[单选题]

　　In a recent lecture， David Autor， a labor economist， attempted to weave the biggest and most important issues together into a single story.Paraphrasing heavily， that story goes something like this： Forty years ago， Americans who didn't go to college could move to cities and get good jobs in manufacturing or office work.But starting in about 1980， these jobs began to disappear， thanks in part to offshoring and automation.

　　Workers without a college education were increasingly moved to low-skilled service jobs.Even as educational inequality was growing， geographic inequality was growing as well.High-skilled occupations increasingly clustered in cities， while low-skilled service jobs have become more plentiful outside of urban centers.At the same time， wages for mid-skilled jobs like manufacturing and office work equalized between cities and rural areas - workers in these jobs can no longer get much of a pay bump by moving into town.Thus， a major route to middle-class prosperity has been closed off.

　　Some of this can be explained by virtue of the two basic economic reasons for cities to exist in a modern economy - agglomeration， and clustering.Agglomeration refers to the tendency of businesses of all types， but especially manufacturers， to locate near each other.This happens because employers want to be near to employees， who want to be near to the businesses they work for and buy goods from.The result is a city with lots of different industries.

　　Clustering on the other hand， refers to the tendency of companies within a single industry to want to be near each other.Clustering effects are much stronger in knowledge-based industries like tech and finance， because ideas are their lifeblood， and workers who live near each other tend to share ideas with each other.Clustering also arises because of the need for employers to have access to a deep pool of skilled workers.

　　As the U.S.economy has transferred manufacturing overseas or automated it， and as consumers have moved from buying more physical goods to buying more digital services， agglomeration has become less important relative to clustering.The smokestack cities of the last century have given way to tech hubs and financial centers.

　　So what's to be done in order to help mid-skilled and non-college workers live decent， middle-class lives? And how can the emerging divide between small towns and big cities be arrested? One idea is to build lots more housing in cities， driving down rents and making cities more livable for everyone.Another idea is to use research universities to revitalize economically depressed regions by dispersing knowledge workers to less-populated areas.

　　But in the end， the government may simply have to step in and intervene on behalf of the services class.Wage subsidies， portable pensions and various other incentives for higher wages can be deployed to make today's low-skilled jobs more like the good office and factory jobs of yesteryear.The alternative may be to watch non-college workers and small towns fall further behind.

　　Tech hubs and financial clusters arise partly because they ______.

　　Amake it convenient for employees to buy goods

　　Bpromote interactions among different industries

　　Cfacilitate the exchange of ideas among workers

　　Doffer well-paid jobs to high-skilled workers

　　参考答案：C

　　[单选题]

　　At a recent hearing on drug prices， Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that by funding federal research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health， “the public is acting as an early investor， putting tons of money in the development of drugs that then become privatized.” The American people， she complained' receive “no return on the investment that they have made.” The witness she was addressing， Harvard Medical School professor Aaron Kesselheim， confirmed the absence of “licensing deals that bring money back into the pockets of the NIH.”

　　Direct licensing deals between companies and government labs are rare by design-a design that has fueled American economic， military and political power for the past seven decades.This structure has been a critical engine of U.S.economic growth since the end of World War II.

　　The American electronics， personal-computer and biotech industries all can trace their origin to federal research.The internet， genetic engineering， 3-D animation in movies， even the Siri voice assistant on iPhones-all sprang from federal research.Yet the government receives no royalties on Disney movies or iPhones.

　　Still， Ms.Ocasio-Cortez is wrong that taxpayers get no return on their investment.The resulting growth from these inventions generates significant government revenue in the form of income and capitalgains taxes on thousands of companies and their millions of employees.Leading the world in science and technology also enhances America's geopolitical power and strengthens national security.

　　The goal of the federal research system has always been to transfer new knowledge and laboratory results as quickly and seamlessly as possible to private industry， which can then translate them into useful products that can boost the economy.The NIH， for example， spends $ 3.9 billion annually on research conducted in national labs.Biotech and pharmaceutical companies spend more than $ 90 billion annually on drug discovery and development.

　　Quantifying the “return” of that taxpayer investment， and separating the contribution of private vs.public investment， is a famously difficult problem in science policy.But as one measure， economists have attributed roughly half of the trillions of dollars in U.S.gross domestic product growth since the end of World War II to technology improvements.Other countries have noticed the model's success and adopted it.To remain the world's leading power， the U.S.needs to invest more in federal research and to transfer its findings seamlessly to industry.Additional taxes on innovation would be a hindrance.

