prompt 

complex 

create

factor 

impose 

poverty 

“The word ‘protection’ is no longer taboo (禁忌语)”. This short sentence, uttered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy last month, may have launched a new era in economic history. Why? For decades, Western leaders have believed that lowering trade barriers and tariffs was a natural good. Doing so, they reasoned, would lead to greater economic efficiency and productivity, which in turn would improve human welfare. Championing free trade thus became a moral, not just an economic, cause.
These leaders, of course, weren’t acting out of unselfishness. They knew their economies were the most competitive, so they’d profit most from liberalization. And developing countries feared that their economies would be swamped by superior Western productivity. Today, however, the tables have turned—though few acknowledge it. The West continues to preach free trade, but practices it less and less. Asian, meanwhile, continues to plead for special protection but practices more and more free trade.
That’s why Sarkozy’s words were so important: he finally injected some honesty into the trade debates. The truth is that large parts of the West are losing faith in tree trade, though few leaders admit it. Some economists are more honest. Paul Krugman is one of the few willing to acknowledge that protectionist arguments are returning. In the short run, there will be winners and losers under free trade. This, of course, is what capitalism is all about. But more and more of these losers will be in the West, Economists in the developed world used to love quoting Jonoph Schumpeter, who said that ‘creative destruction” was an essential part of capitalist growth. But they always assumed that destruction would happen over there. When Western workers began losing jobs, suddenly their leaders began to lose faith in their principles, Things have yet to reverse completely. But there’s clearly a negative trend in a Western theory and practice.
A little hypocrisy (虚伪) is not in itself a serious problem. The real problem is that Western governments continue to insist that they retain control of the key global economic and financial institutions while drifting away from global liberalization. Lock at what’s happening at the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The Europeans have demanded that they keep the post of managing director. But all too often, Western officials put their own interests above everyone else’s when they dominate these global institutions.
The time has therefore come for the Asians-who are clearly the new winners in today’s global economy-to provide more intellectual leadership in supporting free trade: Sadly, they have yet to do so. Unless Asians speak out, however, there’s a real danger that Adam Smith’s principles, which have brought so much good to the world, could gradually die. And that would leave all of us, worse off, in one way or another.
1.It can be inferred that “protection” (Line 1, Para.1) means（  ）.
2.The Western leaders preach free trade because （  ）.  
3.By “the tables have turned” (Line 3-4, Para. 2) the author implies that （  ）.  
4.The Western economies used to like the idea of “creative destruction” because it （  ）.  
5.The author uses “IMF” was an example to illustrate the point that（  ）.

When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s own Office dominates the market for “productivity” software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smart phone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped, after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many “acquit-hires”that the biggest companies have used to feed their insatiable hunger for tech talent.
To Microsoft’s critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their.path. “They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting paid to businesses that might one day turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.
Like other start-up investors, Mr Arnold’ s own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result:“I think these things are good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don’t know.”
The US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $5.5tn, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point. Between them, the five companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google,Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a “buy and kill”. tactic to simply close them down.
1.What is true about Wunderlist and sunrise after their acquisitions（  ）.
2. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to （  ） . 
3.PaulArnold is concerned that small acquisitions might（ ）.
4.The US Federal Trade Commission intend to（ ）.
5.For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisition have（ ）.

conference 

opponent