. Narcissism naturally drives people to seek positions of power and influence, and because great self-esteem helps your professional advance, say the authors, chief executives will tend on average to be more narcissistic than the general population. How does that affect a firm? Messrs Chatterjee and Hambrick found that highly narcissistic bosses tended to make bigger changes in the use of important resources, such as research and development, or in spending and leverage; they carried out more and bigger mergers and acquisitions; and their results were both more extreme (more big wins or big losses) and more transient than those of firms run by their humbler peers. For shareholders, that could be good or bad. Although (oddly) the authors are keeping their narcissism ranking secret, they have revealed that Mr Ellison did not come top. Alas for him, that may be because the study limited itseff to people who became the boss after 1991--well after he took the helm. In every respect Mr Ellison seems to be the classic narcissistic boss, claims Mr Chatterjee. There is life in the old joke yet.

单选题 What's the world's greatest moral challenge, as judged by its capacity to inflict human tragedy? It is not, I think, global warming, whose effects—if they become as grim as predicted—will occur over many years and provide societies time to adapt. A case can be made for preventing nuclear proliferation, which threatens untold deaths and a collapse of the world economy. But the most urgent present moral challenge, I submit, is the most obvious: global poverty. The solution to being poor is getting rich. It's economic growth. We know this. The mystery is why all societies have not adopted the obvious remedies. Just recently, the 21-member Commission on Growth and Development examined the puzzle. Since 1950, the panel found, 13 economies have grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent for at least 25 years. The panel identified five common elements of success: Openness to global trade and, usually, an eagerness to attract foreign investment; political stability and "capable" governments "committed" to economic growth; high rates of saving and investment, usually at least 25 percent of national income; economic stability, keeping government budgets and inflation under control and avoiding a broad collapse in production; a willingness to "let markets allocate resources," meaning that governments didn't try to run industry. Of course, qualifications abound, still, broad lessons are clear. Globalization works. Countries don't get rich by staying isolated. Those that embrace trade and foreign investment acquire know-how and technologies, can buy advanced products abroad, and are forced to improve their competitiveness. The transmission of new ideas and products is faster than ever. There is a role for foreign aid, technical assistance and charity in relieving global poverty. But it is a small role. It can improve health, alleviate suffering from natural disasters or wars, and provide some types of skills. But it cannot single: handedly stimulate the policies and habits that foster self-sustaining growth. Japan and China have grown rapidly not because they received foreign aid but because they pursued pro-growth policies and embraced pro-growth values. The hard question is why all societies haven't adopted them. One reason is politics; some regimes are more interested in preserving their power and privileges than in promoting growth. But the larger answer, I think, is culture, as Lawrence Harrison of Tufts University argues. Traditional values, social systems or religious views are often hostile to risk-taking, wealth accumulation and economic growth. In his latest book, Harrison contends that politics can alter culture, hut it isn't easy. Globalization has moral as well as economic and political dimensions. The United States and other wealthy countries are experiencing an anti-globalization backlash. Americans and others are entitled to defend themselves from economic harm, but many of the allegations against globalization are wildly exaggerated. By making globalization an all-purpose scapegoat for economic complaints, many "progressives" are actually undermining the most powerful force for eradicating global poverty.