　　A lack of licensing deals between companies and national labs has nothing to do with high drug prices， which reflect the enormous development costs-in cancer studies， for example， more than 95% of drug candidates never make it past testing.Many smart people are trying to figure out how to develop effective treatments while keeping prices low.Some of their ideas were reviewed during last week's hearing.None， however， involve creating more friction between federal research and private industry.Taxing iPhones， Disney movies or cancer drugs for the federal research that enabled them won't do anyone any good.

　　Which of the following is true of the federal research?

　　AIt helps improve the employment rate.

　　BTech companies benefit a lot from it.

　　CIt has driven up the capital-gains taxes.

　　DRoyalties will be charged for the use of its findings.

　　参考答案：B

　　[单选题]

　　The technology sector has driven global markets this year.Now， it seems to be driving regulatory- decisions， too.

　　Consider the US Federal Communication Commission's decision last week to roll back “net neutrality” rules， the principles that specify that internet service providers must treat all online traffic the same.While FCC chair Ajit Pai， a former Verizon lawyer， says this is about moving back towards “light touch” regulation， it is also about changing the balance of power between tech and telecoms.It does this by allowing the largest internet service providers such as AT&T， Verizon， Sprint and T-Mobile to charge the cash-rich platform companies fees to move their traffic to the front of the digital queue.

　　This speaks to the huge power of the Fangs - Facebook， Amazon， Netflix and Google - which now dominate not just the digital business， but the entire economy.It is a power that has grown so quickly， and changed so much， that it is forcing a fundamental rethink of everything from antitrust policy to the rules that have governed the internet for more than 20 years.

　　Big tech platform companies， which have been the largest corporate beneficiaries of net neutrality， have until now worked both the social and economic arguments to their own advantage.They and many other supporters of net neutrality have argued that more power for the ISPs would suppress innovation on the internet and unfairly penalise small businesses.Yet a number of critics would argue that the Fangs themselves are a bigger risk to innovation than the telecoms companies， in large part because of the network effects that make them natural monopolies.The currency of the digital age is data， and its value grows exponentially.This allows the biggest players to become ever more dominant and able to suppress competition in innumerable ways.

　　All this serves as a reminder that many of the monopoly battles being waged these days are not confrontations between David and Goliath， but rather Goliath and Goliath.It is hard to argue that a vertical merger between content and pipe owners like Time Warner and AT&T is a good thing for competition， or for the little guy， even if you buy the idea that the goal of antitrust policy should be “consumer welfare”.But it seems inconsistent to go after AT&T without also going after the Fangs.

　　What is lost in all of this debate may well be the American consumer.Even if the US had an administration that cared about enforcing antitrust， policies based on outdated models that do not address the problems of the digital age will not even out the playing field.

　　Meanwhile， a rollback of net neutrality will not really hurt the Fangs -they can easily pay whatever fees the ISPs decide to charge.But it could create a premium and economy class internet for consumers.What we need is equal and consistent application of competition rules.That will probably mean coming up with new rules.

　　FCC's decision changes the balance between tech and telecoms by______.

　　Abanning companies from jumping the digital queue

　　Brequesting ISPs to set a traffic limit on all companies

　　Cdemanding companies to pay more for online traffic

　　Dempowering ISPs to charge fees for traffic priority

　　参考答案：D

　　[单选题]

　　The technology sector has driven global markets this year.Now， it seems to be driving regulatory- decisions， too.

　　Consider the US Federal Communication Commission's decision last week to roll back “net neutrality” rules， the principles that specify that internet service providers must treat all online traffic the same.While FCC chair Ajit Pai， a former Verizon lawyer， says this is about moving back towards “light touch” regulation， it is also about changing the balance of power between tech and telecoms.It does this by allowing the largest internet service providers such as AT&T， Verizon， Sprint and T-Mobile to charge the cash-rich platform companies fees to move their traffic to the front of the digital queue.

　　This speaks to the huge power of the Fangs - Facebook， Amazon， Netflix and Google - which now dominate not just the digital business， but the entire economy.It is a power that has grown so quickly， and changed so much， that it is forcing a fundamental rethink of everything from antitrust policy to the rules that have governed the internet for more than 20 years.

