题目内容
Questions 1～5 In early June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—the club of the world’s wealthy and almost wealthy nations released a 208-page document perversely titled "Pensions at a Glance". Inside is a rundown of how generous OECD members are to their burgeoning ranks of retirees. The US is near the bottom, with the average wage earner able to count on a government-mandated pension for just 52.4% of what he got (after taxes) in his working days—and higher-income workers even less. But the picture at the other end of the scale (dominated by Continental Europe) is misleading. Most of these governments haven’t put aside money for pensions. As the ranks of retirees grow and workforces do not, countries will have to either renege on commitments or tax the hides off future workers. What the OECD data seem to suggest is that you can run a retirement plan that’s fiscally sound but stingy, or you can make big promises that will eventually go sour. The US fits mostly in the former category—for all the gnashing of teeth about Social Security, its funding problems are modest by global standards. But is that really the choice Actually, no. At least one country appears to have found a better way. In the Netherlands—"the globe’s No.1 pensions country," says influential retirement-plan consultant Keith Ambachtsheer—the average retiree can count on a pension equal to 96.8% of his working income. Ample money is set aside to fund pensions, and it is invested prudently but not timidly. Companies contribute to employees’ accounts but aren’t stuck with profit-killing obligations if their business shrinks or the stock market tanks. The Dutch have steered a middle way between irresponsible Continental generosity and practical Anglo-American stinginess. They have also, to lapse into pension jargon, split the difference between DB and DC plans. In a defined-benefit (DB) plan, workers are promised a retirement income, and the sponsor—usually a corporation or government—is on the hook to provide it. In a defined-contribution (DC) plan, the worker and sometimes the employer set aside money and hope it will be enough. The big problem with DB is that sponsors are prone to lowball or ignore the true cost. In the U. S. , where corporate pensions provide a key supplement to Social Security, Congress has felt the need to pass multiple laws aimed at preventing companies from underfunding them. In response, some companies spent billions shoring up their funds; many others simply stopped offering pensions. Just since 2004, at least 66 big companies have frozen or terminated their DB plans, estimates Barclays Global Investors. Corporate DB has given way to individual DC plans like the 401(k) and IRA, but these put too much responsibility on the shoulders of individual workers. Many don’t save enough money, and those who do set aside enough earn returns that are on average much lower than those of pension funds. The Netherlands, like the US, has long relied on workplace pensions to supplement its government plan. The crucial difference is that these pensions were mandatory. Smaller employers had to band together to make a go of it, and industry-wide funds became standard. Run more as independent cooperatives than as captive corporate divisions, the Dutch funds were less prone to underfunding than their US counterparts. When they nonetheless ran into financial trouble in 2002 after the stock market crashed and interest rates sank, the country came up with a unique response. The Dutch funds are now no longer on the hook for providing a set income in retirement no matter what happens to financial markets that is, they’ve gone DC—but they didn’t shunt everything to individual workers. Risks are shared by all the members of a pension fund, and the money is managed by professionals. Pension consultant Ambachtsheer argues that this "collective DC" is just what the U. S. needs. Many companies here are improving 401(k)s to give employees more guidance, and there’s talk in Washington of supplementing (not supplanting) Social Security with near mandatory retirement accounts. But even those changes would fall well short of going Dutch. Countries don’t always set aside enough money to pay for the pensions they promise. According to the passage, in Netherlands, ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 6～10 Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they’ re always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. "It’s iniquitous," they say, "that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don’t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods After all, it’s the consumer who pays. " The poor old consumer! He’d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn’t create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read. Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc. , from an advertisement. Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities. We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price! Another thing we mustn’t forget is the "small ads. " which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the "hatch, match and dispatch" column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or "agony" column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It’s the best advertisement for advertising there is! The attitude of the author toward advertisers is ______.
