Question

    Attacking billionaires is gaining popularity - especially among candidates to be America’s president. “Every billionaire is a policy failure,” goes a common left-wing slogan. In Britain’s election, too, the super-rich are under fire. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, says that a fair society would contain none.

Left-wingers’ criticizing inequality is nothing new. But the idea that huge personal fortunes are made  possible only when  government goes wrong  is a  more  novel and  serious idea. It is also misguided.

The left’s accusation is based on a bit of truth. When competition is fierce and fair, persistently high profits should be difficult to sustain. Yet on both sides of the Atlantic some companies make large profits in concentrated markets, and some billionaires have become successful where competition has failed. For example, Facebook and Google dominate online advertising. About a fifth of America’s billionaires made their money in industries in which government control or market failure is common.

Yet many others operate in competitive markets. The retailers owned by Mike Ashley, one of Mr Corbyn’s targets, are known for low prices and cruel competition. For every Mark Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook, there are several technology entrepreneurs( 创 业 者 )with lots of rivals. Nobody can seriously accuse these innovators of having dominated their markets or of depending on state favors. The same goes for sportsmen such as Michael Jordan or musicians like Jay-Z, billionaires both.

When capitalism functions well, competition reduces profits for some but also produces them for others as entrepreneurs seize more markets. Their success will eventually set off another cycle of disruption( 颠 覆 ), but in the meantime fortunes can be made. This process creates vast benefits for society. According to estimates by William Nordhaus, an economist, between 1948 and 2001 innovators captured only 2% of the value they created. Perhaps that is why billionaires are tolerated even by countries with perfect social-democratic system: Sweden and Norway have more billionaires per person than America does.

Taxes should be increased progressively. But that does not justify limitless redistribution or punitive(惩罚性的)tax increase. Ms Warren’s wealth tax has already doubled once during her campaign. Thomas Piketty, an economist behind many of the most-cited inequality statistics, proposes a wealth tax of up to 90% on the richest billionaires. Such expropriation(征收)would surely discourage motivation to innovate and to allocate capital efficiently. An economy with fewer entrepreneurs might have fewer billionaires but would ultimately be less dynamic, leaving everyone worse off.

Whatever Mr Corbyn says, Britain is hardly corrupt by global standards. But it does have a problem with inherited wealth, the source of one-fifth of billionaires’ fortunes. Higher inheritance taxes would be welcome there and in America, where it is too easy to pass wealth between the generations. Besides, a broader agenda of attacking monopoly(垄断)while maintaining dynamism would help weaken over-protection of intellectual-property and copyright, and promote competition in old and new industries alike.

Doing all this would achieve much more than an unfair attack on the rich - and without the associated damage. By all means, correct policy failures. But billionaires are usually the wrong target.

1.The examples of Facebook and Google are mentioned in Paragraph 3 to show _____.

A.the situation is unique to America

B.most billionaires benefit from government’s protection

C.some billionaires do succeed in less competitive situations

D.profits are impossible in fiercely competitive industries

2.What will happen when capitalism works well?

A.Tax on the rich will be increased as a punishment.

B.More wealth will be produced for the whole society.

C.Billionaires will get most of the wealth they have created.

D.Billionaires are not accepted even in social-democratic societies.

3.The writer thinks expropriation like Thomas Piketty’s proposal will _____.

A.increase taxes progressively B.allocate capital more efficiently

C.prevent economic development D.motivate people to strive for success

4.What does the writer mainly tell us in the last but one paragraph?

A.Intellectual property and copyright protection must be weakened.

B.It makes no sense for the government to increase inheritance taxes.

C.It’s possible to promote market competition without fighting monopoly.

D.Practical measures can be taken to deal with the gap between rich and poor.

Answer

1.C

2.B

3.C

4.D

【解析】

这是一篇议论文。在美国的总统候选人当中，打击富人是很受欢迎的一种政治观点。这篇文章很好的分析了这种观点的根基以及问题。并传达给读者一个信息：只有极少数亿万富翁是由于政策失败导致的，不分青红皂白地攻击超级富豪弊大于利。

1.细节理解题。题干询问第三段脸书与谷歌的例子是为了证明什么的？例子是为主题服务的。第三段的例子前面的中心句是“Yet on both sides of the Atlantic some companies make large profits in concentrated markets, and some billionaires have become successful where competition has failed。 然而，在大西洋两岸，一些公司在集中的市场中获得丰厚的利润。一些亿万富翁在竞争失败的地方蓬勃发展起来。”，由此可知本段中的举例主要是说明一些百亿富翁是在更少的竞争环境下获得成功。故选C。

2.细节理解题。抓住题目中的关键词when capitalism works well定位文中第五段When capitalism functions well, competition reduces profits for some but also produces them for others as entrepreneurs seize more markets. （当资本运行好的时候，竞争会降低一些人的利润，但是同时可以让一些创业者进入市场）和This process creates vast benefits for society. （这个过程可以为社会创造很大的利益）可知，当资本运行好的时候，会为社会创造更多的财富。故选B。

3.细节理解题。抓住题目中的关键词expropriation like Thomas Piketty’s proposal定位于文中第六段最后两句，即Such expropriation(征收)would surely discourage motivation to innovate and to allocate capital efficiently. An economy with fewer entrepreneurs might have fewer billionaires but would ultimately be less dynamic, leaving everyone worse off.（这样的征收会打击革新与合理分配资本的积极性。几乎没有或者很少有创业者的经济最终会变得没有活力，让每个人变得更糟），由此可知，Thomas Piketty的建议会阻碍经济发展。故选C。

4.主旨大意题。倒数第二段主要涉及到了两个方面的内容：一个是在英国和美国可以征收高的遗产税，第二个是更广泛的打击垄断的议程应该被实行。再由最后一段中第一句“Doing all this would achieve much more than an unfair attack on the rich - and without the associated damage.（这样做比单纯不公平地打击富人有意义的多---而且没有相关的危害）”可知，倒数第二段主要介绍了能够缩小穷人与富人差距的方法。故选D。