經濟學雙語版閱讀精選英文帶翻譯
經濟永遠是不退潮流的一個熱門話題，有關經濟學的英文語錄你看過哪些呢。下面本站小編爲大家帶來精選的經濟學雙語版閱讀，歡迎大家閱讀學習。
Some moderately good news in the news industry
新聞業的好消息
IN FEBRUARY Vice, a media firm that caters to youngsters who like their news with a dollop ofsass and hip-hop, toured the opulent residence of the ousted president of Ukraine, ViktorYanukovych, and posted the video online. “It looks like a weird dictatorship theme park,” thesardonic reporter told the camera. A new report by the Pew Research Centre, a think-tank,finds that a third of Americans now watch news videos online, about as many as say they watchnews on cable television. Among those aged 18-29, around half do.
傳媒公司Vice迎合年輕人的口味播報充滿狂言妄語的新聞及嘻哈音樂。今年二月，該傳媒公司的記者參觀了已被罷黜的烏克蘭總統亞努科維奇豪宅並將視頻傳到了網上。“這個地方就像一個怪異的獨裁主題公園”記者頗具諷刺性地對着攝像機說道。智庫皮尤研究中心最近發表了一個新的報告，該報道顯示近三分之一的美國人在網上看視頻新聞，約近乎三分之一的人稱他們在有線電視上看新聞。在那些18-29歲的年輕人中，近一半的人在網上看新聞。
In years past Pew's “State of the News Media” reports have been sombre, chronicling theevisceration of jobs and the gutting of news budgets. This year, however, Pew sounded moreoptimistic, pointing to the slew of digital-news services, such as Vice's online news channel,that have sprung up recently. Around 5,000 full-time jobs have been created at 468 digital-news firms, according to Pew. Many online-news firms have hired high-profile journalists awayfrom big publications, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, and are launchingbureaus around the world (although not nearly as many as have been shuttered bynewspapers).
在過去的幾年，皮尤中心有關“新聞媒體的狀況”的報告都是陰鬱的，長久以來都是老生常談的就業問題和新預算。但是今年，皮尤似乎更爲樂觀，指出數字新聞服務局勢的迴轉，比如說Vice在線新聞頻道，最近如雨後春筍一般冒出來。根據皮尤的數據，468家數字新聞公司已經創造了近5000個全職崗位。許多在線新聞公司從大型出版社挖牆腳，僱了許多高知名度的記者，如紐約時報級華盛頓郵報，並在全球廣設分局(儘管並非很多由於紙質新聞業而慘遭關閉)。
Digital news firms used to do little besides rehashing traditional newspapers'stories. Now theyare starting to feature more original articles. Last year Business Insider, a business-news site,ran a profile of Marissa Mayer, the boss of Yahoo. At 23,000 words, it was as long as a novella. “Online you can afford to do that. In a magazine you'd go broke,” says Henry Blodget, the bossof Business Insider. Buzz Feed, which used to be known for casting out “click bait” online, nowclaims around 170 full-time staff, including a Pulitzer-prize winner, Mark Schoofs, who has beenhired to run a new investigative team.
數字新聞公司過去除了重複傳統新聞報紙的故事之外很少寫自己的東西。而現在他們正開始創作更多原創的文章。去年，商業新聞網站“財經內幕”就寫了一篇文章概述雅虎的老闆瑪麗莎·梅耶爾，該文章字數達到2.3萬，已然是一部中篇小說了。“你可以在網上這麼做，若是在雜誌上你就直接破產了”，該雜誌的老闆亨利·布洛杰特聲稱。Buzz Feed，曾經因網上清楚“點擊誘惑”而聞名，現擁有約170名全職員工，其中包括普利策獎獲獎者Mark Schoofs，他目前負責一個新聞調查組。
Lower costs explain why so many digital news firms, like Silicon Valley start-ups, are launchingtoday. Ken Doctor, a newspaper analyst, reckons it costs as little as $5m to start a “credible”digital news offering. Financiers and philanthropists are investing in news: eBay founder PierreOmidyar put $250m into a new non-profit, First Look Media. All this has injected hope into abeleaguered industry. Last month Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist, predicted thatjournalism may “be entering into a new golden age” and that the news industry would growten- or a hundredfold.
