|第28、29、30、31、32题：Disagreements among economists are legendary, but not on the issue of free trade. A recent survey of prominent economists-both conservative and liberal-concluded that "an economist who argues for restricting international trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching."|
Why the consensus? International free trade, economists agree, makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe.
The case for free trade rests largely on this principle: as long as trade is voluntary, both partners benefit; otherwise they wouldn't trade. The buyer of a shirt, for example, values the shirt more than the money spent, while the seller values the money more. Both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong or anywhere else).
The vast majority of American manufactures face international competition. This competition forces companies to improve quality and cut costs. By contrast, protectionism encourages monopoly, lower quality and higher prices. Americans pay an enormous price for protectionism -- over '60 billion a year, or ' 1000 for a family of four. Thanks to protectionism, for example, American consumers pay twice the world price for sugar.
Free trade also makes the world economy more efficient, by allowing nations to capitalize on their strengths. The United States has an advantage in food production, for instance, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in oil. The Saudis could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food, but it is more economical for them to sell oil and purchase food from us. Similarly, we could become self-sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more out of oil sale. But it is much less costly to buy some of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Trade between our two countries improves the standard of living in both.
Protectionism is both wasteful and unjust. It taxes most heavily on the people who can least afford it. Thus, tariffs that raise the price of shoes burden the poor more than the rich. Despite the powerful case for free trade, the United States and the rest of the world have always been protectionist to some degree. This is because free trade benefits the general public, while protectionism benefits special-interest groups, which are better organized, better financed and more informed. To make matters worse, much of what we hear on this issue is misinformation spread by the special interests themselves.
31. The economists _______.
A. disagree whether to restrict free trade or not
B. agree on free trade
C. agree on the restriction if internal trade
D. hold different arguments because to their different interests
32. The two parties in a free trade ________.
A. do not care at all
B. care for different things
C. care for the things being traded
D. care for the same things
33. What is the author's attitude toward protectionism denoted from the 5th paragraph?
34. Why has protectionism always been exercised if it is wasteful and unjust? Because ________.
A. it helps to establish national industry of one's own
B. it can achieve an independent economy
C. it is favored by general public
D. it benefits some privileged few
35. According to the free trade principle, the author suggests that ______.
A. U.S. explore its oil shale
B. Saudi Arabia build its own industry
C. Saudi Arabia import food from U.S.
D. U.S. becomes more self-sufficient in food