本期原文選自The Economist 2016-10-01的Leaders板塊文章Why they're wrong沮稚，釋義來自牛津高階七版掂之、劍橋高階學習詞典英漢雙解第3版主儡、21世紀大英漢詞典独旷、元照英美法詞典等資源余赢。如果您也在學習The Economist，歡迎訂閱我的文集The Economist愕难，一起學習交流早龟。英文修習者可以通過學習文中詞匯，然后將商論的官方譯文回譯成英文猫缭，再對照英文原文進行比較葱弟，找出差距，以此提高自己的英文水平猜丹。

In September 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing【1】. John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently【2】 on the merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made in The Economist, a fledgling【3】 newspaper. Mr Bright told his audience that when canvassing【4】, he had explained “how stonemasons, shoemakers, carpenters and every kind of artisan suffered if the trade of the country was restricted.” His speech in Liverpool was roundly cheered【5】.

【1】overflow本義是溢出芝加、漫出；overflow (with sth) 擠滿了人

【2】eloquent 雄辯的射窒，有口才的藏杖，傳神的；副詞eloquently脉顿；名詞eloquence

【3】fledgling新生的蝌麸；fledged 羽翼已豐的；fully-fledged 成熟的祥楣，完全合格的

【4】canvass (sb) (for sth) 游說，拉選票汉柒；to carry out a canvass（名詞）; canvasser游說者碾褂，(選舉中)監(jiān)督投票的人

【5】roundly cheered 贏得滿堂喝彩乓诽；roundly 有力地帜羊，廣泛地

It is hard to imagine, 173 years later, a leading Western politician being lauded for a defence of free trade. Neither candidate in America’s presidential election is a champion【6】. Donald Trump, incoherent on so many fronts, is clear in this area: unfair competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens to dismantle【7】 the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and start a trade war with China. To her discredit【8】, Hillary Clinton now denounces the TPP, a pact she helped negotiate. In Germany, one of the world’s biggest exporters, tens of thousands took to the streets earlier this month to march against a proposed trade deal between the European Union and the United States (see article).

【6】champion 捍衛(wèi)者讼育，擁護者

【7】dismantle 本義是拆開，引申義為廢除稠集，取消

【8】to sb's discredit 使某人名譽掃地

The backlash against trade is just one symptom of a pervasive anxiety about the effects of open economies. Britain’s Brexit vote reflected concerns about the impact of unfettered migration on public services, jobs and culture. Big businesses are slammed for using foreign boltholes【9】 to dodge taxes. Such critiques contain some truth: more must be done to help those who lose out【10】 from openness. But there is a world of difference between improving globalisation and reversing it. The idea that globalisation is a scam that benefits only corporations and the rich could scarcely be more wrong.

【9】bolthole躲避處奶段；bolt是螺栓的意思，bolthole是螺栓孔剥纷，這里是引申義痹籍；bolthole to dodge taxes 避稅天堂（跟The Economist 2016-9-17的Leaders板塊文章A giant problem中的tax heaven意思相近）

【10】lose out 喪失，得不到

The real pro-poor policy

Exhibit A【11】 is the vast improvement in global living standards in the decades after the second world war, which was underpinned by an explosion in world trade. Exports of goods rose from 8% of world GDP in 1950 to almost 20% a half-century later. Export-led growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South Korea.

【11】Exhibit A 主要證據(jù)

Plainly【12】, Western voters are not much comforted by this extraordinary transformation in the fortunes of emerging markets. But at home, too, the overall benefits of free trade are unarguable【13】. Exporting firms are more productive and pay higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of America’s exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal, even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global GDP.

【12】plainly 直截了當?shù)鼗扌拱椎囟撞唵蚊髁说?/p>

【13】unarguable 無可置疑的；unarguably 毋庸置疑地

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on【14】 anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.

【14】slap sth on sth 強制實行

Openness delivers other benefits. Migrants improve not just their own lives but the economies of host countries: European immigrants who arrived in Britain since 2000 have been net contributors to the exchequer【15】, adding more than ￡20 billion ($34 billion) to the public finances between 2001 and 2011. Foreign direct investment delivers competition, technology, management know-how and jobs, which is why China’s overly cautious moves to encourage FDI disappoint (see article).

【15】exchequer 國庫悠垛，（英國）財政部

What have you done for me lately?

None of this is to deny that globalisation has its flaws. Since the 1840s advocates of free trade have known that, though the great majority benefit, some lose out. Too little has been done to help these people. Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones. With hindsight【16】, politicians in Britain were too blithe【17】 about the pressures that migration from new EU member states in eastern Europe brought to bear on public services. And although there are no street protests about the speed and fickleness【18】 in the tides of short-term capital, its ebb and flow【19】 across borders have often proved damaging, not least in the euro zone’s debt-ridden【20】 countries.

【16】hindsight 后見之明吼砂，事后諸葛亮

【17】blithe 漫不經(jīng)心的

【18】fickleness 變化無常；fickle 變化無常的

【19】ebb and flow起伏消長鼎文；ebb 落潮渔肩，退潮

【20】debt-ridden債臺高筑的；-ridden 充滿拇惋，充斥

As our special report this week argues, more must be done to tackle these downsides. America spends a paltry【21】 0.1% of its GDP, one-sixth of the rich-country average, on policies to retrain workers and help them find new jobs. In this context, it is lamentable【22】 that neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton offers policies to help those whose jobs have been affected by trade or cheaper technology. On migration, it makes sense to follow the example of Denmark and link local-government revenues to the number of incomers, so that strains on schools, hospitals and housing can be eased. Many see the rules that bind signatories to trade pacts as an affront【23】 to democracy. But there are ways that shared rules can enhance national autonomy. Harmonising norms on how multinational firms are taxed would give countries greater command over their public finances. A co-ordinated approach to curbing volatile capital flows would restore mastery over national monetary policy.