低成本運行解釋了爲什麼現在如此之多的新聞公司就像硅谷的暴發戶一般地崛起。新聞分析人肯·多科特回想當時打造可靠的數字新聞產品僅需500萬美元。現在金融家和慈善家都在投資新聞：易趣網創始人皮爾斯·奧米戴爾投資了2,5億元運營一個新的非盈利網站First Look Media。所有的這些爲這個四面楚歌的行業注入了一縷希望。上個月，風險資本家Andreessen預測新聞業將“進入一個新的黃金期”並且新聞業的利潤將增長十倍甚至百倍。
Journalism is at least becoming more participatory. Pew finds that around half of social-mediausers share news articles or videos, and comment on them. Around 7% of American adultshave posted their own news video to a social network, or submitted one to an establishednews site. Interactive features are doing particularly well. Last year the New York Times's mostpopular “article” was a quiz in which people could test whether they spoke more like a LosAngeleno or a Louisianan.
至少現在新聞業變得越來越具參與度了。皮尤研究中心發現近乎一半的社交媒介用戶分享新聞視頻和文章並且在上面發表評論。約7%的美國成年人將他們自己的新聞視頻傳到社交網站，或轉交至已存在的新聞網站。交互式的特寫做的尤其出色。去年，紐約時報最受歡迎的文章是一個小測試，通過該測試人們可以知道他們的口音是更像洛杉磯人還是更像路易斯安娜人。
Some positive news is welcome, but newsrooms continue to bleed jobs (see chart). The rise ofdigital-media firms has done little to restore local news coverage, which has suffered with theclosure of many local papers. Digital-news firms'long-form narratives and investigativejournalism may grab attention, but they are unlikely to compensate for projects that willnever take place again in old newsrooms because of budgetary woes.
積極的新聞總是受歡迎的，但是新聞編輯室持續削減全職編輯(見圖)。數字媒體公司的崛起爲重建本地新聞報道做的事少之又少，當地許多報刊倒閉。數字新聞公司長篇的敘事手法以及調查性新聞或許能吸引讀者的眼球，但是他們依然不能彌補那些由於預算困難而不再恢復其在新聞編輯室的位置。
Facebook users may be reading news, but they spend on average only a minute and a half on anews site each month if they come from Facebook, about a third of the time that visitors spendif they go to a newspaper's site directly. And digital video may be growing, but its advertisingonly accounts for around 10% of all digital ad revenues, and viewing growth has slowed. Eventelevision news is not having an easy time. In 2013 the three big cable news channels—CNN,Fox and MSNBC—lost around 11% of their combined audience during prime-time. The newsindustry today resembles Newton's third law of motion, says Amy Mitchell, Pew's director ofjournalism research: for every action, there is an equally strong reaction. The momentummight have shifted online, but gravity is still pulling everyone down to earth.
臉譜網的用戶或許在讀新聞，但是如果消息來自臉譜網，他們平均一個月花一分半鐘看新聞，若他們直接進入新聞網網頁，訪客花費的時間約佔三分之一。數字視頻或有增長，但是其廣告收入僅佔所有數字廣告收入的10%，並且據觀察增長已放緩。即便是電視新聞日子也不好過。2013年，三大新聞頻道，美國有線新聞網、福克斯和微軟全國有線廣播電視新聞公司黃金時間流失了約11%的共同觀衆。今天的新聞業與牛頓的第三運動定律很像，皮尤新聞調查中心的主任Amy Mitchell如是道，每一步都會有同等強烈的反應。新聞業的發展勢頭或許已經轉向了網絡，但是重力作用依然在將人們往地上拽。
經濟學雙語版閱讀精選：新邊境之戰Missouri calls for an economic truce with Kansas
密蘇蘇裏提出與肯薩斯達成經濟休戰協定
I hear the tax breaks are good in Kansas
聽說肯薩斯州有好的稅收減免政策
MISSOURI and Kansas are old rivals. In the 1850s thousands of Missourians rode into Kansas,seized polling stations at gunpoint and fraudulently elected pro-slavery candidates. The effortsof these “border ruffians” were a prelude to the civil war.
密蘇蘇裏和肯薩斯是一對老冤家。在1850年代，千萬密蘇蘇里人涌入肯薩斯州，搶佔他們槍口下的投票站，公然欺騙地投選支持奴隸制的候選人。這些邊境惡棍的努力同樣阻止了內戰的爆發。
Today the rivalry is less bloody. Both states offer tax incentives to lure in companies fromelsewhere. Because they share a large metropolitan region, Kansas City, many firms qualifyfor such breaks simply by shifting a mile or two over the border.
