Arboria is floundering in the global marketplace,incurring devastating losses in market position and profits. The problem is not Arboria’s trade policy. Arboria faces the prospect of continuing economic loss until Arborian business and political leaders recognize the fundamental differences between Arboria and foreign economic systems. Today the key trade issue is not free trade versus protectionism but diminishing trade versus expanding trade.

Arboria is operating with an obsolete trade policy, an artifact of the mid-1940s when Arboria and Whorfland dominated the global economy, tariffs were the principal obstacle to trade, and Arborian supremacy was uncontested in virtually all industries. In the intervening decades, economic circumstances have shifted radically. Arborian trade policy has not.

Today, Arbona's trade policy seems paralyzed by the relentless conflict between proponents of “free” and “fair” trade. The free traders argue that Arbonian markets should be open, and the movement of goods and services across national borders unrestrained. The fair traders assert that access to Arborian markets should be restricted until Arborian businesses are granted equal access to foreign markets. They contend that free trade is impossible whlie other nations erect barriers to Arborian exports.

Both are correct: fair trade requires equal access and equal access leads to free trade. But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises:

1.Global commerce is conducted under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (IGAT) and dominated by Arboria and similar economic systems abroad.

2.Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues. 

Both assumptions are wrong. The 40-year-old GATT now covers less than 7 percent of global commerce. World trade is no longer dominated by the free-trade economies; nearly 75 percent is conducted by economic systems operating with principles at odds with those of Arboria. Forging a multilateral trade policy consensus among so many diverse economic systems has become virtually impossible. And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses opportunities for trade expansion.

which of the following statements best summarizes the author’s opinion of “free traders” and “fair traders”?

The free and the fair traders continuing debate provides a healthy and effective forum for examining Arborian trade policy.

The proponents of fair trade are essentially correct, while those who advocate free trade are not.

The proponents of free trade are better able to deal with current economic problems than are the fair traders.

Neither the free nor the fair traders can come up with a workable trade policy because neither takes multilateral negotiations into account.

The proponents of both free and fair trade have based their positions on out-of-date premises that do not reflect current economic conditions.



文章推断题:以下哪点完美总结了作者关于“fair traders”和“free traders”的观点?


A选项:关于这两种traders的争论给Arborian的贸易政策提供了健康有效的模板:作者认为争论这两者是无意义的,因为Arboria对这两种政策基于的假设就是错误的,那么在错误的前提上进行争论,肯定不能是“healthy and effective”。

B选项:拥护fair trade的人是对的,而拥护free trade的人是错的:同A,选freetrade还是fair trade已经不是Arboria该关注的重点了。

C选项:Free trade的拥护者比fair trade的拥护者更有能力处理好现在的经济问题:错误同B。

Free tradrs和fair traders都无法提出一个可行的贸易政策因为两者都没能把多边谈判考虑进去:free trade和fair trade考虑了多边谈判(the most effective way to resolve issues),但问题在于考虑进去也白搭,因为它已经不适用全球经济了。



登录注册 后可以参加讨论