题目内容
Renowned U. S. economist, John Rutledge, who helped frame the fiscal policies of two former U. S. presidents, warned that an abrupt rise in China’ s currency could lead to another Asian financial crisis. The founder of Rutledge Capital told the media that if the yuan rises (1) it would discourage foreign direct investment in China while (2) by market speculators. Currency change is more difficult for investors and (3) .The Chinese currency has appreciated by (4) since July 2005 when the country allowed the yuan to (5) within a daily band of 0.3 percent. The analysts are expecting the currency to rise (6) by the end of this year. But if the yuan rose 20 to 30 percent, as some U. S. politicians are demanding, it would (7) causing a recession and deflation. Similar advice to allow an abrupt appreciation of a currency led to (8) in 1997, and came very close to destroying (9) . The U. S. economist says that investors want foremost to (10) associated with large fluctuations in currency and inflation. They (11) after evaluating risks to benefits such as (12) . A rising yuan would drive up labor costs for foreign investors and would not (13) .Earlier reports said that currency speculators had pumped (14) U.S. dollars into China by the end of last year, with another 70 billion U. S. dollars (15) in the first three months of this year. There is no way to (16) of this type of investment and many economists disagree that (17) is so high. Instead of further appreciating its currency, China should make the yuan (18) . If the yuan were more easily converted into foreign currencies it would allow Chinese companies to expand overseas, (19) , and provide management experience and capital that China needs. It would also (20) and reduce speculative money coming into the country. 13（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
It is 15 years since Moises Naim coined the memoraible phrase "corruption eruption". But there is no sign of the eruption dying down. Indeed, there is so much molten lava and sulphurous ash around that some of the world’s biggest companies have been covered in it. Siemens and Daimler have recently been forced to pay gargantuan fines. BHP Billiton has admitted that it may have been involved in bribery. America’s Department of Justice is investigating some 150 companies, targeting oil and drugs firms in particular.The ethical case against corruption is too obvious to need spelling out. But many companies still believe that, in this respect at least, there is a regrettable tension between the dictates of ethics and the logic of business. Bribery is the price that you must pay to enter some of the world’s most difficult markets (the "when in Rome" argument). Bribery can also speed up the otherwise glacial pace of bureaucracy (the "efficient grease" hypothesis). And why not The chances of being caught are small while the rewards can be big and immediate.But do you really have to behave like a Roman to thrive in Rome Philip Nichols, of the Wharton School, points out that plenty of Western firms have prospered in emerging markets without getting their hands dirty, including Reebok, Google and Novo Nor disk. IKEA has gone to great lengths to fight corruption in Russia. What is more, Mr Nichols argues, it is misguided to dismiss entire countries as corrupt. Even the greasiest-palmed places are in fact ambivalent about corruption: they invariably have laws against it and frequently produce politicians who campaign against it. Multinationals should help bolster the rules of the game rather than pandering to the most unscrupulous players.And is "grease" really all that efficient In a paper published by the World Bank, the authors subjected the "efficient grease" hypothesis to careful scrutiny. They found that companies that pay bribes actually end up spending more time negotiating with bureaucrats. The prospect of a pay-off gives officials an incentive to haggle over regulations. The paper also found that borrowing is more expensive for corrupt companies.The hidden costs of corruption are almost always much higher than companies imagine. Corruption inevitably begets ever more corruption. Corruption also exacts a high psychological cost on those who engage in it. Mr Nichols says that corrupt business people habitually compare their habit to having an affair: no sooner have you given in to temptation than you are trapped in a world of secrecy and guilt. On the other hand, the benefits of rectitude can be striking. Oil giant Texaco had such an incorruptible reputation that African border guards were said to wave its jeeps through without engaging in the ritual shakedown. Moreover, the likelihood of being caught is dramatically higher than it was a few years ago. The internet has handed much more power to whistle-blowers. Every year Transparency International publishes its Corruption Perceptions Index, and its Global Corruption Barometer.The likelihood of prosecution is also growing. The Obama administration has revamped the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and is using it to pursue corporate malefactors the world