题目内容
Most big corporations were once run by individual capitalists: by one shareholder with enough stock to dominate the board of directors and to dictate policy, a shareholder who was usually also the chief executive officer. Owning a majority or controlling interest, these capitalists did not have to concentrate on reshuffling assets to fight off raids from financial vikings. They were free to make a living by producing new products or by producing old products more cheaply. Just as important, they were locked into their roles. They could not very well sell out for a quick profit—dumping large stock holdings on the market would have simply depressed the stock’s price and cost them their jobs as captains of industry. So instead they sought to enhance their personal wealth by investing—by improving the long-run efficiency and productivity of the company. Today, with very few exceptions, the stock of large U. S. corporations is held by financial institutions such as pension funds, foundations, or mutual funds—not by individual shareholders. And these financial institutions cannot legally become real capitalists who control what they own. How much they can invest in any one company is limited by law, as is how actively they can intervene in company decision making. These shareholders and corporate managers have a very different agenda than dominant capitalists do, and therein lies the problem. They do not have the clout to change business decisions, corporate strategy, or incumbent managers with their voting power. They can enhance their wealth only by buying and selling shares based on what they think is going to happen to short-term profits. Minority shareholders have no choice but to be short-term traders. And since shareholders are by necessity interested only in short-term trading, it is not surprising that managers’ compensation is based not on long-term performance, but on current profits or sales. Managerial compensation packages are completely congruent with the short-run perspective of short run shareholders. Neither the manager nor the shareholder expects to be around very long. And neither has an incentive to watch out for the long term growth of the company. We need to give managers and shareholders an incentive to nurture long-term corporate growth—in other words, to work as hard at enhancing productivity and output as they now work at improving short-term profitability. Which of the following can best replace the word "clout" used in paragraph 3
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
More than ten years ago, Ingmar Bergman announced that the widely acclaimed Fanny and Alexander would mark his last hurrah as a filmmaker. Although some critics had written him off as earnest but ponderous, others were saddened by the departure of an artist who had explored cinematic moods—from high tragedy to low comedy—during his four-decade career. What nobody foresaw was that Bergman would find a variety of ways to circumvent his own retirement—directing television movies, staging theater productions, and writing screenplays for other filmmakers to direct. His latest enterprise as a screenwriter, Sunday’s Children, completes a trilogy of family-oriented movies that began with Fanny and Alexander and continued with The Best Intentions written by Bergman and directed by Danish filmmaker Bille August. Besides dealing with members of Bergman’s family in bygone times—it begins a few years after The Best Intentions leaves off—the new picture was directed by Daniel Bergman, his youngest son. Although it lacks the urgency and originality of the elder Bergman’s greatest achievements, such as The Silence and Persona, it has enough visual and emotional interest to make a worthy addition to his body of work. Set in rural Sweden during the late 1920s, the story centers on a young boy named Pu, dearly modeled on Ingmar Bergman himself. Pu’s father is a country clergyman whose duties include traveling to the capital and ministering to the royal family. While this is an enviable position, it doesn’t assuage problems in the pastor’s marriage. Pu is young enough to be fairly oblivious to such difficulties, but his awareness grows with the passage of time. So do the subtle tensions that mar Pu’s own relationship with his father, whose desire to show affection and compassion is hampered by a certain stiffness in his demeanor and chilliness in his emotions. The film’s most resonant passages take place when Pu learns to see his father with new clarity while accompanying him on a cross-country trip to another parish. In a remarkable change of tone, this portion of the story is punctuated with flash-forwards to a time 40 years in the future, showing the relationship between parent and child to be dramatically reversed: The father is now cared for by the son, and desires a forgiveness for past shortcomings that the younger man resolutely refuses to grant. Brief and abrupt though they are, these scenes make a pungent contrast with the sunny landscapes and comic interludes in the early part of the movie. Sunday’s Children is a film of many levels, and all are skillfully handled by Daniel Bergman in his directional debut. Gentle scenes of domestic contentment are sensitively interwoven with intimations of underlying malaise. While the more nostalgic sequences are photographed with an eye-dazzling beauty that occasionally threatens to become cloying, any such result is foreclosed by the jagged interruptions of the flash-forward sequences—an intrusive device that few filmmakers are agile enough to handle successfully, but that is put to impressive use by the Bergman team. Henrik Linnros gives a smartly turned performance as young Pu, and Thommy Berggren—who starred in the popular Elvira Madigan years ago—is steadily convincing as his father. Top honors go to the screenplay, though, which carries the crowded canvas of Fanny and Alexander and the emotional ambiguity of The Best Intentions into fresh and sometimes fascinating territory. The reviewer thinks that the "flash forward" technique is______.
