题目内容

[A] provide high returns for the new governments [B] be strongly opposed by Wall Street
[C] bring the future retirees more benefits [D] allow individuals to invest in personal accounts

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

［A］ innate ［B］ intact ［C］ integral ［D］ integrated

PartA 2. The National Association of Securities Dealers is investigating whether some brokerage
houses are inappropriately pushing individuals to borrow large sums on their houses
to invest in the stock market. Can we persuade the association to investigate would-be privatizers of Social Security？ For it is now apparent that the Bush administration’s privatization proposal will amount to the same thing: borrow trillions, put the
money in the stock market and hope.
Privatization would begin by diverting payroll taxes, which pay for current Social
Security benefits, into personal investment accounts. The government would
have to borrow to make up the shortfall. This would sharply increase the government’s debt. “Never mind”, privatization advocates say, “in the long run, people would
make so much on personal accounts that the government could save money by cutting retirees’
benefits.Even so, if personal investment accounts were invested in Treasury bonds,
this whole process would accomplish precisely nothing. The interest workers would receive on,
their accounts would exactly match the interest the government would
have to pay on its additional debt. To compensate for the initial borrowing,
the government would have to cut future benefits so much that workers would gain nothing at all.
However, privatizersclaim that these investments would make a lot of
money and that, in effect, the government, not the workers, would reap most of those gains,
because as personal accounts grew, the government could cut benefits.
We can argue at length about whether the high stock returns such schemes assume are realistic
(they arent), but lets cut to the chase: in essence, such schemes
involve having the government borrow heavily and put the money in the stock market. That’s because the government would, in effect, confiscate workers’gains in their personal accounts by cutting those workers’ benefits.
Once you realize whatprivatization really means, it doesn’t sound too responsible, does it？ But the details make it considerably worse. First,
financial markets would, correctly, treat the reality of huge deficits today as a much more
important indicator of the governments fiscal health than the mere promise that government could save money by
cutting benefits in the distant future. After all, a government bond is a legally binding
promise to pay, while a benefits formula that supposedly cuts costs 40 years from now is nothing
more than a suggestion to future Congresses.
If a privatization plan passed in 2005 called for steep benefit cuts in 2045,
what are the odds that those cuts would really happen？ Second,
a system of personal accounts would pay huge brokerage fees. Of course, from Wall Street’s point of view that’s a benefit, not a cost.
第26题：According to the author, “privatizers”are those_____.
[A] borrowing from banks to invest in the stock market [B] who invest in Treasury bonds
[C] advocating the government to borrow money from citizens [D] who earn large sums of money in personal
accounts

Part 2 3. Talk to any parent of a student who took an adventurous gap year (a year between school and university when some students earn money, travel, etc.) and a misty look will come into their eyes. There are some disasters and even the most motivated, organised gap student does require family back-up, financial, emotional and physical. The parental mistiness is not just about the brilliant experience that has matured their offspring; it is vicarious living. We all wish pre-university gap years had been the fashion in our day. We can see how much tougher our kids become; how much more prepared to benefit from university or to decide positively that they are going to do something other than a degree.
Gap years are fashionable, as is reflected in the huge growth in the number of charities and private companies offering them. Pictures of Prince William toiling in Chile have helped, but the trend has been gathering steam for a decade. The range of gap packages starts with backpacking, includes working with charities, building hospitals and schools and, very commonly, working as a language assistant, teaching English. With this trend, however, comes a danger. Once parents feel that a well-structured year is essential to their would-be undergraduate’s progress to a better university, a good degree, an impressive CV and well paid employment, as the gap companies’ blurbs suggest it might be, then parents will start organising—and paying for—the gaps.
Where there are disasters, according to Richard Oliver, director of the gap companies’ umbrella organisation, the Year Out Group, it is usually because of poor planning. That can be the fault of the company or of the student, he says, but the best insurance is thoughtful preparation. “When people get it wrong, it is usually medical or, especially among girls, it is that they have not been away from home before or because expectation does not match reality.”
The point of a gap year is that it should be the time when the school leaver gets to do the thing that he or she fancies. Kids don’t mature if mum and dad decide how they are going to mature. If the 18-year-old’s way of maturing is to slob out on Hampstead Heath soaking up sunshine or spending a year working with fishermen in Cornwall, then that’s what will be productive for that person. The consensus, however, is that some structure is an advantage and that the prime mover needs to be the student.
The 18-year-old who was dispatched by his parents at two weeks’ notice to Canada to learn to be a snowboarding instructor at a cost of ￡5,800, probably came back with little more than a hangover. The 18-year-old on the same package who worked for his fare and spent the rest of his year instructing in resorts from New Zealand to Switzerland, and came back to apply for university, is the positive counterbalance.
第31题：It can be inferred from the first paragraph that parents of gap students may_____.
［A］ help children to be prepared for disasters ［B］ receive all kinds of support from their children
［C］ have rich experience in bringing up their offspring ［D］ experience watching children grow up

According to its advocates, who will gain from the privatization of Social Security？
[A] Investors in stock markets. [B] Retired workers in the future.
[C] The future Congresses. [D] Account information brokers.