　　Big tech platform companies， which have been the largest corporate beneficiaries of net neutrality， have until now worked both the social and economic arguments to their own advantage.They and many other supporters of net neutrality have argued that more power for the ISPs would suppress innovation on the internet and unfairly penalise small businesses.Yet a number of critics would argue that the Fangs themselves are a bigger risk to innovation than the telecoms companies， in large part because of the network effects that make them natural monopolies.The currency of the digital age is data， and its value grows exponentially.This allows the biggest players to become ever more dominant and able to suppress competition in innumerable ways.

　　All this serves as a reminder that many of the monopoly battles being waged these days are not confrontations between David and Goliath， but rather Goliath and Goliath.It is hard to argue that a vertical merger between content and pipe owners like Time Warner and AT&T is a good thing for competition， or for the little guy， even if you buy the idea that the goal of antitrust policy should be “consumer welfare”.But it seems inconsistent to go after AT&T without also going after the Fangs.

　　What is lost in all of this debate may well be the American consumer.Even if the US had an administration that cared about enforcing antitrust， policies based on outdated models that do not address the problems of the digital age will not even out the playing field.

　　Meanwhile， a rollback of net neutrality will not really hurt the Fangs -they can easily pay whatever fees the ISPs decide to charge.But it could create a premium and economy class internet for consumers.What we need is equal and consistent application of competition rules.That will probably mean coming up with new rules.

　　The vertical merger between Time Warner and AT&T is mentioned to______.

　　Ashow misconceptions about “consumer warfare”

　　Bpromote strict and consistent antitrust practice

　　Cdefend mergers between content and pipe owners

　　Dstress the importance of fair competition

　　参考答案：B

　　[单选题]

　　At a recent hearing on drug prices， Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that by funding federal research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health， “the public is acting as an early investor， putting tons of money in the development of drugs that then become privatized.” The American people， she complained' receive “no return on the investment that they have made.” The witness she was addressing， Harvard Medical School professor Aaron Kesselheim， confirmed the absence of “licensing deals that bring money back into the pockets of the NIH.”

　　Direct licensing deals between companies and government labs are rare by design-a design that has fueled American economic， military and political power for the past seven decades.This structure has been a critical engine of U.S.economic growth since the end of World War II.

　　The American electronics， personal-computer and biotech industries all can trace their origin to federal research.The internet， genetic engineering， 3-D animation in movies， even the Siri voice assistant on iPhones-all sprang from federal research.Yet the government receives no royalties on Disney movies or iPhones.

　　Still， Ms.Ocasio-Cortez is wrong that taxpayers get no return on their investment.The resulting growth from these inventions generates significant government revenue in the form of income and capitalgains taxes on thousands of companies and their millions of employees.Leading the world in science and technology also enhances America's geopolitical power and strengthens national security.

　　The goal of the federal research system has always been to transfer new knowledge and laboratory results as quickly and seamlessly as possible to private industry， which can then translate them into useful products that can boost the economy.The NIH， for example， spends $ 3.9 billion annually on research conducted in national labs.Biotech and pharmaceutical companies spend more than $ 90 billion annually on drug discovery and development.

　　Quantifying the “return” of that taxpayer investment， and separating the contribution of private vs.public investment， is a famously difficult problem in science policy.But as one measure， economists have attributed roughly half of the trillions of dollars in U.S.gross domestic product growth since the end of World War II to technology improvements.Other countries have noticed the model's success and adopted it.To remain the world's leading power， the U.S.needs to invest more in federal research and to transfer its findings seamlessly to industry.Additional taxes on innovation would be a hindrance.

　　A lack of licensing deals between companies and national labs has nothing to do with high drug prices， which reflect the enormous development costs-in cancer studies， for example， more than 95% of drug candidates never make it past testing.Many smart people are trying to figure out how to develop effective treatments while keeping prices low.Some of their ideas were reviewed during last week's hearing.None， however， involve creating more friction between federal research and private industry.Taxing iPhones， Disney movies or cancer drugs for the federal research that enabled them won't do anyone any good.

　　The author examines the federal research system by______.

　　Aanalyzing the causes behind it

　　Bdescribing opposing views on it

　　Clisting its significance

　　Ddescribing the process of its formation

　　参考答案：C

进入焚题库 领取备考资料

　　☛☛☛试题来源于考试网焚题库，进入2022年研究生考试练习题库>>>更多考研试题(每日一练、模拟试卷、历年真题、易错题)等你来做!

扫码进入考研交流群

☟☟☟