看文章 记单词 曹其军
2015北大MBA备考讲义 –曹其军 叮嘱:
1) 以译文中标注的单词为重点; 2)全文的通读辅助单词记忆; 3)重点句型可以分析。 Passage 1
“The word ?protection? is no longer taboo（禁忌语）”. This short sentence, uttered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy late last month, may have launched a new era in economic history. Why? For decades, Western leaders have believed that lowering trade barriers and tariffs was a natural good. 1) Doing so, they reasoned, would lead to greater economic efficiency and productivity, which in turn would improve human welfare. Championing free trade thus became a moral, not just an economic, cause.
These leaders, of course, weren?t acting out of unselfishness. They knew their economies were the most competitive, so they?d profit most from liberalization. And developing countries feared that their economies would be swamped by superior Western productivity. Today, however, the tables have turned—though few acknowledge it. The West continues to preach free trade, but practices it less and less. Asia, meanwhile, continues to plead for special protection but practices more and more free trade.
That?s why Sarkozy?s words were so important: he finally injected some honesty into the trade debate. The truth is that large parts of the West are losing faith in free trade, though few leaders admit it. Some economists are more honest. Paul Krugman is one of the few willing to acknowledge that protectionist arguments are returning. In the short run, there will be winners and losers under free trade. This, of course, is what capitalism is all about. But more and more of these losers will be in the West. Economists in the developed world used to love quoting Joseph Schumpeter, who said that “creative destruction” was an essential part of capitalist growth. But they always assumed that destruction would happen over there. When western workers began losing jobs, suddenly their leaders began to lose faith in their principles. Things have yet to reverse completely. But there?s clearly a negative trend in Western theory and practice.
A little hypocrisy（虚伪）is not in itself a serious problem. 2) The real problem is that Western governments continue to insist that they retain control of the key global economic and financial institutions while drifting away from global liberalization. Look at what?s happening at the IMF
2015北大MBA备考
看文章 记单词 曹其军
(International Monetary Fund). The Europeans have demanded that they keep the post of managing director. But all too often, Western officials put their own interests above everyone else?s when they dominate these global institutions.
The time has therefore come for the Asians—who are clearly the new winners in today?s global economy—to provide more intellectual leadership in supporting free trade. Sadly, they have yet to do so. 3) Unless Asians speak out, however, there?s real danger that Adam Smith?s principles, which have brought so much good to the world, could gradually die. And that would leave all of us worse off, in one way or another.
? 参考译文及重点词汇 “‘保护’（protection）这个字再也不是禁忌语（taboo）了。”上月末法国总统Nicolas Sarkozy说出的短短一句话可能推动（launch）了经济史上一个新时代（era）的到来。原因何在？几十年（decades）来，西方领导人相信，降低（lower）贸易关税（tariff）和壁垒（barrier）是顺应天意（natural）的。他们觉得（reason），关税和壁垒降低会提高经济效率（efficiency），发展生产力（productivity），这有助于改善（improve）人类福利（welfare）。因此，捍卫（champion）自由贸易不仅成为一种经济需求，也是一种道义（moral cause）。
当然，这些领导人的做法并非出于大公无私（unselfishness）。他们知道自己国家的经济实力竞争力（competitive）强，可以从自由贸易（liberalization）中获得最大利益（profit）。而发展中（developing）国家担心（fear）自己的经济状况遭受西方强势（superior）生产力的淹没（swamp）。虽然人们不想承认（acknowledge），不过现在形势发生了逆转（turn）。西方国家继续鼓吹（preach）自由贸易，实践者却寥寥无几。与此同时，亚洲继续诉求（plead）特殊保护政策，却越来越多地实行自由贸易。
Sarkozy的言论举足轻重（important）的道理在此：他终于为贸易争辩（debate）输入（inject）了一些诚实（honesty）的元素。真相就是，西方大多数地区正在对自由贸易失去信心，尽管领导人不愿承认（admit）。有些经济学家表现得诚实许多。Paul Krugman就是仅有的几个愿意承认保护主义理由正在回归的学者之一。短期（short run）看，在自由贸易的状态下，有赢家也有输家。当然这也就是资本主义（capitalism）的要义。但是未来越来越多的输家会出现在西方。发达国家的经济学家经常喜欢引用（quote）Joseph Schumpeter的话，他说“创造性（creative）毁灭（destruction）”是资本主义增长的一个基本（essential）要素。但是他们总是假定（assume），毁灭不会发生在西方。当西方国家的工人开始失业时，他们的领导人就突然开始失去对某些原则（principle）的信心（faith）。情况还没有完全逆转（reverse），但是西方的理论（theory）和实践之间已经存在明显的逆向（negative）趋势（trend）。
些许虚伪本身问题不大。真正的问题在于西方政府继续坚持要求（insist）保持（retain）对全球（global）重大经济金融机构（institution）的控制，尽管他们正在游离（drift）出全球自由贸易体系。看看发生在国际货币基金组织的一切吧。欧洲人一直要求担当该组织的运营（managing）主管（director）一职。但是一旦他们主宰（dominate）这些全球性机构之后，他们往往把自身的利益（interest）置于他人之上。
因此，显然成为当今全球经济新赢家的亚洲人应该在支持自由贸易方面发挥（provide）更多的领导（leadership）作用。可悲的是，他们还没有做到这一点。但是，除非亚洲人发出自己的声音，否则会产生真正的危险：曾惠及世界的Adam Smith原则会逐渐消亡。那将使我们变得更加糟糕（worse off）。
2015北大MBA备考
看文章 记单词 曹其军
? 长难句解析 1）Doing so, they reasoned, would lead to greater economic efficiency and productivity, which in turn would improve human welfare.
