题目内容
When Andrew Chadwick-Jones, a management consultant with Oliver Wyman in London, went to a private-equity(私募股权) firm late last year, he expected the usual: about 20 minutes and an unfriendly attitude. He was surprised to find the private-equity people instead explaining their strategy, offering introductions to senior staff and being more open and friendly. "Now that money and deals are lack, they’ve got to be nicer to all the people they interact with, and they might help bring business in future," he says.Rudeness is out, and politeness is the new rule in an uncertain world. The former kings of rude behavior -- Masters of the Universe bankers, private-equity chiefs -- have been humbled. On Wall Street, says a hanker, "it’s now all about charm and openness and taking time with people." Proud young things straight out of the best business schools have stopped letting interview appointments pass, and there is much less looking over people’s shoulders at drinks parties, reports one veteran (经验丰富的人). Many people, fearful for their jobs, are trying to smooth their contacts at other firms.The change in tone also reflects changes in the balance of power between companies. Before the crisis, says Michel Péreité, head of investment banking at Soeeit6 G6n6rale in Paris, he would go and see a senior chief executive with a mergers-and-acquisitions (并购)idea, get in for a short while and, on the way out, walk past a line of all his competitors. Now, he says, "You’re lead in, you get an hour with the CEO and he walks you to your car. "As the representative of a bank with money to lend, Mr. P6reti6 is now the chief executive’s potential savior. "During this crisis, when there is so much uncertainty about who will end up having power, the best strategy is to be polite to everyone," says Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.People have more time to be friendly when business is slow. Some reckon the new sincerity reflects a feeling that everyone is in the same boat: when some firms have to fire good performers as well as bad, no one is safe. But if people at different firms are being nicer to each other, things may not be getting any nicer inside companies. At many, stress and in-fighting are on the rise because of the threat of job cuts. And as soon as things turn up again, all agree, the extra niceness will disappear. Which of the following best describes the uncertain situation now（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Conventional wisdom says that it is better to be a large company than a small one when credit is tight. Bigger firms have more room for maneuver(机动):They have access to more types of funding, they have more fat to cut, and they have greater bargaining power with lenders. Even so, life is getting ever more uncomfortable for the bigger beasts of the corporate jungle.According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent lending survey, American banks are tightening terms more aggressively for bigger firms than for smaller ones. Lenders are more cautious than theyhave been at least since 1990. The story among European banks is similar. Lenders in emerging markets can be more suspicious of multinational firms than they are of locals. "We just don’t know what they’ve got on their balance-sheets back home," says one bank boss in Africa.Violent movements in exchange rates are causing additional headaches, says Andrew Balfour of Slaughter & May, a law firm. Calculations of financial ratios can be thrown out by wild currency movements, potentially triggering breaches of loan agreements. Companies with sterling-denominated credit lines may find that their facilities are not big enough as a result of the pound’s recent sharp fall, for instance.It is not panic stations yet. Most firms can survive for a while with the credit tap turned off. Analysis by Moody’s, a rating agency, shows that the vast majority of highly rated companies in America and Europe have enough headroom, in the form of cash and undrawn bank facilities, to be able to survive for 12 months without needing new financing. European corporate-debt markets have seen a rare flurry(惊慌) of issues in the past few days by opportunistic, highly rated firms.Governments are also working hard to prop up credit markets. The Fed’s program to buy commercial paper, a form of short-term company debt, had acquired almost ＄300 billion by November 26th. Banks on both sides of the Atlantic are issuing lots of government-backed bonds, which should encourage lending. What might be the consequential result of violent movements in exchange rates（）
The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative con sequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage. Keasey’’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to "Bonnie wrecks Ann’’s pretend house" depending on whether Bonnie did it "so somebody won’’t fall over it" or because Bonnie wanted "to make Ann feel bad". Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments. Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however. Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they become morally autonomous. According to the passage, Piaget and Keasey would have agreed on all the following points except ______.
I’m interested in the criminal justice system of our country. It seems to me that something has to be done, if we’re to (37) as a country. I certainly don’t know what the answers to our problems are. Things certainly get (38) in a hurry when you get into them, but I wonder if something couldn’t be done to deal with some of these problems. One thing I’m concerned about is our practice of putting (39) in jail who haven’t harmed anyone. Why not work out some system (40) they can pay back the debts they owe society instead of (41) another debt by going to prison and, of course, coming under the (42) of hardened criminals. I’m also concerned about the short prison sentences people are (43) for serious crimes. Of course one alternative to this is to (44) capital punishment, but I’m not sure I would be for that. I’m not sure it’s right to take an eye for eye． (45) . I also think we must do something about the insanity plea. In my opinion, anyone who takes another person’s life intentionally is insane, however， (46) It’s sad, of course, that a person may have to spend the rest of his life, or (47) . 38（）
This is a good chance for these artists______(因为他们的个人主义最终在作品中表现了).
微信支付 
支付宝支付