Relying too much on trade,that’s to say, trade dependency or trade openness is too high,which is not very good for one country.Which of following is NOT ture？

World Trade Organization(WTO)is an organization that intends to supervise and liberalize international trade. The organization officially commenced on 1 January 1995. The organization deals with regulation of trade between participating countries; it provides a framework for negotiating and formalizing trade agreements, and a dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing participants adherence to WTO agreements, which are signed by representatives of member governments and ratified by their parliaments. Among the various functions of the WTO, these are regarded by analysts as the most important: It oversees the implementation, administration and operation of the covered agreements. It provides a forum for negotiations and for settling disputes. Additionally, it is the WTOs duty to review and propagate the national trade policies, and to ensure the coherence and transparency of trade policies through surveillance in global economic policy-making. Another priority of the WTO is the assistance of developing, least-developed and low-income countries in transition to adjust to WTO rules and disciplines through technical cooperation and training.

In foreign trade business, the trade terms DDU is often used, DDU is the abbreviation for(  ).

  A. delivery duty unpaid         B. destination delivery charge unpaid

  C. delivery duty paid          D. destination delivery charge paid

The basic function of money is the enable buying to be separated from selling, thus permitting trade to take place without the so-called double coincidence of barter. If a person has something to sell and wants something else【1】return, it is not necessary to search for someone able and【2】 to make the desired exchange of items. The person can sell the【3】item for general purchasing power-that is, "money"-to anyone who wants to buy it and then use the proceeds to buy the desired item from anyone who wants to sell it. The importance of this function of money is【4】illustrated by the experience of Germany just after World War II,【5】paper money was【6】largely useless because, despite inflationary conditions, price controls were effectively【7】by the American, French, and British armies of occupation. People had to【8】to barter or to inefficient money substitutes. The result was to cut total output of the economy in half. The German "economic miracle" just after 1948 reflected partly a currency reform. by the occupation authorities,【9】some economists hold that it stemmed primarily from the German government's【10】of all price controls,【11】. permitting a money economy to【12】a barter economy.【13】of the act of sale from the act of purchase【14】the existence of something that will be generally accepted in payment-this is the "【15】of exchange" function of money. But there must also be something that can serve as a【16】abode of purchasing power, in which the seller holds the proceeds in the interim【17】the first sale and the【18】purchase, or from which the buyer can【19】the general purchasing power with which to pay【20】what is bought. This is the "asset" function of money.

(1)

A．on

B．in

C．by

D．for

1 Oscar Wilde said that work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do. If so, Americans are now among the world's saddest refugees. Factory workers in the United States are working longer hours than at any time in the past half-century. America once led the rich world in cutting the average working week—from 70 hours in 1850 to less than 40 hours by the 1950s. It seemed natural that as people grew richer they would trade extra earnings for more leisure. Since the 1970s, however, the hours clocked up by American workers have risen, to an average of 42 this year in manufacturing.

2 Several studies suggest that something similar is happening outside manufacturing: Americans are spending more time at work than they did 20 years ago. Executives and lawyers boast of 80-hour weeks. On holiday, they seek out fax machines and phones as eagerly as Germans bag the best sun-loungers. Yet working time in Europe and Japan continues to fall. In Germany's engineering industry the working week is to be trimmed from 36 to 35 hours next year. Most Germans get six weeks' paid annual holiday~ even the Japanese now take three weeks. Americans still make do with just two.

3 Germany responds to this contrast with its usual concern about whether people's aversion to work is damaging its competitiveness. Yet German workers, like the Japanese, seem to be acting sensibly: as their incomes rise, they can achieve a better standard of living with fewer hours of work. The puzzle is why America, the world's richest country, sees things differently. It is a puzzle with sinister social implications. Parents spend less time with their children, who may be left alone at home for longer. Is it just a coincidence that juvenile crime is on the rise?

4 Some explanations for America's time at work fail to stand up to scrutiny. One blames weak trade unions that leave workers open to exploitation. Are workers being forced by cost-cutting firms to toil harder just to keep their jobs? A recent study by two American economists, Richard Freeman and Linda Bell, suggests not. When asked, Americans actually want to work longer hours. Most German workers, in contrast, would rather work less.

5 Then, why do Americans want to work harder? One reason may be that the real earnings of many Americans have been stagnant or falling during the past two decades. People work longer merely to maintain their living standards. Yet many higher-skilled workers, who have enjoyed big increases in their real pay, have been working harder too. Also, one reason for the slow growth of wages has been the rapid growth in employment-- which is more or less where the argument began.

6 Taxes may have something to do with it. People who work an extra hour in America are allowed to keep more of their money than those who do the same in Germany. Falls in marginal tax rates in America since the 1970s have made it all the more profitable to work longer.