【解析】注意句中的插入语“they reasoned”，我们通常把这种插入语提前到句首翻译。那么整句的主语由分词结构“doing so”充当，语法上就称为动名词短语了。其次，句末还有一个由逗号分开的非限制性定语从句。
【参考译文】他们觉得，关税和壁垒降低会提高经济效率，发展生产力，这有助于改善人类福利。
2）The real problem is that Western governments continue to insist that they retain control of the key global economic and financial institutions while drifting away from global liberalization.
【解析】典型的套句，即从句中嵌入从句的结构。对付这种复杂结构，关键要理清从句的位置和在句中的关联。insist that…从句中有一个虚拟的结构，省略了should这个标志词。 “while drifting away…”是状语从句省略式，省略掉drift的主语Western governments。既然这个状语从句的位置处于insist that…的宾语从句内，只能理解为动词短语retain the control部分的让步状语。
【参考译文】真正的问题在于西方政府继续坚持要求保持对全球重大经济金融机构的控制，尽管他们正在游离出全球自由贸易体系。
3）Unless Asians speak out, however, there?s real danger that Adam Smith?s principles, which have brought so much good to the world, could gradually die.
【解析】注意句中的从句which…。虽然前后有逗号分割，但是不能看成插入语，仍然是定语从句，修饰principles。
【参考译文】但是，除非亚洲人发出自己的声音，否则会产生真正的危险：曾惠及世界的Adam Smith原则会逐渐消亡。
Passage 2
1) During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune, under its archconservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon. The paper was so vehemently anti-F.D.R. that 10 days before the election, switchboard operators at the newspaper answered the phone by saying “Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 days left to save the American way of life”.
In the next few weeks, newspapers in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will endorse candidates for President. In fact, most of them will endorse both a Democrat and a Republican. In 2004, presidential candidates were endorsed by 418 newspapers across the country—29% of all the papers in the U.S.
I confess that I?ve never quite understood why newspapers endorse presidential candidates. Sure, I know the history and the tradition, the fact that newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries were often affiliated with political parties, but why do they do it now? Why do it at a time when the credibility and viability of the press are at all-time lows? More important, why do it at a time when readers, especially young readers, question the objectivity of newspapers in particular and the media in general?
Young news consumers are suspicious about traditional authority. They prize objectivity,
2015北大MBA备考
看文章 记单词 曹其军
straightforwardness and transparency. I doubt there?s a reader under 30 who gets why newspapers endorse presidential candidates—and most of the ones I talk to ask the following: How can a newspaper be objective on the front page when it endorses a candidate on the editorial page? 2) They?re dubious about whether the reporter who covers Hillary Clinton can be objective if his newspaper has endorsed Barack Obama—and vice versa. And they?re right. At a time when newspapers are trying to ensure their survival by attracting younger readers, the idea of endorsements is both counterproductive and an anachronism. It?s certainly the prerogative of newspapers and their owners to endorse candidates, but in doing so they are undermining the very basis for their business, which is impartiality. It?s a recipe for having less influence, not more.
I want our writers and reporters to express a point of view in their stories. They?re experts, they?ve done their homework, and 3) I think it?s fair for writers to suggest that after thoroughly reviewing the candidates? policies on health care, they find one more practical than another. That?s transparency. Media outlets should publish editorials and take positions, but the vote for President is the most personal decision we make as citizens. No one wants to be told how to vote—and we make all kinds of judgments about the people who do.
Journalists love to cite the fact that the press is the only industry protected by the Constitution. A free press, as Jefferson noted, is part of our system of checks and balances; it is one of the few guarantors of democracy. But for the press to remain free, we need to preserve both the reality and the appearance of that freedom, and endorsements undermine that.
