第1题:
nowadays the british foreign policy is largely shaped by its participation in______.
A. the European Economic Community
B. the Commonwealth
C. the United Nations,the EU,NATO,etc.
D. a European federal government
第2题:
在表S中对学号SN按升序建立名为SNINDEX的索引,正确的是______。
A.CREATE INDEX SNINDEX WITH S(SN)
B.CREATE UNIQUE INDEX SNINDEX ON S(SN)
C.CREATE SNNIDEX ON S(SN)
D.CREATE SNINDEX INDEX ON S(SN)
第3题:
第4题:
第5题:
第6题:
The Hoover Administration()to deal with the economic crisis.
Atook effective measures
Bdid not take any measure
Casked the private sector
Drefused to take strong government action
第7题:
punish young people if they are not cooperating with it
reform the unemployed youngsters
the economic slow clown
reduce welfare spending
第8题:
took effective measures
did not take any measure
asked the private sector
refused to take strong government action
第9题:
comprehensive
compound
considerable
complacent
第10题:
London is not capable of hosting the summit
Lord Myners should not have signed off Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension
there was no “common ground” on the G20
the UK government’s entire economic strategy has fallen apart
第11题:
the corporate lay-offs
the government cuts in welfare spending
the economic restructuring
the warning power of labors unions
第12题:
When did the new protectionism arise?
Why is the new protectionism so popular in northern European countries?
Does the American government play a more active role in economic life than the British government?
Why does the government intervene in economic life?
第13题:
Athe editor’s-in-chief’s office
Bthe editor-in-chief’s office
Cthe editor-in-chief office
Dthe editor’s-in-chief office
第14题:
PartA 2. The National Association of Securities Dealers is investigating whether some brokerage
houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses
to invest in the stock market. Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security? For it is now apparent that the Bush administration’s privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the
money in the stock market and hope.
Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social
Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would
have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government’s debt. “Never mind”, privatization advocates say, “in the long run, people would
make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees’
benefits.Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds,
this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on,
their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would
have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing,
the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all.
However, privatizersclaim that these investments would make a lot of
money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap most of those gains,
because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits.
We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic
(they arent), but lets cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes
involve having the government borrow heavily and put the money in the stock market. That’s because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers’gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers’ benefits.
Once you realize whatprivatization really means, it doesn’t sound too responsible, does it? But the details make it considerably worse. First,
financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more
important indicator of the governments fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by
cutting benefits in the distant future. After all, a government bond is a legally binding
promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing
more than a suggestion to future Congresses.
If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045,
what are the odds that those cuts would really happen? Second,
a system of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street’s point of view that’s a benefit, not a cost.
第26题:According to the author, “privatizers”are those_____.
[A] borrowing from banks to invest in the stock market [B] who invest in Treasury bonds
[C] advocating the government to borrow money from citizens [D] who earn large sums of money in personal
accounts
第15题:
第16题:
第17题:
第18题:
第19题:
in chief engineer's room
in chief officer's room
on the bridge
on deck
第20题:
have been made yet
have yet to make
have yet to be made
to have yet made
第21题:
第22题:
the U.S. enjoyed more than any time in its history peace and economic well being
the U.S. enjoying more than any other time in its history peace and economic well being
more peace and economic well being was enjoyed by the U.S. than any other time
economic peace and well being was enjoyed by the U.S. more so than any other ~ time in the country’s history
the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any other time in its history
第23题:
we can never predict which way the economy will head
the economic prospects have been unfavorable for 10 years
the government has done relatively little to intervene the market
physical laborers are the chief victims of the economic decline