Jamie Stephenson has seen firsthand what modem genetic science can do for a family. When her son David was 2 years old, a pediatrician noticed developmental delays and suspected fragile syndrome, a hereditary form of mental retardation. A lab test confirmed the diagnosis, and the Stephensons spent several years learning to live with it. When David was 6, he visited a neurologist, who scribbled "fragile X" on an insurance-company claim form. The company responded promptly—by canceling coverage for the entire family of six. There is no medical treatment for fragile X, and none of David’s siblings had been diagnosed with the condition. "The company didn’t care," Stephenson says. "They just saw a positive genetic test and said, ’You’re out’. " From the dawn of the DNA era, critics have worried that genetic testing would create a "biological underclass"—a population of people whose genes brand them as poor risks for employment, insurance, even marriage. The future is arriving fast. Medical labs can now test human cells for hundreds of anomalous genes. Besides tracking rare conditions, some firms now gauge people’s susceptibility to more common scourges. By unmasking inherited mutations in p53 ( main story) and other, genes, the new tests can signal increased risk of everything from breast, colon and prostate tumors to leukemia. Many of the tests are still too costly for mass marketing, but that will change. And as the Stephensons’ story suggests, the consequences won’t all be benign. "This is bigger than race or sexual orientation," says Martha Volner, health-policy director for the Alliance of Genetic Support Groups. "Genetic discrimination is the civil-rights issue of the 21st century." No one would argue that genetic tests are worthless. Used properly, they can give people unprecedented power over their lives. Prospective parents who discover they’re silent carriers of the gene for a disease can make better-in formed decisions about whether and how to have kids. Some genetic maladies can be managed through medication and lifestyle changes once they’re identified. And while knowing that you’re at special risk for cancer may be an emotional burden, it can also alert you to the need for intensive monitoring. Jane Gorrell knows her family is prone to colon cancer. Her father developed hundreds of precancerous polyps back in the 1960s, and both she and her sister had the same experience during the ’70s. Their condition, has since been linked to a mutation in the p53 gene—and Gorrell has learned, that one of her two children inherited it. Though the child has suffered no symptoms, she gets frequent colon exams and is helping researchers test a drug that could help save lives. The catch is that no one can guarantee the privacy of genetic information. Outside of large group plans, insurance companies often scour people’s medical records before extending coverage. And though employers face some restriction, virtually any company with a benefits program can get access to workers’ health data. So can schools, adoption agencies and the military. Employees of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), a large research institution owned by the Department of Energy and operated by the University of California, recently discovered that the organization had for three decades been quietly testing new hires blood and urine samples for evidence of various conditions. "I can’t say the information was put to some incredibly harmful use, because we don’t know what happened," says Vicki Laden, a San Francisco lawyer who has tried unsuccessfully to sue the lab for civil fights violations. LBL recently stopped the testing. From the passage, we can infer that______.
Jamie Stephenson has seen firsthand what modem genetic science can do for a family. When her son David was 2 years old, a pediatrician noticed developmental delays and suspected fragile syndrome, a hereditary form of mental retardation. A lab test confirmed the diagnosis, and the Stephensons spent several years learning to live with it. When David was 6, he visited a neurologist, who scribbled "fragile X" on an insurance-company claim form. The company responded promptly—by canceling coverage for the entire family of six. There is no medical treatment for fragile X, and none of David’s siblings had been diagnosed with the condition. "The company didn’t care," Stephenson says. "They just saw a positive genetic test and said, ’You’re out’. " From the dawn of the DNA era, critics have worried that genetic testing would create a "biological underclass"—a population of people whose genes brand them as poor risks for employment, insurance, even marriage. The future is arriving fast. Medical labs can now test human cells for hundreds of anomalous genes. Besides tracking rare conditions, some firms now gauge people’s susceptibility to more common scourges. By unmasking inherited mutations in p53 ( main story) and other, genes, the new tests can signal increased risk of everything from breast, colon and prostate tumors to leukemia. Many of the tests are still too costly for mass marketing, but that will change. And as the Stephensons’ story suggests, the consequences won’t all be benign. "This is bigger than race or sexual orientation," says Martha Volner, health-policy director for the Alliance of Genetic Support Groups. "Genetic discrimination is the civil-rights issue of the 21st century." No one would argue that genetic tests are worthless. Used properly, they can give people unprecedented power over their lives. Prospective parents who discover they’re silent carriers of the gene for a disease can make better-in formed decisions about whether and how to have kids. Some genetic maladies can be managed through medication and lifestyle changes once they’re identified. And while knowing that you’re at special risk for cancer may be an emotional burden, it can also alert you to the need for intensive monitoring. Jane Gorrell knows her family is prone to colon cancer. Her father developed hundreds of precancerous polyps back in the 1960s, and both she and her sister had the same experience during the ’70s. Their condition, has since been linked to a mutation in the p53 gene—and Gorrell has learned, that one of her two children inherited it. Though the child has suffered no symptoms, she gets frequent colon exams and is helping researchers test a drug that could help save lives. The catch is that no one can guarantee the privacy of genetic information. Outside of large group plans, insurance companies often scour people’s medical records before extending coverage. And though employers face some restriction, virtually any company with a benefits program can get access to workers’ health data. So can schools, adoption agencies and the military. Employees of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), a large research institution owned by the Department of Energy and operated by the University of California, recently discovered that the organization had for three decades been quietly testing new hires blood and urine samples for evidence of various conditions. "I can’t say the information was put to some incredibly harmful use, because we don’t know what happened," says Vicki Laden, a San Francisco lawyer who has tried unsuccessfully to sue the lab for civil fights violations. LBL recently stopped the testing. What is the author’s attitude to the genetic tests
(1—4题共用题干) 患者，男，10岁，反复发作性喷嚏，流清涕一周余，伴鼻痒、眼痒、流泪，每于春季即有上述症状发作，春季过后，症状可自行缓解。查体：双侧鼻黏膜苍白、水肿，鼻道大量浆液性分泌物，双侧眼结膜充血水肿。 最需补充的病史为
微信支付 
支付宝支付