Iii основы реферирования и аннотирования. Практические рекомендации
Вид материала | Методические рекомендации |
СодержаниеThoroughly modern monopoly |
- Вопрос: Теория и практика реферирования, 8.08kb.
- Обучение реферированию на уроках английского языка дубинина Т. Г. Красноярский государственный, 178.2kb.
- Аннотация примерной программы учебной дисциплины Иностранный язык Цели и задачи дисциплины, 2303.53kb.
- Аннотация примерной программы учебной дисциплины Иностранный язык Цели и задачи дисциплины, 2532.37kb.
- Практические рекомендации 3-е издание, переработанное и дополненное Домодедово 2007, 710.08kb.
- Методические указания и практические рекомендации по прохождению, 964.89kb.
- Практические рекомендации по выбору типовой модели системы управления качеством образования, 825.59kb.
- Практические рекомендации по выбору типовой модели системы управления качеством образования, 869.13kb.
- Т. В. Черткова Бухгалтерский учет, Основы бухгалтерского учета, Практические основы, 29.47kb.
- Iii. Продукия, ее особенности 6 III описание продукции 6 III применяемые технологии, 2464.73kb.
Text C.
1. Переведите следующий текст:
THOROUGHLY MODERN MONOPOLY
Are the barons of high-technology industries a threat to free markets? Some of the world’s antitrust authorities fear that they are. In both America and Europe they look warily at new ventures by giant telecoms firms. In Europe, there are worries that a handful of companies could eventually dominate digital television, once it starts to develop. And America’s Department of Justice frets most about the best-known computer baron of them all: Bill Gates.
Simple statistics can make the case against Microsoft, the computer-software firm of which Mr Gates is the chairman. Over 80% of the world’s personal computers contain Microsoft’s MS-DOS or Windows operating systems; and Microsoft is by far the biggest supplier of desktop software applications.
But these facts mean little. Trustbusters’ fears should be based not merely on the idea that Big is Bad, but on the economics of the industry in question. Moreover, as in any other business where they are worried that consumers might be fleeced, regulators should step in only if they can do better than market forces at keeping powerful companies in check. In nearly all industries (the notable exceptions include utilities, such as gas and water supply), they cannot.
So why might antitrust authorities be especially nervous about high-technology markets? Economic theory suggests several good reasons:
Networks. One possible cause of market failure is that many information-age industries serve their customers via different kinds of networks. These links may be physical - eg, telecommunications systems or computer networks - or they may be more loosely defined, consisting of the users of, say, a particular piece of computer software. Networks bias industries towards monopoly, or at least oligopoly, because on the demand side they are subject to economies of scale: the value placed on membership by a consumer rises with the number of other people on the network.
Systems. Computer software, television decoders and other products of the information age are not used in isolation. They are bits of “systems”, in which one particular component cannot be used without another. There is little point in buying a personal computer without an operating system; and operating systems are useless without applications, such as word-processing programs, databases and spreadsheets.
This may mean that if a firm controls one part of the system, it can lever its way into others - so spreading its monopoly. Microsoft’s critics say that it could, for instance, use profits from the operating-system market to subsidise applications programs. And by embedding programs for free in its operating system, it could remove any incentive for customers to pay extra for rivals’ programs.
Standards. Networks and systems need common standards: without them, network users cannot communicate with one another, and one part of a system might not be compatible with the next. But while standards make industries run more efficiently, they may also have drawbacks of their own.
One is that if a firm creates an industry standard, it can wield enormous market power. Since individual consumers and other firms need to invest time and money in acquiring skills specific to the industry standard (eg, learning how to use Microsoft Windows), they get “locked in”. As switching systems means learning new skills, would-be entrants face a considerable entry barrier.
Another potential drawback, say some economists, is that big companies can use their market power to ensure that their way of doing things becomes the standard - and, in consequence, make themselves more powerful still. There is no guarantee that the standard they impose will be the most efficient.
Innovation. Computing, telecoms and the media have all seen rapid technological change. A stream of new ideas and products has sustained vigorous competition in most areas of these industries, driving costs and prices down. Thus, even if the product market were monopolised, trustbusters could afford to be sanguine if producers of new ideas were still able to make their way to market, or at least to force dominant companies to keep innovating and cutting prices themselves. But if such innovations also became monopolised, antitrust authorities would be right to worry.
Even if any of these worries are justified, there may still not be a good case for antitrust authorities to wade in. The existence of economies of scale in networks, for example, does not mean that monopoly is inevitable: several networks can coexist. If costs are cut in the process, and if the threat of new competition is maintained, consumers will enjoy lower prices.
Jumpy antitrust authorities may try to pre-empt anti-competitive behaviour by framing rules of entry into infant markets. That is more likely to work in mature monopolistic industries, such as utilities, where technological change is slow and trends fairly predictable. The speed of change in high-tech industries has consistently wrong-footed trustbusters. For the time being at least, it may be more sensible to trust the market.
VOCABULARY
1. antitrust | антитрастовый |
2. venture | рискованное начинание, коммерческое предложение, предприятие высокотехнологической отрасли |
3. telecoms firm | фирмы телекоммуникационной связи |
4. trustbuster (s) | сторонники антитрастовых мер |
5. utilities | коммунальные службы (услуги) |
6. oligopoly | олигополия (доминирование на рынке небольшого числа крупных фирм) |
7. innovations | новшества; новые изобретения; инновации |
8. infant markets | зарождающиеся, новые рынки |
- Напишите аннотацию данного текста.
«Business and Businesses»
Topics for discussion
- Multinational corporations are at the heart of the debate over the merits and faults of global economic integration.
- Multinationals and global investment.
- Multinationals and developing countries.
- Vertical integration as a factor for the growth in multinationals.
- Small business - the core of national economies.
- The leaders of high-technology industries pose a threat to free markets.