over. The Department of Justice is pursuing far more cases than it ever has before. Recent legislation has made senior managers personally liable for corruption on their watch. They risk a spell in prison as well as huge fines. The vagueness of the legislation means that the authorities may prosecute for lavish entertainment as well as more blatant bribes.America is no longer a lone ranger. Thirty-eight countries have now signed up to the OECD’s 1997 anti-corruption convention, leading to a spate of cross-border prosecutions. In February Britain’s BAE Systems, a giant arms company, was fined $ 400m as a result of a joint British and American investigation. Since then a more ferocious Bribery Act has come into force in Britain. On April 1st Daimler was fined $185m as a result of a joint American and German investigation which examined the firm’s behaviour in 22 countries.Companies caught between these two mighty forces--the corruption and anti-corruption eruptions--need to start taking the problem seriously. A Transparency International study of 500 prominent firms revealed that the average company only scored 17 out of a possible 50 points on "anti-corruption practices. " Companies need to develop explicit codes of conduct on corruption, train their staff to handle demands for pay-offs and back them up when they refuse them. Clubbing together and campaigning for reform can also help.This may all sound a bit airy-fairy given that so many companies are struggling just to survive the recession. But there is nothing airy-fairy about the $16 billion in fines that Siemens has paid to the American and German governments. And there is nothing airy-fairy about a spell in prison. The phrase "doing well by doing good" is one of the most irritating parts of the CSR mantra. But when it comes to corruption, it might just fit the bill. What is the author’s advice for companies against corruption?
The lobbying carried out by food manufacturers to block a European-wide food labelling system backed by doctors is laid bare in a series of private emails published today by The Independent. In a flurry of statements and position papers to MEPs in the run up to key votes, Kellogg’ s, Danone, Coca-Cola, Nestle and other manufacturers claimed that colour-coded traffic lights were incapable of informing shoppers about the right diet.They claimed that studies showed that their favoured percentage-based Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) had wide consumer acceptance. Polls by the National Heart Forum and the consumer group Which that looked at both systems found shoppers preferred colour-coding. On Wednesday, the European Parliament rejected the traffic light system devised by the Food Standards Agency vote in favour of GDAs. At the same time, they backed the compulsory labeling of harmful trans-fats and country of origin on processed products.Glenis Willmott, the leader of Labour’ s MEPs, accused the food industry of heavy-handed tactics. "People weren’t being told the full facts and the amount of time and money poured in by lobbyists was huge," she said. "It must have had an impact. " Mette Kahlin, policy advocate for Which, said. "While I was lobbying in Brussels for Which it was clear I was outnumbered by industry lobbyists 100-1. Consumer and health organisations don’t have enough money to match that. "Devised by the UK Food Standards Agency in 2006, traffic lights show red lights for high levels of salt, fat and sugar, and amber and green for lower amounts. The British Medical Association, British Dietetic Association and British Heart Foundation are among the health groups that support the scheme. On Monday, the Ad Hoc GDA Group, representing 11 manufacturers including Kellogg’s Mars, Nestle and Unilever, emailed Mps in a last-ditch attempt to swing their vote. "We still believe that a traffic light approach provides too judgmental an assessment of foodstuffs--the complex nutritional composition of a food and its place in the diet cannot be reduced to a single colour," they wrote.In an earlier email, Nestle France warned that the introduction of a colour-coded system would "create an arbitrary judgment about the food and this, in total disconnection with dietary requirements. " Coca-cola even claimed that a diet based upon green lights could be harmful. In a document headed "Food labelling basic elements for discussion", sent in 2008, the US fizzy drinks giant told MEPs. "Colour coding gives the consumer false assurances. A diet based upon products with green lights would lead to chronic nutritional deficiencies. ""The briefings are not based on evidence," protested Ms Kahlin, of Which "In the UK we have had traffic lights and no one has been admitted to hospital with malnutrition from eating food signed with green lights. People still eat products marked red but they become aware of what is in their food. " The EU wants to introduce a unified labelling system to cut obesity, diabetes and other illnesses, which are causing millions of lost days at work and billions of pounds in health costs.At the request of the Food Standards Agency, retailers