I. Translate the following terms into English (30%):
1) 兼并
2) 商业周期
3) 上市公司
4) 泡沫经济
5) 股份
6) 欧洲债券市场
7) 审计
8) 贸易壁垒
9) 进口(贸易中)
10)出口(贸易中)
II. Translate the following terms into Chinese(30%):
1) EU
2) VC
3) promotion policy
4) marketing environment
5) bank statement
6) venture capital
7) buyer behavior
8) market segment
9) liquid investment
10) trade union
III. Read the article and choose one best answer to each of the following multiple choice questions according to the article ( 40%):
New Economy
As America emerges from what may be the shortest economic slump in memory, there is increasing evidence that New Economy factors---- including high productivity rates, better inventory management, more flexible labor markets, and a greater share of jobs in the service sector ---- were in fact responsible for the brevity of the slowdown. As the remarkable US expansion of the 1990s appears to be continuing, the New Economy seems to have passed the first real test of its resiliency. And the structural changes being driven by the New Economy have not receded or been impeded by the changes of the last year; rather, they are as strong as ever.
As these structural changes continue to sweep through our national economy, they are restructuring and reshaping the 50 state economies. In 1999, at the height of the New Economy euphoria, PPI released its first State New Economy Index, which included 17 indicators to measure the degree to which state economies were structured and operated according to the tenets of the New Economy. In 2002, after the New Economy has proved itself and is being viewed by most with a more careful and realistic eye, PPI’s 2002 State index uses 21 economic indicators to measure these differences and assess states’ progress as they adapt to the new economic order. With these indicators as a frame of reference, the report then outlines a state-level public policy framework aimed at boosting the incomes of all Americans.
While in 1999 many thought that the New Economy changed everything (including the need for companies to make a profit), in 2001 many scoffed at it as simply a flash in the pan or, worse, a myth spun by an over-imaginative media. Many questioned if after the superb economic performance of the 1990s we were doomed to return to the dismal days of the later 1970s and 1980s. The reality is that the New Economy was neither an epochal and dizzying transformation nor a slogan generated by some dot-com companies looking to inflate their IPO prices. Rather it was and is the kind of profound transformation of all industries that happens perhaps twice ina century. Such a change is equivalent in scope and depth to the rise of the manufacturing economy in the 1890s and the emergence of the mass-production, corporate economy in the 1940s and 1950s. As we pass through one of those groundswells that regularly but infrequently reshape the economy (and society) from top to bottom, there will be occasional bumps along the way---- like the recent economic downturn---- but these are the negative phrases within what we can expect to be a much longer growth period.
While there was considerable bad news that gave doubters even more reasons to doubt, the reality never was as bad as it was portrayed to be. The Nasdaq fell from its commanding heights of 5,000 in 2000 to roughly 1,850 in March 2002, but it was still 43 percent higher than when Alan Greenspan warned of “irrational exuberance” in 1998. In 2001, almost 110,000 jobs were lost at dot-coms, many due to failures, including such high-fliers as pets.com and webvan.com.
But even so, the total number of US dot-com domains grew 54 percent from July 2000 to July 2001. And the recession so far has turned out to not really be a recession, since we have so far only experienced one negative quarter of GDP growth (3rd quarter,2001), not the two consecutive ones required to constitute a recession. Moreover, unlike past slowdowns, productivity has actually grown, at an annual and stunning rate of 5.1 percent in the 4th quarter of 2001. And while unemployment was up, its peak of 5.8 percent (December 2001) was generally lower than average levels throughout the 1980s.