如今的對抗少了點血腥。雙方都拿出稅費刺激計劃，吸引四面八方的公司。由於大都市肯薩斯城橫跨兩州，許多公司爲了有資格拿到這樣的稅收減免，會通常把公司移一兩英里跨過邊界。
Looking at the biggest type of sweetener, the Hall Family Foundation, a charity, estimates thatover the past five years the two state governments have forgone $217m in taxes. Some 3,289jobs have been tempted across the metropolitan border to Kansas; Missouri has won 2,824jobs back. Kansas can therefore claim to be “winning”. But local reports suggest that CBIZ, aKansan consulting firm, is considering moving to Missouri; that would erase this lead.
霍爾家族基金會慈善組織推測，在過去的五年間，兩州政府分別放棄了2億1700萬的稅收。肯薩斯州吸引了大約3289個職位，密蘇蘇裏州則搶到了2824個，因此肯薩斯可以說是勝利的一方。但當地媒體表示，肯薩諮詢公司CBIZ有意移到密蘇蘇裏州，如果一旦成功，領先將會不復存在。
None of this border-ruffianry creates new jobs. Locals gripe that when, for example, AMCTheatre recently moved its headquarters out of downtown Kansas City, Missouri, its staff simplyhad a longer commute to work. Sly James, the mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, describes thenew border war as “short-sighted”. Kevin Collison, a reporter for the Kansas City Star, calls it“cannibalistic”.
邊境惡棍們並沒有創造新的就業機會。當地人抱怨稱，最近AMC電影院從密蘇蘇裏肯薩斯城市中心遷走時，只不過它的員工們花費在上下班的時間更長了些。該市市長斯萊·詹姆斯認爲這是一場沒有遠見的邊境之戰。肯薩斯城星光的一名記者Kevin Collision稱之爲自相殘殺。
A few years ago local business leaders from 17 companies, including Sprint and Hallmark Cards,wrote to Jay Nixon, the governor of Missouri, and Sam Brownback, his counterpart in Kansas,to warn them that the rift was harming the area. In the past month, a truce has started tolook likelier. Majorities in the Missouri House and Senate have approved versions of a bill thatwould bar incentives for businesses near the border to hop over it. The catch, though, is thatthis law will go into effect only if Kansas reciprocates. There is a two-year window for a deal tobe done.
幾年前，包括來自Sprint和Hallmark Cards在內的當地17家公司的總裁們向密蘇蘇裏州長傑·尼克森聯同肯薩斯州州長薩姆·布朗巴克寫信警告這種裂痕正危害着這個地方。過去數月裏，雙方好像可以簽署一份休戰協定。多數密蘇蘇裏議員同意簽署一項法案旨在禁止邊界貿易刺激方案。然而該方案有一缺陷，要想該法案有效，必須得到肯薩斯州同樣的做法。在達成協議之前有兩年的窗口期。
Missouri Senator Ryan Silvey, a Republican who is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill,says he is confident the House will soon pick up and pass his version. Over in Kansas, MrBrownback is guardedly optimistic. He says he has thought for some time that “ceasefirenegotiations” were needed, and that this bill is a “necessary condition for us to negotiate”. MrBrownback says that ceasefire discussions ought to consider all the tools used to encourageeconomic development on both sides of the border. These would include income and propertytaxes.
密蘇蘇裏州民主黨議員萊恩·希爾威爾支持這項法案，他表示對國會審議通過這樣法案有信心。而肯薩斯州方面，布朗巴克對此保持着謹慎的樂觀，他說停火談判的必要性已經在他腦子裏有一段時間了，這部法案爲我們談判提供了必要的條件。停火談判應該考慮邊界雙方共同的經濟發展刺激方式。這其中就包括財產和所得稅。
It is difficult to understand why either state would want to continue throwing money at ascheme that benefits only the companies that move. Mr Silvey explains: “When people feel likethey are locked in competition they just want to win, even when the competition is stupid.”Since Missouri's annual budget is $26 billion to Kansas's $14 billion, some Missourians ask whytheir state does not simply outspend its neighbour to win the war. Mr Silvey says that if anagreement is not reached in the next few years, his colleagues will want to “go with bothbarrels” and steal more business from Kansas. Move quickly Kansas, or the border ruffians mayyet ride again.
我們仍然弄不清楚，爲什麼蘇肯兩州會繼續撒錢來支持只有遷移的企業纔會受益的方案。希爾威爾解釋道，當人們感覺到自己受困於競爭，他們總是很想贏，儘管這是一場傻傻的鬥。相比140億美元的年度預算，密蘇蘇裏州每年有達260億美元預算。一些密蘇蘇里人問，爲什麼就不能僅僅靠相對高的預算來贏得勝利。他指出，如果未來幾年內仍達成協議，他的同僚們會帶着槍，從肯薩斯州搶些生意。肯薩斯快快行動!邊境惡棍又要來了!
