Text 2
Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $ 10 last December. This near tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock ,when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time
The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short tern.
Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-in-tensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices), rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973 .The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by Only 0.25～0.5 % of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies--to which heavy industry has shifted--have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
One more reason, not to lose sleepover. The rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’ s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is（）

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq's suspension of exports

Text 2 Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $ 10 last December. This near tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock ,when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short tern. Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past. Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-in-tensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices), rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973 .The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by Only 0.25～0.5 % of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies--to which heavy industry has shifted--have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed. One more reason, not to lose sleepover. The rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’ s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is（）

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq's suspension of exports

While the ripples of America’s subprime-mortgage crisis have spread far and wide, Latin America—a place long associated with financial disaster—has remained improbably calm. Banks have reported no unpleasant surprises. Brazil and Peru have been blessed with coveted investment-grade ratings. Surprisingly, perhaps the fleetest country of all has been Argentina. Since it emerged from the financial crisis of 2001-02, it has been one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. It is expected to expand faster than most of its neighbors again this year.
Quite simply, it barely has any credit. Back when its economy virtually collapsed, the country suffered a run on its banks, followed by a freeze on withdrawals, and a massive currency devaluation. As a result, bank lending to the private sector shrivelled, from 23.8% of GDP in 2000 to 10.8% in 2003. Since then, it has rebounded to a piddling 13% ; by contrast, the ratio in Brazil was 36.5% in 2006. Almost all of these loans in Argentina are accessible only on a short-term basis.
Once its recovery began in June 2002, Argentina became a paradise for business. Unemployment of over 20% kept wages down, and the devaluation gave exporters an edge on foreign competitors. The ample productive capacity left idle by the crisis meant firms could expand without making big investments. And the windfall profits reaped by agricultural exporters, thanks to record commodities prices, enabled many of them to finance new projects out of earnings. Hence the economy could grow at almost 9% a year with little need for credit.
But such a lucky confluence of factors could not last. Starting in early 2005 ,.inflation picked up, a sign that the installed capacity was starting to limit output. Salaries and prices for raw materials increased sharply, cutting into profits. And farmers were particularly hard hit when the government nearly doubled the taxes in farm exports. Now, just as companies need to embark on big investments if they are to keep growing, their margins are no longer big enough to pay for the expansion and they need to borrow.
So, the time is ripe for the country’s financial system to recover. But a number of things are in the way. Foremost is Argentina’s business risk. Those in the informal economy (which represents over 40% of GDP) can neither save nor borrow legally, lest they become known to the taxmen. The rest remain cowed by memories of the crisis. Although Argentines have poured their savings into property, fuelling a construction boom, they still hold about four-fifths of their deposits abroad.
Inflation, fuelled by a public-spending binge, state-mandated wage increases, and a cheap currency, is not helping either. No one knows how high it is. The consumer-price index is doctored to keep the official rate below 10%, but private estimates suggest it is near 25%. Without a reliable index of inflation, lending is almost impossible, even for the medium term. And the central bank has kept interest rates strongly negative in real terms, encouraging workers to spend their wages rather than to save.

Argentina’s economy began its recovery in 2002. According to the text, which of the following is not the reason（）

A:Low wages B:Low unemployment C:Low value of currency D:Low commodities prices of exports

Text 3 Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply -cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near - tripling of oil prices calls up seat9’ memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979 - 1980, when they also almost tri pled. Both previous shocks resulted in double - digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term. Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four - fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past. Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy- intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, it oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25 - 0.5% of GDP. That is less than one - quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil - importing emerging economies - to which heavy industry has shifted - have become more energy -intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed. One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity - price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is （）

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq's suspension of exports

? ?Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to sup-ply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time?
? ?The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the dame time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.
? ?Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
? ?Rich economics are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economics now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $ 22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25%～0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oilimporting emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted— have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
? ?One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is ______.

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq’s suspension of exports

Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $ 26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979—1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time
The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.
Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (inconstant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies-to which heavy industry has shifted-have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.
One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist’s commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.
The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is ______.

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq’s suspension of exports

{{B}}第三篇{{/B}}

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is______.

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq’s suspension of exports

{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}

Western governments encourage the poultry in Asia because they regard it as au effective way to______。

A:boost their own exports B:alleviate malnutrition in Asian countries C:create job opportunities in Asian countries D:promote the exports of Asian countries

{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}

The main reason for the latest rise of oil price is ______.

A:global inflation B:reduction in supply C:fast growth in economy D:Iraq’s suspension of exports