单选题 Nobody, it seems, wants to be left out of Argentina's current boom in television reality shows. After the success of local versions of "Big Brother" and "Survivor", a camera is now to be{{U}} (1) {{/U}}in the presidential palace, the Casa Rosada, to film everything (well, almost){{U}} (2) {{/U}}President Fernando de la Rua gets{{U}} (3) {{/U}}to. The results will be edited and{{U}} (4) {{/U}}several times a day,{{U}} (5) {{/U}}the state channel, Canal 7: thus dispell, it is{{U}} (6) {{/U}}, the notion that the president spends his time twiddling his thumbs to his economy minister, Domingo Cavallo, runs the country. This is a dangerous strategy. Mr. de la Rua's predecessor, Carlos Menem, was famous for his love of show business, even closing his 1995 presidential campaign{{U}} (7) {{/U}}an appearance on the hit show "Videomatch". In deliberate{{U}} (8) {{/U}}, before his election victory two years{{U}} (9) {{/U}}. Mr. de la Rua{{U}} (10) {{/U}}in television commercials that he was a very boring man. Audiences agree: his appearances last year on several leading talk{{U}} (11) {{/U}}made their ratings fall. Worse, when he decided to make his own appearance on "Videomatch" last December, a member of the audience blamed him and left him{{U}} (12) {{/U}}embarrassed. With a congressional election{{U}} (13) {{/U}}in October, opinion{{U}} (14) {{/U}}suggest that over three-quarters of Argentines{{U}} (15) {{/U}}dissatisfied with Mr. de la Rua. That, says his circle, is at least partly due to his{{U}} (16) {{/U}}portrayal by Freddy Villarreal, an impressionist on "Videomatch", and by leading newspaper cartoonists, such as Nik in La Naeion. Mr. de la Rua's team is apparently pressing the{{U}} (17) {{/U}}to be nicer. But it is unclear whether blanket{{U}} (18) {{/U}}will help the president win{{U}} (19) {{/U}}viewers, or whether they will vote that Fernando should{{U}} (20) {{/U}}the house in 2003

单选题The first great cliche of the Internet was, "Information wants to be free." The notion was that no one should have to pay for "content" words and pictures and stuff like that and, in the friction-free world of cyberspace, no one would have to. The reigning notion today is that the laws of economics are not, after all, suspended in cyberspace like the laws of gravity in outer space. Content needs to be paid for on the Web just as in any other medium. And it probably has to be paid for the same way most other things are paid for. by the people who use it. We tried charging the customers at Slate. It didn't work. Future experiments may be more successful. But meanwhile, let's look again at this notion that in every medium except the Internet, people pay for the content they consume. It's not really true. TV is the most obvious case. A few weeks ago a producer from "Nightline" contacted Slate while researching a possible show on the crisis of content on the Internet. He wanted to know how on earth we could ever be a going business if we gave away our content for free. I asked how many people pay to watch "Nightline". Answer. none. People pay for their cable or satellite transmission, and they pay for content on HBO, but "Nightline" and other broadcast programs thrive without a penny directly from viewers. There are plenty of differences, of course, and the ability of Web sites to support themselves on advertising is unproven. But "Nightline" itself disproves the notion that giving away content is suicidal. Now, look at magazines. The money that magazine subscribers pay often doesn't even cover the cost of persuading them to subscribe. A glossy monthly will happily send out $ 20 of junk mail--sometimes far more to find one subscriber who will pay $12 or $15 for a yearly subscription. Why? Partly in the hope that she or he will renew again and again until these costs are covered. But for many magazines including profitable ones--the average subscriber never pays back the cost of finding, signing and keeping him or her. The magazines need these subscribers in order to sell advertising. Most leading print magazines would happily send you their product for free, if they had any way of knowing (and proving to advertisers) that you read it. Advertisers figure, reasonably, that folks who pay for a magazine are more likely to read it, and maybe see their ad, than those who don't. So magazines make you pay, even if it costs them more than they get from you. This madcap logic doesn't apply on the Internet, where advertisers pay only for ads that have definitely appeared in front of someone's "eyeballs". They can even know exactly how many people have clicked on their ads. So far advertisers have been insufficiently grateful for this advantage. But whether they come around or not, there will never be a need on the Internet to make you pay just to prove that you're willing. So maybe the Internet's first great cliche had it exactly backward: Information has been free all along. It's the Internet that wants to enslave it.

单选题The ruling of America's Supreme Court

单选题The word" arbiters" (Line 6,Paragraph 4) most probably refers to those______.A. who work as coordinators B. who function as JudgesC. who supervise transactions D. who determine the price