Questions 16～20 The cars, SUVs and pickups people will buy in the years ahead are likely to use less fuel, and many will rely on ethanol or household electricity instead of gasoline. The energy legislation pushed through the Senate this week provides a roadmap to the future, demanding higher automobile fuel economy, mandating huge increases in ethanol as a motor fuel and supporting more research into building "plug-in" hybrid-electric vehicles. While Senate Republicans complained that the bill does nothing to increase domestic oil production, Democrats said that’s because the nation must move energy policy away from its heavy reliance on oil. The House is preparing its own version. The Senate bill requires automakers to increase fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon, about a 40 percent increase over what cars, SUVs and small trucks are required to achieve now. It would lump all the vehicles under a single regulation, but also give manufacturers flexibility so large SUVs wouldn’t have to meet the same requirements as smaller cars. It requires a yearly increase of ethanol production to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase from today. By 2015 half of the new vehicles offered to buyers—as many as 10 million—will have to be capable of running on 85 percent ethanol, biodiesel or some other alternative energy source. And for the first time, the president must find ways to cut oil demand by 20 percent of what it is expected to be in 2017—a target President Bush has embraced—and attain further reductions after that. Gasoline demand is expected to grow 13 percent to 261 billion gallons a year by 2017 without some fuel saving measures. But will auto showrooms provide the same selection of vehicles Will they be as big, as powerful, as safe "I would expect them to look a lot like they do today, the same size, the same acceleration and the same or even better safety," says David Friedman, director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He maintains they will have better technology, better engines, more efficient transmissions and stronger aluminum bodies. They’ll cost a little more but use much less gasoline. "The goal is to replace fossil fuels with alternative fuels and use conservation," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. , who was involved in the discussions on many of the auto fuel economy and motor fuel issues that ended up in the bill. What has changed from a few years ago, she said, is there no longer is "a fear factor that you’re going to be in itty bitty cars" if the government requires automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition to making conventional cars more fuel efficient, the bill seeks to boost research into use of lithium-ion batteries—like those used in laptop computers and cameras—in vehicles. Should ways be found to make them more durable in a vehicle environment, cars could be plugged into an electric socket at home, relying only rarely on gasoline, says Friedman. Some studies have estimated the fuel cost—mostly the cost of electricity and a small amount of gasoline— would be equivalent to about $1 a gallon, said Cantwell. Automakers, lobbying hard against the fuel economy provision in the Senate bill, expressed continued concern Friday about their ability to meet the new requirements without changing the mix of cars they will be able to provide in the showrooms of 2020. "There’s no way you can get those numbers without a dramatic shift in consumer choice," insisted Mark LaNeve, General Motors’ vice president of North America sales, service and marketing. "We don’t know how it’s attainable. " Eric Ridenour, chief operating officer at Chrysler Group, where three of every four vehicles are built on truck frames, said the company will have to decide whether to keep selling some of its larger vehicles. "Clearly the larger family-sized vehicles will be the ones that will be most at risk," said Ridenour. "The end result will be lighter, smaller vehicles in general. " He envisioned generally smaller cars and more of them running on diesel. Ford Motor Co. is committed to increasing auto fuel economy, said Alan Mulally, the company’s chief executive. "It’s what customers want. It’s what they value." But is it possible technically to meet the proposed 35 mpg fleet requirements even with a new way of calculating compliance taking into account vehicles size "That’s the only debate," said Mulally on Friday at a Ford assembly plant in Chicago where the company was introducing its new Taurus model, one that travels 28 mpg on the open road. The major genre of the passage is ______.
Questions 11～15 President Clinton’s decision on Apr. 8 to send Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji packing without an agreement on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization seemed to be a massive miscalculation. The President took a drubbing from much of the press, which had breathlessly reported that a deal was in the bag. The Cabinet and White House still appeared divided, and business leaders were characterized as furious over the lost opportunity. Zhu charged that Clinton lacked "the courage" to reach an accord. And when Clinton later telephoned the angry Zhu to pledge a renewed effort at negotiations, the gesture was widely portrayed as a flip-flop. In fact, Clinton made the right decision in holding out for a better WTO deal. A lot more horse trading is needed before a final agreement can be reached. And without the Administration’s goal of a " bullet-proof agreement" that business lobbyists can enthusiastically sell to a Republican Congress, the whole process will end up in partisan acrimony that could harm relations with China for years. THE HARD PART. Many business lobbyists, while disappointed that the deal was not closed, agree that better terms can still be had. And Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, National Economic Council Director Gene B. Sperling, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley, and top trade negotiator Charlene Barshefsky all advised Clinton that while the Chinese had made a remarkable number of concessions, "we’re not there yet," according to senior officials. Negotiating with Zhu over the remaining issues may be the easy part. Although Clinton can signal U. S. approval for China’s entry into the WTO himself, he needs Congress to grant Beijing permanent most-favored-nation status as part of a broad trade accord. And the temptation for meddling on Capital Hill may prove over-whelming. Zhu had barely landed before Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss) declared himself skeptical that China deserved entry into the WTO. And Senators Jesse A. Helms (R-N. C.) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S. C.) promised to introduce a bill requiring congressional approval of any deal. The hidden message from these three textile-state Southerners. Get more protection for the U.S. clothing industry. Hoping to smooth the way, the Administration tried, but failed, to budge Zhu on textiles. Also left in the lurch. Wall Street, Hollywood, and Detroit. Zhu refused to open up much of the lucrative Chinese securities market and insisted on "cultural" restrictions on American movies and music. He also blocked efforts to allow U. S. auto makers to provide fleet financing. BIG JOB. Already, business lobbyists are blanketing Capitol Hill to presale any eventual agreement, but what they’ve heard so far isn’t encouraging. Republicans, including Lott, say that "the time just isn’t right" for the deal. Translation: We’re determined to make it look as if Clinton has capitulated to the Chinese and is ignoring human, religious, and labor rights violations; the theft of nuclear-weapons technology; and the sale of missile parts to America’s enemies. Beijing’s fierce critics within the Democratic Party, such as Senator Paul D. Wellstone of Minnesota and House Minority leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, won’t help, either. Just how tough the lobbying job on Capitol Hill will be become clear on Apr. 20, when Rubin lectured 19 chief executives on the need to discipline their Republican allies. With business and the White House still trading charges over who is responsible for the defeat of fast-track trade negotiating legislation in 1997, working together won’t be easy. And Republicans—with a wink— say that they’ll eventually embrace China’s entry into the WTO as a favor to Corporate America, though not long before they torture Clinton. But Zhu is out on a limb, and if Congress overdoes the criticism, he may be forced by domestic critics to renege. Business must make this much dear to both its GOP allies and the White House. This historic deal is too important to risk losing to any more partisan squabbling. It can be inferred from the passage that ______.
Questions 6 to 10 are based on the following news.
微信支付 
支付宝支付