? 参考译文及重点词汇 在1936年总统大选（campaign）期间，芝加哥《论坛报》（Tribune）在极端保守党（archconservative）老板（owner）Robert McCormick上校的领导下全力（wholeheartedly）支持（endorse）共和党候选人（candidacy）Alf Landon。这份报纸激烈（vehemently）反对民主党人F.D.罗斯福，结果在大选（election）前十天，报社的总机（switchboard）接线员（operator）回答电话时总说“你好！这里是芝加哥《论坛报》。要挽救美国的生活方式仅剩十天了”。
接下来几周，Ohio, Texas和Pennsylvania几个州的报纸纷纷表达对总统候选人的支持。事实上，其中大多数报纸既支持民主党（Democrat）又支持共和党（Republican）。在2004年，总统候选人们受到418家报纸的公开支持，占据全美报业的29%。
我承认（confess），我从来没搞明白报纸支持总统候选人的理由。当然，我了解历史和传统（tradition），即18和19世纪的报纸往往依附（affiliate）于政党。可是现在他们有什么理由这样做呢？现在报业的可信度（credibility）及影响力（viability）处于历史的低谷，为什么还要这样做呢？更加重要的是，当读者，尤其年轻的读者在质疑（question）某些报纸的客观性（objectivity）还有大众媒介（media）的客观性时，为什么要这样做呢？
年轻的新闻消费者（consumer）对传统权威（authority）持怀疑（suspicious）态度。他们赞赏（prize）客观、直率、透明（transparency）。我怀疑是否有明白报纸为什么支持总统候选人的30岁以下的读者存在。我访谈过的大多数人都会问：一份报纸在社论部分（editorial）表达对候选者的支持，它怎么可以在头版（front）保持客观呢？他们怀疑（dubious）一份支持Barack Obama的报纸在报道（cover）Hillary Clinton时能否保持客观性。反之亦然（vice versa）。他们的怀疑有道理。现在报纸正在通过吸引（attract）年轻读者确保（ensure）生存（survival），支持候选人的做法既有违生产力（counterproductive），又不合适宜
2015北大MBA备考
看文章 记单词 曹其军
（anachronism）。当然，报纸和它的老板有权（prerogative）支持候选人，但是这种做法正在削弱（undermine）报业的根基—— 公正性（impartiality）。这是削弱而非增强影响力（influence）的一剂偏方（recipe）。
我希望我们的作者们和记者们（reporter）在报道中表达一种观点。他们是专家。他们完成了自己的任务（homework）。在充分考虑（review）候选人关于医疗保险（health care）的政策之后，发现一个人的政策比另外一个更加切实可行（practical）。作者表达这种看法应该说是公平的（fair），也是透明的。媒体应该发表（publish）社论，选择立场（position），但是给总统投票（vote）是作为公民的私人（personal）决定。 没人喜欢被告知如何投票，我们对自己选择的人有自己的评判（judgement）。
记者们（journalist）喜欢引用（cite）一个事实：报业（press）是受宪法（constitution）保护的唯一行业。正如Jefferson指出（note），新闻自由是我们监督（check）制衡（balance）制度的组成部分，是少数几个民主的守护神（guarantor）之一。但是为了报纸的自由，我们需要保护（preserve）那种自由的现实（reality）和表现（appearance），而公开支持的做法（endorsements）则在起反作用。
? 长难句解析 1）During the 1936 presidential campaign, the Chicago Tribune, under its archconservative owner, Colonel Robert McCormick, wholeheartedly endorsed the candidacy of the Republican Alf Landon.
【解析】句中有两个成分要注意。under…owner修饰Chicago Tribune，这个分割的逗号其实没必要。Colonel Robert McCormick作为同位语成分，和owner对等。报刊英语里经常出现这样的叠加修饰。
【参考译文】在1936年总统大选期间，芝加哥《论坛报》在极端保守党老板Robert McCormick上校的领导下全力支持共和党候选人Alf Landon。
2）They?re dubious about whether the reporter who covers Hillary Clinton can be objective if his newspaper has endorsed Barack Obama—and vice versa.
【解析】介词about后面的这个宾语从句是核心。be dubious about 相当于动词doubt。if引导的条件状语从句被嵌套在whether的从句里面。
【参考译文】他们怀疑一份支持Barack Obama的报纸在报道Hillary Clinton时能否保持客观性。
3）I think it?s fair for writers to suggest that after thoroughly reviewing the candidates? policies on health care, they find one more practical than another.
【解析】for writers to suggest是一个完整的独立结构，被形式主语it所代替。另外，one是代词，指代policies当中的某一项政策。
【参考译文】在充分考虑候选人关于医疗保险的政策之后，发现一个人的政策比另外一个更加切实可行。作者表达这种看法应该说是公平的。
Passage 3
Everyone, it seems, has a health problem. After pouring billions into the National Health Service, British people moan about dirty hospitals, long waits and wasted money. In Germany the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, is under fire for suggesting changing the financing of its health system. Canada?s new Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, made a big fuss during the
2015北大MBA备考