Moreover, even though the tech sector is not the high-flyer it was just a year ago, there’s a fallacy in the leap from bad news in high-tech and even in the broader economy to the death of the New Economy. Those who think the New Economy was some late-90s flash-in-the-pan staked to the emergence of dot-coms are roughly equivalent to the great wits who shouted “Get a horse!” at early motorists broken down on the side of the road. In the early 1930s, people might have equated the bankruptcy of car companies with the end of the auto era. But obviously that was just the beginning. In all regards, it looks like the worst is behind us and we are poised for a period of robust New Economy growth, perhaps less spectacular than the dizzying days of 2000, but strong all the same. It’s clear that this was more than a one-time burst of energy that has dissipated. Rather, we’ve barely scratched the surface of New Economy digital transformation. To paraphrase Mark Twin, reports of the New Economy’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Broadband Internet connections continue to grow by more th 50 percent a year. Venture capitalists invested more in 2001 than in any year prior to 1999 and more than they did in the years 1990 to 1996 combined. Corporate R&D as a share of GDP reached an all-time high in 2000. E-commerce retail sales in the last year grew 2.5 time faster than total retail sales. Business investments in formation technology fell relative to 2000 levels, but were 15 percent higher than 1999 levels. And a host of new technologies, including voice recognition, expert systems, smart cards, e-books, cheap storage devices, new display devices and video software, intelligent transportation systems, “third generation” wireless communication devices, and robots, are poised to be commercialized.
But even though the IT revolution is still only in its adolescence and exciting times are ahead, we need to remember that the New Economy was never just about the Internet and what investors Jim Clark and writer Michael Lewis dubbed the “next new thing.”
Rather, the New Economy is about the transformation of all industries and the overall economy. As such, the New Economy represents a complex array of forces. These include the reorganization of firms, more efficient and dynamic capital markets, more economic “churning” and entrepreneurial dynamism, relentless globalization, continuing economic competition, and increasingly volatile labor markets. And there is every reason to believe that these forces that produced a turnaround in productivity and wage growth in the last half of the 1990s will continue to produce equally strong growth in the first decade of the 2000s. As a result, there are a number of new economic realities that states need to contend with.
First, new industries, especially traded services and E-businesses, are becoming a more important share of the economic base of regions. As manufacturers continue to dramatically boost productivity, factory jobs continue to decline as a share of total employment while jobs in services grow. For example, Navistar’s Indianapolis engine plant spent $285 million in new investments between 1995 and 2000 with the result that while it took 900 people to produce 175 engines a day in 1994, the same 900 workers produce 1,400 today. As a result of efforts by Navistar and the nation’s other 360,000 manufacturing firms, manufacturing jobs now account for just 13.4 percent of employment. Even in traditionally manufacturing-oriented states like Michigan and North Carolina, manufacturing employment is only 19.8 percent and 18.2 percent of all jobs, respectively. This is not to say that manufacturing is not important; it’s usually the economic base sector that brings in money from outside the region that in turn supports local-serving businesses (e.g. dry cleaners). But it does mean that states that look to growing sectors, many of which will be outside of manufacturing, will be the ones that succeed.
Second, most industries and firms, even “traditional ones”, are organizing work around technology. While the “high-tech” firms focus on developing new technologies, all of them must be using advanced technology to be successful. For example, manufacturers who use more technologies (e.g. computer-aided design) in their production processes pay higher wages, export more, and are more productive than manufacturers who do not. States whose policies make it easy for firms and their employees to access and use technology will come out ahead.
Third, the old sources of competitive advantage ---- access to raw materials, transportation routes, or customer markets, low costs, and a large labor pool ---- are becoming less important. In an economy in which less than 20 percent of economic activity consists of creating, processing, or moving physical goods, access to raw materials, transportation, and markets means less. As an increasing share of economic inputs and outputs are in the form of electronic bits, the old locational factors diminish in importance. And when an increasing share of firms are gaining competitive advantage from innovation, quality, and productivity-driven cost reductions, the old advantages of low wages, low taxes, and low input costs are less important. States that provide an environment in which firms can become more productive and innovative will outperform those that can only offer low costs.
