题目内容
Passage 1Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States international Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value. " Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.Perhaps the most brazen ease occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with" United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian" companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. According to the passage, the International Trade Commission is involved in which of the following ？（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage 4Choose the best from the following sentences marked A to E to complete the article below.Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. (16) . A price that is determined by the seller or, for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. (17) In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. (18) Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United states. These economies employ intentional price-fixin9, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common-place. (19) , the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system (20) ; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices. 16（）
在请示中一般要说明（）
根据系统功能和数据流图填充下列数据字典条目中的（1）和（2）：查询请求信息=[查询读者请求信息|查询图书请求信息]读者情况=读者号+姓名+所在单位+{借书情况}管理工作请求单=（1）入库单=（2）
Passage 1Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States international Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value. " Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.Perhaps the most brazen ease occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with" United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian" companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the international Trade Commission is which of the following ？（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付