7 None of these answers really explains why the century-long decline in working hours has gone into reverse in America but not elsewhere (though Britain shows signs of following America's lead). Perhaps cultural differences--the last refuge of the defeated economist—are at play. Economists used to believe that once workers earned enough to provide for their basic needs and allow for a few luxuries, their incentive to work would be eroded, like lions relaxing after a kill. But humans are more susceptible to advertising than lions. Perhaps clever marketing has ensured that "basic needs"--for a shower with built-in TV, for a rocket-propelled car--expand continuously. Shopping is already one of America's most popular pastimes. But it requires money--hence more work and less leisure.

8 Or try this, the television is not very good, and baseball and hockey keep being wiped out by strikes. Perhaps Wilde was right. Maybe Americans have nothi

A．confined to the manufacturing industry.

B．a traditional practice in some sectors.

C．prevalent in all sectors of society.

D．favoured by the economists.

According to Governor Pataki, the World Trade Center to be built______.

A．will have the greatest power generation

B．will not depend too much on foreign energy

C．shows New Yorkers' determination to restore the devastated areas

D．is a memory of those who died in the September 11 attacks

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 t

A．the contradiction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party

B．on China's entry into WTO

C．Clinton was right

D．business lobbyists control Capitol Hill

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 Emest 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 19chief 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 he 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

A．The Contradiction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party

B．On China's entry into WTO

C．Clinton was right

D．Business Lobbyists Control Capitol Hill

The issue of climate change is now very, very critical indeed. Let me try and explain to you frankly what I see, from the policy-makers point of view, as the two difficulties we've got to overcome and how we overcome them. //

The first is that I think there is a clear recognition round the world now that something is happening to our climate—people are experiencing it and feeling it. Nonetheless, the timeframe. over which some of these things are going to impact is certainly beyond any very short-term political cycle, and often stretches significantly into the future. That's one issue. //

And the other issue is that there has grown up round the world, a debate, that sometimes I think takes place on a quite false basis but nonetheless is there, that somehow there is a trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection, so that if we improve the protection of our environment, we may inhibit our ability to grow and to enjoy rising living standards. //

Now each of these two issues has to be confronted. How do we do that, is the real question. The first is how do we get the world to think long-term about this? We have to continue to build a very strong base of support and agitation for change, not just in the political world but in civic society as well. I think that is enormously important, the pressure on this has got to come on governments from people, not merely on governments from their own internal mechanisms. //

We are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. We believe it is essential that we have that implemented. We in our country will abide by our Kyoto targets, but I just want to make one point to you. When I asked for an analysis to be done by David King and his colleagues of what the true scale of the challenge was, we learned that even if we were to implement the Kyoto Protocol, it falls significantly short of what we will need over the next half century if we are to tackle this problem seriously and properly. //

So even, and this is a tall order in some ways at the moment, if we succeed in getting support for the Kyoto Protocol, we are still, even having done that, only in the position of having achieved a first step. It will be an important recognition, but it is only a first step and we need to be building a clearer understanding of the fact that even with Kyoto we are still a long way short of what we actually need to do. And we've got to build support in the political institutions of which we're a part in order to make sure that case is properly understood. //

I think we have to make sure that this occupies, as an issue, a central place in political decision-making beyond any election or parliamentary cycle. It's beyond the life of any government. It's beyond the life of any passing political phase. It has to be there, central in the politics of each country, built up not just from support within government, but from support within civic society over a period of time. //

The second point is about the conflict between the supposition that we need to grow continually and that we cannot grow unless we degrade our environment. That is the importance of a Climate Group that involves not just states and cities but also business so that there are practical, clear examples of how good environmental policy is also good business policy and is right for growth. If you look in the 12 years 1990 to 2002, we in Britain cut our emissions by about 15 percent whilst we were growing at 30 percent. It is possible to do. //

Showing that cities and states and businesses can do good environmental policy and actually reap an economic benefit is enormously important because that debate about some supposed trade- off between environmental protection and economic growth is still there. We may all, in this room, believe that that argument has been resolved long ago, but I can tell you there is

听力原文： I'm going to introduce two current points of view about the motivation for writing the United States Constitution back in 1787. The first one is called the idealist view. The idealists basically believe that the writers of the Constitution were motivated by ideas. Which ideas? The ideas of the revolutionary war, such as liberty and democracy. The idealists remind that the young country had a lot of problems: an economic depression, a large war debts, lawlessness and trade barriers between the states. They argue that the representatives needed to control these problems in order for the United States to survive. The other point of view is the economic view. The economic view is that the writers of the Constitution were concerned about their own financial interests. According to them most people were living wealth for the wealthiest people were afraid of losing their money. The writers wanted a strong central government that would promote trade, protect private property and perhaps most of all collect taxes to pay off the United States' large war debts. Because a number of those who wrote the constitution had loaned money to the government during the revolution. Which view is correct? Well historians who wrote during the calm and prosperous 1950s found reasons to believe the idealist view. Those who wrote during the trouble of 1960s found support for the economic view point. I'd say that neither view is complete, both the idealist and the economic perspective contribute a part to the whole picture.

What is the talk mainly about?

A．The problems caused by the Revolutionary War.

B．How some people became rich in the late 1700's.

C．The importance of providing for a tax system in the Constitution.

D．Motives for creating the United States Constitution.