Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States international Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in thee United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company, №. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports-and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad-the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.
Perhaps the most brazen ease occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
The passage is chiefly concerned with _____.
- A.arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations
- B.warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences
- C.demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government
- D.advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports
正确答案及解析
正确答案
解析
文章首先说到许多美国公司正在对于进口竞争寻求法律保护,然后讲到由于受到全球化的影响,这种法律其实更多的保护了国外的进口企业,而非国内企业。由此可见,the application of laws has unintended consequences。
你可能感兴趣的试题
关于绒毛膜癌及侵蚀性葡萄胎的临床分期,II期是指()
-
- A.病变局限于子宫
- B.病变转移多个脏器
- C.病变扩散,仍局限于附件、阴道及阔韧带等生殖器官
- D.病变转移到肝脏
- E.肺内转移病灶总面积大于一侧肺的1/2
- 查看答案
28岁已婚女性,2年前因输卵管妊娠切除右侧输卵管,继发不孕2年,现停经40天,阴道流血10天,尿HCG(+),B超提示右侧输卵管妊娠3cm×2cm×2cm,盆腔无积液。选择哪种治疗为宜
-
- A.米非司酮治疗
- B.MTX治疗
- C.双侧髂内动脉结扎
- D.患侧卵巢部分切除
- E.患侧输卵管切除
- 查看答案
40岁已婚育妇女,因停经50天,下腹剧烈疼痛2小时急诊。检查:血压70/50mmHg,腹部移动浊音(+),剖腹探查见左输卵管妊娠破裂型,左输卵管包裹于血块中。选择哪种治疗为宜
-
- A.米非司酮治疗
- B.MTX治疗
- C.双侧髂内动脉结扎
- D.患侧卵巢部分切除
- E.患侧输卵管切除
- 查看答案
40岁已婚育女性,因"先兆流产"做流产刮宫术,术中发现为宫颈妊娠,大量流血,经注射止血药,局部填塞等措施仍血流如注,血压80/60mmHg。此时宜选择哪种治疗
-
- A.米非司酮治疗
- B.MTX治疗
- C.双侧髂内动脉结扎
- D.患侧卵巢部分切除
- E.患侧输卵管切除
- 查看答案
36岁已婚女性,停经45天,阴道流血7天,下腹剧烈疼痛2小时入院。检查:患者面色苍白,腹部移动浊音(+)。剖腹探查诊断为卵巢妊娠,选择哪种治疗方法为宜
-
- A.米非司酮治疗
- B.MTX治疗
- C.双侧髂内动脉结扎
- D.患侧卵巢部分切除
- E.患侧输卵管切除
- 查看答案