Sainsbury’s and Asda have put traffic lights on their own-label products, but they have been fiercely opposed by Tesco and multinational manufacturers. In recent months, Pepsico, Danone and other global food giants and trade groups have mounted one of the biggest lobbying operations in EU history.Lobbyists accosted MEPs in bars and restaurants and began turning up in their offices without appointments. They bombarded MEPs with documents, reports and fact-sheets praising GDAs and undermining traffic lights. The lobbying was aimed at members of the Environment committee before a key vote in March, when it rejected traffic lights by 32-30. All 736 MEPs were targeted in the run-up to Wednesday’s vote. Manufacturers maintained the lobbying was based on solid evidence.Kellogg’s said.. "If we’ re to win the obesity battle, consumers need a labelling scheme that gives them a much greater understanding of what’s in their food so they can make informed choices. GDAs do this in a way traffic lights simply can’t, and that’s why we’ ll continue to use and support them. " Coca-Cola said.- "Our communication to MEPs was based on thorough research of European consumers that is publicly available. " Nestle said. "GDAs are factual and objective and ensure consumers can evaluate a product’s role in their daily diet. " Unilever, Mars and Danone were unavailable for comment. What is the traffic light system discussed in the passage What is the function of such traffic light system？
Renowned U. S. economist, John Rutledge, who helped frame the fiscal policies of two former U. S. presidents, warned that an abrupt rise in China’ s currency could lead to another Asian financial crisis. The founder of Rutledge Capital told the media that if the yuan rises (1) it would discourage foreign direct investment in China while (2) by market speculators. Currency change is more difficult for investors and (3) .The Chinese currency has appreciated by (4) since July 2005 when the country allowed the yuan to (5) within a daily band of 0.3 percent. The analysts are expecting the currency to rise (6) by the end of this year. But if the yuan rose 20 to 30 percent, as some U. S. politicians are demanding, it would (7) causing a recession and deflation. Similar advice to allow an abrupt appreciation of a currency led to (8) in 1997, and came very close to destroying (9) . The U. S. economist says that investors want foremost to (10) associated with large fluctuations in currency and inflation. They (11) after evaluating risks to benefits such as (12) . A rising yuan would drive up labor costs for foreign investors and would not (13) .Earlier reports said that currency speculators had pumped (14) U.S. dollars into China by the end of last year, with another 70 billion U. S. dollars (15) in the first three months of this year. There is no way to (16) of this type of investment and many economists disagree that (17) is so high. Instead of further appreciating its currency, China should make the yuan (18) . If the yuan were more easily converted into foreign currencies it would allow Chinese companies to expand overseas, (19) , and provide management experience and capital that China needs. It would also (20) and reduce speculative money coming into the country. 16（）
Renowned U. S. economist, John Rutledge, who helped frame the fiscal policies of two former U. S. presidents, warned that an abrupt rise in China’ s currency could lead to another Asian financial crisis. The founder of Rutledge Capital told the media that if the yuan rises (1) it would discourage foreign direct investment in China while (2) by market speculators. Currency change is more difficult for investors and (3) .The Chinese currency has appreciated by (4) since July 2005 when the country allowed the yuan to (5) within a daily band of 0.3 percent. The analysts are expecting the currency to rise (6) by the end of this year. But if the yuan rose 20 to 30 percent, as some U. S. politicians are demanding, it would (7) causing a recession and deflation. Similar advice to allow an abrupt appreciation of a currency led to (8) in 1997, and came very close to destroying (9) . The U. S. economist says that investors want foremost to (10) associated with large fluctuations in currency and inflation. They (11) after evaluating risks to benefits such as (12) . A rising yuan would drive up labor costs for foreign investors and would not (13) .Earlier reports said that currency speculators had pumped (14) U.S. dollars into China by the end of last year, with another 70 billion U. S. dollars (15) in the first three months of this year. There is no way to (16) of this type of investment and many economists disagree that (17) is so high. Instead of further appreciating its currency, China should make the yuan (18) . If the yuan were more easily converted into foreign currencies it would allow Chinese companies to expand overseas, (19) , and provide management experience and capital that China needs. It would also (20) and reduce speculative money coming into the country. 9（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付