单选题 Do patents help or hinder innovation? Instinctively, they would seem a blessing. Patenting an idea gives its inventor a 20-year monopoly to exploit the fruit of his labor in the marketplace, in exchange for publishing a full account of how the new product, process or material works for everyone to see. For the inventor, that may be a reasonable trade-off. For society, however, the loss of competition through the granting sole tights to an individual or organization is justified only if it stimulates the economy and delivers goods that change people's lives for the better. Invention, though, is not innovation. It may take a couple of enthusiasts working evenings and weekends for a year or two-not to mention tens of thousands of dollars of their savings-to get a pet idea to the patenting stage. But that is just the beginning. Innovations based on patented inventions or discoveries can take teams of researchers, engineers and marketing experts a decade or more, and tens of millions of dollars, to transfer to the marketplace. And for every bright idea that goes on to become a commercial winner, literally thousands {{U}}fall by the wayside{{/U}}. Most economists would argue that, without a patent system, even fewer inventions would lead to successful innovations, and those that did would be kept secret for far longer in order to maximize returns. But what if patents actually discourage the combining and recombining of inventions to yield new products and processes-as has happened in biotechnology, genetics and other disciplines? Or what about those ridiculous business-process patents, like Amazon.com's "one-click" patent or the "name-your-price" auction patent assigned to Priceline.com? Instead of stimulating innovation, such patents seem more about extracting "rents" from innocent bystanders going about their business. One thing has become clear since business-process patents took off in America during the 1990s: the quality of patents has deteriorated markedly. And with sloppier patenting standards, litigation has increased. The result is higher transaction costs all ronnd. It is not simply a failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to examine applications more rigorously. The Federal Circuit has been responsible for a number of bizarre rulings. Because of its diverse responsibilities, the Federal Circuit-unlike its counterparts in Europe and Japan-has never really acquired adequate expertise in patent law. To be eligible for a patent, an invention must not just be novel, but also useful and non-obvious. Anything that relies on natural phenomena, abstract ideas or the laws of nature does not qualify. The USPTO has taken to requiring a working prototype of anything that supposedly breaches the laws of physics. So, no more perpetual-motion machines, please.

单选题The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that, on average, each person in the United States throws out about 328 pounds of edible food each year. Food bought with the best (1) sits for weeks on end as busy consumers (2) it in the refrigerator and forget about it. And when it seems time to either eat it or (3) it, most people (4) the freshness dates (a.k.a. 'use by', 'sell by', and 'best if used by') printed on the packages. But, these dates don't really (5) food safety, nor do they mean (6) food is always bad. Poultry, seafood, and ground meats such as hamburger, have the shortest (7) lives. They should be (8) within two days of (9) if stored in the refrigerator. They last (10) six months in the freezer. Steak, beef, (11) , and other fresh-cut meats last a little longer—three to five days in the refrigerator and six months in the freezer. The date (12) on milk products is set by the dairy. Most of the dates on dairy products are totally driven by (13) —not necessarily spoilage. In general, milk lasts five to seven days after the (14) date. Eggs generally have long shelf lives—three to five weeks from the time you take them home. Don't (15) your eggs just because they're past the expiration date; (16) one open first. If it still smells and looks good, (17) . When you cook them, make sure you do so thoroughly. About (18) every 10, 000 eggs contains salmonella bacteria. Thorough cooking (19) salmonella. Once cooked, a boiled, (20) egg will last a week.

单选题 Forget Iraq and budget deficits. The most serious political problem on both sides of the Atlantic is none of these. It is a difficulty that has dogged the ruling classes for millennia. It is the servant problem. In Britain David Blunkett, the home secretary, has resigned over an embarrassment ( or one of many embarrassments, in a story involving his ex-girlfriend, her husband, two pregnancies and some DNA) concerning a visa for a Filipina nanny employed by his mistress. His office speeded it through for reasons unconnected to the national shortage of un skilled labour. Mr Blunkett resigned ahead of a report by Sir Alan Budd, an economist who is investigating the matter at the government' s request. In America Bernard Kerik, the president' s nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, withdrew last week because he had carelessly employed a Mexican nanny whose Play-Doh skills were in better order than her paperwork. Mr Kerik also remembered that he hadn' t paid her taxes. The nominee has one or two other "issues" ( an arrest warrant in 1998, and allegations of dodgy business dealings and extra-marital affairs). But employing an illegal nanny would probably have been enough to undo him, as it has several other cabinet and judicial appointees in recent years. There is an easy answer to the servant problem--obvious to economists, if not to the less clear-sighted. Perhaps Sir Alan, a dismal scientist of impeccable rationality, will be thoughtful enough to point it out in his report. Parents are not the only people who have difficulty getting visas for workers. All employers face restrictive immigration policies which raise labour costs. Some may respond by trying to fiddle the immigration system, but most deal with the matter by exporting jobs. In the age of the global economy, the solution to the servant problem is simple: rather than importing the nanny, offshore the children.