【21】paltry 微不足道的

【22】lamentable 令人遺憾的周偎，令人惋惜的；lament 對……表示失望撑帖；挽歌蓉坎，悼詞

【23】affront 侮辱，冒犯

These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their backs on【24】 globalisation. The case for openness remains much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the repeal of the Corn Laws【25】. There are more—and more varied—opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s, free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right now.

【24】turn sb's back on sth 本義是轉身背對著胡嘿，引申為背棄蛉艾，反對

【25】Corn Laws 《谷物法》，對各種谷物進口規(guī)定保護性關稅的法律，于1846年被廢止勿侯。

【小結】（參考官方譯文）

1843年9月的一天拓瞪，利物浦皇家劇場擠滿了人（overflowing），約翰?布萊特在臺上滔滔不絕地（eloquently）論述取消食品進口關稅的諸多好處助琐，這與當時新生的（fledgling）《經(jīng)濟學人》的觀點相呼應祭埂。他說，在拉票（canvassing）時他解釋了如果英國的貿(mào)易受到限制兵钮，各行各業(yè)的手藝人會遭什么罪蛆橡，他的演講贏得了滿堂喝彩（roundly cheered）。而今掘譬，兩位美國總統(tǒng)候選人都不是自由貿(mào)易捍衛(wèi)者（champion）泰演。唐納德·特朗普聲稱要廢除（dismantle）北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定。希拉里·克林頓也抨擊了她曾協(xié)助談判的跨太平洋伙伴關系協(xié)定葱轩，這令她信譽盡失（to her discredit）睦焕。人們對開放經(jīng)濟的影響充滿焦慮，而對貿(mào)易的強烈反對（backlash）只是其中一個表象而已酿箭。大公司因利用國外避稅天堂（boltholes）逃稅（dodge taxes）而備受抨擊复亏。所以必須幫助那些經(jīng)濟開放過程中的輸家（those who lose out from openness）。自由貿(mào)易才是真正有利窮人的政策（pro-poor policy）缭嫡，其首要證據(jù)（Exhibit A）是依靠（underpined by）全球貿(mào)易的爆炸式發(fā)展缔御，二戰(zhàn)后數(shù)十年里全球生活水平得到巨大改善。坦白地說（plainly）妇蛀，新興市場國家命運發(fā)生了非凡轉變耕突，這讓西方選民不太舒服。但在國內评架，自由貿(mào)易的總體效益也毋庸置疑（unarguable）眷茁。相比之下，貿(mào)易保護主義對消費者和工人都無益處纵诞。2009年奧巴馬對中國輪胎強制實行（slapped on）反傾銷稅之后上祈，美國消費者轉而購買非中國產(chǎn)輪胎的成本高得多浙芙。貿(mào)易開放還會帶來其他好處登刺。2000年以來，進入英國的歐洲大陸移民一直是英國國庫的凈貢獻者（net contributors to the exchequer）嗡呼。然而纸俭，全球化不無缺憾。從1999到2011年南窗，美國的制造業(yè)就業(yè)崗位大量減少揍很，這與中國的競爭有關郎楼。事后看來（With hindsight），對于歐盟東歐新成員國移民給公共服務造成的壓力窒悔，英國政客也太掉以輕心（blithe）呜袁。雖然對于短期資本快速而無常（fickleness）的流動還沒出現(xiàn)街頭抗議，但資本的跨境涌入和流出（ebb and flow）卻常常造成損害蛉迹，尤其是在歐元區(qū)里那些債臺高筑（debt-ridden）的國家更是如此傅寡。要想解決這些問題放妈，還需更多舉措北救。對于再培訓工人、幫助失業(yè)工人再就業(yè)的政策方面芜抒，美國的支出微不足道（paltry）珍策，僅為其GDP的0.1%。在這種情況下宅倒，特朗普和希拉里都沒有提出幫助失業(yè)人群的政策攘宙，這很可悲（lamentable）。許多人認為貿(mào)易協(xié)定綁定簽署國的做法是對民主的侵犯（affront）拐迁，但還是有辦法通過共享的規(guī)則來強化國家自主權蹭劈。建立跨國公司征稅的協(xié)調規(guī)范，協(xié)同控制資本劇烈流動线召，這些都是對貿(mào)易保護主義和本土主義鼓吹者的明智回應铺韧。最糟糕的結果是各國轉而反對（turn their backs on）全球化。本刊初創(chuàng)時支持廢除《谷物法》（the Corn Laws）缓淹，而今仍需要保持開放哈打。與封閉經(jīng)濟體（closed economies）相比，開放經(jīng)濟體（open economies）會有更多機會讯壶，讓人民走上富裕（better off）之路料仗。19世紀40年代以來，自由貿(mào)易主義者一直相信封閉經(jīng)濟體對權貴階層有利伏蚊，而對勞工階層不利立轧。他們的觀點在那時是對的，而現(xiàn)在也是正確的躏吊。

注：本文僅供學習交流之用氛改，不代表作者觀點。