2018年翻译资格考试中级笔译模拟题：自由贸易
汉译英
自从经济学家李嘉图于1817年提出基本理论以来，经济学方面的经典著作都说自由贸易免除关税、限额和补贴，也没有政府的其他小动作，因此会增加双方的利益。美国的政策是不遗余力地实行这一理论。为什么说自由贸易可以使大家普遍受益呢?这可以在所谓"相对优势"的理论中找到答案。
打个简单的比方，假如一位外科医生，既擅长动手术，又会做常规的验血工作，要取得较好的效益，就应让她集中精力做手术，同时雇一个能力较差的技术员去搞化验，因为这样就能让这位外科医生最有效的利用自己的时间。
引申而言，虽然美国既擅长发明高级的生物技术，有精于日常的药品生产，明智的做法还是把药品生产从美国转移至生产费用更低的国家。这样，美国人就可以一方面因廉价产品获利，一方面把自己的资源用来从事更有价值的事业。这一向就是讨论问题的前提。但是现在萨缪尔森却提出了不同的看法。如果低工资国家也掌握了先进的产业，怎么办?
据他估计，假如把过多的美国工人失去的较高工资的工作包到国外去，美国从廉价商品的获益不见得能补偿它购买力下降造成的损失。
萨缪尔森断言："自由贸易并不总是一种双赢的局面。"他说，当今世界这个问题尤其突出。因为像印度和中国这样的大国，他们的工资低的多，可是他们的能力有在不断提高，美国能生产的产品，他们几乎都能生产，美国能提供的服务，他们也几乎都能够提供。
假如美国与这些国家进行自由贸易，它们低的多的工资产生的巨大影响就会把美国的平均工资往下拉。据他推算，美国的经济仍然会增长，不过比应有的增长速度要低。
参考译文
Ever since the economist David Ricardo offered the basic theory in 1817, economic scripture has taught that open trade-free of tariffs, quotas, subsidies or other government distortions-improves the well-being of both parties. U.S. policy has implemented this doctrine with a vengeance. Why is free trade said to be universally beneficial? The answer is a doctrine called "comparative advantage".
Here's a simple analogy. If a surgeon is highly skilled both at doing operations and performing routine blood tests, it's more efficient for the surgeon to concentrate on the surgery and pay a less efficient technician to do the tests, since that allows the surgeon to make the most efficient use of her own time.
By extension, even if the United States is efficient both at inventing advanced biotechnologies and at the routine manufacture of medicines, it makes sense for the United States to let the production work migrate to countries that can make the stuff more cheaply. Americans get the benefit of the cheaper products and get to spend their resources on even more valuable pursuits, That, anyway, has always been the premise. But here Samuelson dissents. What if the lower wage country also captures the advanced industry?
If enough higher-paying jobs are lost by American workers to outsourcing, he calculates, then the gain from the cheaper prices may not compensate for the loss in U.S. purchasing power.
"Free trade is not always a win-win situation," Samuelson concludes. It is particularly a problem, he says, in a world where large countries with far lower wages, like India and China, are increasingly able to make almost any product or offer almost any service performed in the United States.
If America trades freely with them, then the powerful drag of their far lower will begin dragging down U.S. average wages. The U.S. economy may still grow, he calculates, but at a lower rate than it otherwise would have.
