The Economist 词汇解析(14)

本期原文选自The Economist 2016-10-01之Leaders板块文章Why they’re

In September 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade
rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing【1】.
John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently【2】 on the
merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made
in The Economist, a fledgling【3】 newspaper. Mr Bright told his
audience that when canvassing【4】, he had explained “how
stonemasons, shoemakers, carpenters and every kind of artisan suffered
if the trade of the country was restricted.” His speech in Liverpool
was roundly cheered【5】.

【1】overflow本义是溢起、漫出;overflow (with sth) 挤满了丁

【2】eloquent 雄辩的,有口才的,传神的;副词eloquently;名词eloquence

【3】fledgling新生的;fledged 羽翼已丰的;fully-fledged

【4】canvass (sb) (for sth) 游说,拉选票;to carry out a
canvass(名词); canvasser游说者,(选举中)监督投票的人口

【5】roundly cheered 赢得满堂喝彩;roundly 有力地,广泛地

It is hard to imagine, 173 years later, a leading Western politician
being lauded for a defence of free trade. Neither candidate in
America’s presidential election is a champion【6】. Donald
Trump, incoherent on so many fronts, is clear in this area: unfair
competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens
to dismantle【7】 the North American Free Trade Agreement,
withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and start a trade
war with China. To her discredit【8】, Hillary Clinton now
denounces the TPP, a pact she helped negotiate. In Germany, one of the
world’s biggest exporters, tens of thousands took to the streets
earlier this month to march against a proposed trade deal between the
European Union and the United States (see article).

【6】champion 捍卫者,拥护者

【7】dismantle 本义是拆起来,引申义为抛弃,取消

【8】to sb’s discredit 使有人名誉扫地

The backlash against trade is just one symptom of a pervasive anxiety
about the effects of open economies. Britain’s Brexit vote reflected
concerns about the impact of unfettered migration on public services,
jobs and culture. Big businesses are slammed for using foreign
boltholes【9】 to dodge taxes. Such critiques contain some
truth: more must be done to help those who lose out【10】 from
openness. But there is a world of difference between improving
globalisation and reversing it. The idea that globalisation is a scam
that benefits only corporations and the rich could scarcely be more

to dodge taxes 避税天堂(跟The Economist 2016-9-17的Leaders板块文章A
giant problem中之tax heaven意思相近)

【10】lose out 丧失,得不到

The real pro-poor policy

Exhibit A【11】 is the vast improvement in global living
standards in the decades after the second world war, which was
underpinned by an explosion in world trade. Exports of goods rose from
8% of world GDP in 1950 to almost 20% a half-century later. Export-led
growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of
poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South

【11】Exhibit A 主要证据

Plainly【12】, Western voters are not much comforted by this
extraordinary transformation in the fortunes of emerging markets. But
at home, too, the overall benefits of free trade are
unarguable【13】. Exporting firms are more productive and pay
higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of
America’s exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal,
even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global

【12】plainly 直截了本地,坦白地,简单明了地

【13】unarguable 无可置疑的;unarguably 毋庸置疑地

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for
workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A
study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28%
of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in
the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers
of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped
anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion,
according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That
amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.

【14】slap sth on sth 强制执行

Openness delivers other benefits. Migrants improve not just their own
lives but the economies of host countries: European immigrants who
arrived in Britain since 2000 have been net contributors to the
exchequer【15】, adding more than £20 billion ($34 billion) to
the public finances between 2001 and 2011. Foreign direct investment
delivers competition, technology, management know-how and jobs, which
is why China’s overly cautious moves to encourage FDI disappoint (see

【15】exchequer 国库,(英国)财政部

What have you done for me lately?

None of this is to deny that globalisation has its flaws. Since the
1840s advocates of free trade have known that, though the great
majority benefit, some lose out. Too little has been done to help
these people. Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in
American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese
competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones. With
hindsight【16】, politicians in Britain were too
blithe【17】 about the pressures that migration from new EU
member states in eastern Europe brought to bear on public services.
And although there are no street protests about the speed and
fickleness【18】 in the tides of short-term capital, its ebb
and flow【19】
across borders have often proved damaging, not least
in the euro zone’s debt-ridden【20】 countries.

【16】hindsight 后见之明,事后诸葛亮

【17】blithe 漫不注意的

【18】fickleness 变化无常;fickle 变化无常的

【19】ebb and flow起伏消长;ebb 落潮,退潮

【20】debt-ridden债台高筑的;-ridden 充满,充斥

As our special report this week argues, more must be done to tackle
these downsides. America spends a paltry【21】 0.1% of its GDP,
one-sixth of the rich-country average, on policies to retrain workers
and help them find new jobs. In this context, it is
lamentable【22】 that neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton offers
policies to help those whose jobs have been affected by trade or
cheaper technology. On migration, it makes sense to follow the example
of Denmark and link local-government revenues to the number of
incomers, so that strains on schools, hospitals and housing can be
eased. Many see the rules that bind signatories to trade pacts as an
affront【23】 to democracy. But there are ways that shared rules
can enhance national autonomy. Harmonising norms on how multinational
firms are taxed would give countries greater command over their public
finances. A co-ordinated approach to curbing volatile capital flows
would restore mastery over national monetary policy.

【21】paltry 微不足道的

【22】lamentable 令人遗憾的,令人痛惜之;lament 对……表示失望;挽歌,悼词

【23】affront 侮辱,冒犯

These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and
nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their
backs on
【24】** globalisation. The case for openness remains
much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the
repeal of the Corn Laws【25】. There are more—and more
varied—opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in
general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s,
free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful
and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right

【24】turn sb’s back on sth 本义是转身背对着,引申为失,反对

【25】Corn Laws


taxes)而遇抨击。所以要辅那些经济开放历程遭到的失败者(those who lose
out from openness)。自由贸易才是当真好穷人的政策(pro-poor
policy),其要证据(Exhibit A)是恃(underpined
contributors to the
their backs on)全球化。本刊初创时支持废除《谷物法》(the Corn



电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注