单选题It is generally believed that in applied investigation

单选题Britain no longer dominates Anglophone education. Students want more, and the old empire is happy to give it to them. A good name and a British campus are no longer enough to pull in high-paying overseas recruits. The competition within the world of English-language higher education is growing increasingly intense. Today's international students don’t automatically head to the United States or the United Kingdom; they consider a slew of factors before making their pick. Already, Britain is starting to suffer as it finds itself in a fierce three-way contest for market share. On the one hand, U.S. colleges are recovering fast in overseas recruitment. On the other, a batch of commonwealth countries is coming on strong and eating into Britain's market share. Consider Singapore, which four years ago set out to lure branches of foreign colleges. The number of overseas students there has since climbed 46 percent. And in the first three years of the decade, the number of foreign students in New Zealand almost quadrupled. Then there’s Australia. Foreigners now make up about a quarter of its entire student body. Australia shows that the secret to success often has as much to do with government policy as with academic philosophy. Lavish grants can offset the Brits’ and the Americans’ edge in prestige. Foreign students at state-run schools in Singapore now get an 80 percent discount. An engineering degree that costs about $30,000 a year at Harvard runs just $2,000 at the University of Malaya, thanks to heavy subsidies. The biggest factor today seems to be the prospect of employment. A degree from an Australian university now puts graduates on the fast track to permanent residency. And London offers an automatic 12-month work permit to most overseas recruits. But Britain can’t do anything about its location. Why go all the way to the United Kingdom -- or to the United States -- when there’s now a good English- language college just a few hours’ flight from Shanghai or Mumbai? But few countries can match Australia's main selling point. Its sunny outdoors image works strongly to its advantage among international students. Yet no country can afford to throw in the towel. Cuts in government spending have forced colleges to look elsewhere for money. Overseas recruits have thus become an increasingly critical source of cash: in Britain the average university now looks to foreign students to provide at least 10 percent of its income. Other trends could soon make things even more desperate. Today China is one of the biggest sources of traveling students. But for how much longer? The country is now busy developing its own elite institution and ordinary colleges. If this trend continues, the developed world is going to lose its largest client. The scramble for business in the Anglo world is already ferocious(激烈的), while the market is expanding. Just wait till it starts to contract.

单选题However important we may regard school life to be, there is no denying the fact that children spend more time at home than in the classroom. Therefore, the great influence of parents cannot be ignored or discounted by the teacher. They can become strong allies of the school personnel or they can consciously or unconsciously hinder and frustrate curricular objectives. Administrators have been aware of the need to keep parents informed of the newer methods used in schools. Many principals have conducted workshops explaining such matters as the reading readiness program, manuscript writing and developmental mathematics. Moreover, the classroom teacher, with the permission of the supervisors, can also play an important role in enlightening parents. The informal tea and the many interviews carried on during the year, as well as new ways of reporting pupils' progress, can significantly aid in achieving a harmonious interplay between school and home. To illustrate, suppose that a father has been drilling Junior in arithmetic processes night after night. In a friendly interview, the teacher can help (he parent sublimate his natural paternal interest into productive channels. He might be persuaded to let Junior participate in discussing the family budget, buying the food, using a yardstick or measuring cup at home, setting the clock, calculating mileage on a trip and engaging in scores of other activities that have a mathematical basis. If the father follows the advice, it is reasonable to assume that he will soon realize his son is making satisfactory progress in mathematics, and at the same time, enjoying the work. Too often, however, teachers' conferences with parents are devoted to petty accounts of children's misdemeanors, complaints about laziness and poor work habits, and suggestion for penalties and rewards at home. What is needed is a more creative approach in which the teacher, as a professional adviser, plants ideas in parents' minds for the best utilization of the many hours that the child spends out of the classroom. In this way, the school and the home join forces in fostering the fullest development of youngsters' capacities.