Fourth, states’ economic success will increasingly be determined by how effectively they can spur home-grown technological innovation and entrepreneurship. While it’s true that most states cannot hope to replicate Silicon Valley for Boston’s Route 128, they can have economies that prosper as a result of locally based companies developing new product and service innovations. In the old economy, many states relied on industrial recruitment to attract branch plants and facilities from more innovative states. In the New Economy, tomorrow’s jobs will come from fast-growing entrepreneurial firms and not from the small number of business relocations. As a result, states need to shift their focus from “hunting and gathering” (industrial recruitment) to gardening (promoting growth from within).
Finally, when the most valuable input for many firms is the skills and talent of their workforce, a pool of skilled workers is the most important locational factor. In the old economy workers often followed companies, so attracting companies made more sense. In the New Economy, it’s not so simple. As knowledge workers become a more important factor in production, companies often locate where knowledge workers already live. This means that the old practice of economic development, which focused exclusively on providing help to firms, must give way to a broader approach that includes making a state more attractive to skilled workers by improving quality of life, workforce development systems, and government operations.
1. The author of this article seems to believe that the quick recovery of the American economy is due to __________.
A. the remarkable US expansion of the 1990s
B. the structural changes being driven by the New Economy
C. the first real test of its resiliency that the New Economy has passed
D. the New Economy factors
2. Owing to the PPI’s State New Economy Indexes __________.
A. American people look at the New Economy with a more careful and realistic eye
B. a framework was created for the measurement and assessment of the state economies
C. the state economies were structured and operated according to the tenets of the New Economy
D. a state-level public policy framework was aimed at boosting the incomes of all Americans
3. Which of the following statements is not true according to the author?
A. The Nasdaq in 2002 fell by 75% compared with that in 2000.
B. The Nasdaq in 1996 was roughly 1294.
C. About one hundred and ten thousand jobs were lost at dot-coms in 2001.
D. The number of US dot-com domains increased during 2000-2001.
4. By saying “we’ve barely scratched the surface of New Economy digital transformation”, the author probably meant that __________.
A. a period of robust New Economy growth was about to come
B. the New Economy’s demise had been greatly exaggerated
C. the great potential of the New Economy was yet to be released
D. the New Economy was some late-90s flash-in-the-pan staked to the emergence of dot-coms
5. The author of this article made a list of achievements (Broadband Internet connections continue to grow by more than 50 percent a year, etc) show that __________.
A. commercialization is inevitable
B. the New Economy is far from being over
C. the prime time for IT revolution has come
D. the Internet is a feat unmatched at any time in history
6. According to the article, the complex array of forces represented by the New Economy refers to __________.
A. the reorganization of firms and more efficient and dynamic capital markets
B. more economic “churning” and entrepreneurial dynamism
C. globalization, economic competition, and volatile labor markets
D. all of the above
7. The fundamental reason for the emergence and growing importance of trade services and E-businesses is that __________.
A. manufacturing is not as important as it used to be
B. there has been a considerable increase of productivity over the years
C. fewer people are needed in factories
D. many states that look to growing sectors are now outside of manufacturing
8. It can be inferred from the article that the author’s attitude towards the New Economy is __________.
A. negative
B. objective
C. subjective
D. positive
一级建造师二级建造师二级建造师造价工程师土建职称公路检测工程师建筑八大员注册建筑师二级造价师监理工程师咨询工程师房地产估价师 城乡规划师结构工程师岩土工程师安全工程师设备监理师环境影响评价土地登记代理公路造价师公路监理师化工工程师暖通工程师给排水工程师计量工程师
执业药师执业医师卫生资格考试卫生高级职称执业护士初级护师主管护师住院医师临床执业医师临床助理医师中医执业医师中医助理医师中西医医师中西医助理口腔执业医师口腔助理医师公共卫生医师公卫助理医师实践技能内科主治医师外科主治医师中医内科主治儿科主治医师妇产科医师西药士/师中药士/师临床检验技师临床医学理论中医理论