經濟學雙語版閱讀精選：政界金權The justices open the door to more campaign contributions
法院爲競選贊助敞開大門
SHAUN McCutCHEON, a businessman from Alabama, wanted to give a symbolic $1,776 to 28Republican candidates for Congress in 2012. Because of federal limits imposed after theWatergate scandal, Mr McCutcheon was allowed to donate this sum only to 16 campaigns. OnApril 2nd, however, the Supreme Court ruled that he can get his chequebook out again. InMcCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the justices voted 5-4 to strike down two“aggregate caps” on campaign contributions, leaving “base limits” of $2,600 per candidate,per election intact. Where individuals had been limited to total contributions of $48,600 tocandidates for federal office and $74,600 to political parties and political-action committees,they can now give as much as they like.
2012年，亞拉巴馬州的商人肖恩·麥克卡森曾想爲競選國會議員的28位共和黨人象徵性捐贈1776美金。但由於水門事件後強制實行聯邦限度，麥克卡森只得用這筆款項資助了16場競選。然而，根據最高法院4月2日的裁決，他又可以拿出支票簿來了。在麥克卡森起訴聯邦選舉委員會一案中，衆法官以5:4的投票比例，最終取消了競選獻金的兩處“總限額”，只對每名候選人一次全程競選作2600美金的“基本上限”要求。相比過去，聯邦政府部門的候選人所能接受個人捐款上限爲48600美金，政黨和政治行動委員會的上限則爲74600美金;如今個人捐款已不再受限了。
“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in thecourt's plurality opinion, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” TheFirst Amendment's freedom-of-speech guarantee includes the right to “contribute to acandidate's campaign.” So although “money in politics may at times seem repugnant tosome,” it is entitled to “vigorous” protection. It is unconstitutional, Mr Roberts wrote, to“restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence ofothers.”
“我國民主政治中最基本的一項權利，”首席法官約翰·羅伯茨在法庭多數意見書中寫道，“就是參與政治領導人選舉。”第一修正案中的言論自由權規定了“爲候選人競選捐款。因此，儘管“政界金權有時會引起某些人的反感，”但這一權利有着“有力”保障。羅伯茨還寫道，“爲了提升某些人的相對影響力而限制其他人的政治參與”不合憲法規定。
The only good reason to curb campaign donations, the Court ruled, is to prevent caps on donations to individual candidates make sense: a “financial quid pro quo”, orappearance thereof, taints a $1m cheque to someone running for Congress. But if it is lawfulto give $1,776 to one candidate, or 16, it is odd to argue that the same sum would corruptthe 17th recipient, or the 400th. “The Government may no more restrict how manycandidates or causes a donor may support,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “than it may tell anewspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”
根據法庭判決，預防腐敗是唯一條限制競選捐款的充分理由。這樣一來，制定候選人的個人受捐總限額就合乎情理了：若是讓國會議員候選人另外尋求一樣補償，或是讓其支付公開露面的費用，他們便會髒了好好一張百萬支票。但若是法律允許候選人個人接收1776美金，或允許16位候選人接收1776美金，第17個人或是第400個人就不會髒了這筆錢。“政府不可對捐贈方資助的候選人人數或事業項數作限制，”首席法官羅伯茨寫道，“也不可在新聞中透露捐贈方所支持的候選人人數。”
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer and three other liberal justices argued that the rulingundervalues the “integrity of our governmental institutions”. Together with the CitizensUniteddecision of 2010, Mr Breyer charged, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation's campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems ofdemocratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.” The majority fails tounderstand what donor dollars can buy, fumed Mr Breyer. “The d by the risk ofspecial access and influence,” he wrote, “remains real.”
斯蒂芬·佈雷耶同其他自由派法官對此表示飯隨，他們聲稱這一裁決低估了“美國政府機構的廉正”。佈雷耶以2010年出臺的《公民聯合決議》爲據，起訴麥克卡森“一棍子打倒了美國競選籌款法，該法旨在解決的民主合法性之嚴峻問題自此滯而無解。”佈雷耶怒斥多數派沒能理解捐贈方的手中的金權。“這一威脅…由特殊渠道和特殊影響造成，”他如是寫道，“它一直存在着”。
猜你喜歡：
1.英語雙語美文分享
2.關於經濟的英語短文閱讀
3.經典英語故事雙語閱讀
4.金融英語銀行雙語閱讀
5.英語經典美文閱讀翻譯精選
