В. И. Иванов - Английский язык в экономике, бухучете и банковско-финансовой деятельности

Of all major market economies, the rise of big business preceded that of big government only in the United States. And when big business came, no countervailing force resisted its initial impact. Thus, the manifold problems it raised provoked a powerful public response that immediately moved into the realm of politics. In the closing years of the nineteenth century, the United States became the only major industrial power to enact legislation explicitly designed to curb the power of large corporations. Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, and the Federal Trade Commission and Clayton acts in 1914. The United States was the only country to attempt such a thoroughgoing regulation of railroads as that embodied in the Hepburn Act of 1906, which gave new teeth to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. In other nations, railroads were either publicly owned or smaller than the gigantic American companies, several of which employed more than 100,000 persons. Although many other countries eventually adopted antimonopoly laws, the Sherman Antitrust Act remains the most stringent in the world.

American regulatory practice during the twentieth century was shaped by three outbursts of legislation: during the Progressive Era (1901–1914), the New Deal (1933–1938), and the later period of focused concern for safety, social justice, and environmental protection (1964–1971). Although several exceptions might be noted, this legislation and the agencies it created generally were designed to restrain the power of business. An appropriate symbol is the giant statuary outside the Federal Trade Commission building in Washington, which depicts powerful, unruly horses being held in check by the hand of a man. American agencies with direct authority over business practices, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, remain far stronger than their foreign counterparts.

In the United States, then, regulatory behavior in the twentieth century was typically restrictive. In other countries it was more often promotional. In some ways this represents a reversal of nineteenth-century practice, when the United States was the most hospitable of all countries to the conduct of business enterprise. The more precise point is that during the twentieth century, the promotional activities of the American government differed in kind from those elsewhere. In other countries, such measures focused on industrial planning, sectoral growth, and targeted key industries. Seen most clearly in the post-World War II activities of Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, industrial planning had many counterparts elsewhere: in French indicative planning of the 1950s and 1960s, in the corporatist interlocks of German banks, labor unions, and large firms, even in the experiments under Labour governments in Britain. None of these practices, all of which fall under the general rubric of «industrial policy,» took firm root in America, with the sole exception of what pejoratively has been called «Pentagon capitalism.»

In America, nearly all promotional management of the macroeconomy was a post-New Deal phenomenon and was Keynesian in outlook. It looked not to individual firms, industries, or sectors but to aggregates of the major national income accounts: consumption, investment, and government spending. It operated primarily on the demand side through management of fiscal policy. Its general aim was to counteract violent swings of the business cycle such as those that brought severe depressions in the 1890s and 1930s. The ideas that motivated it were complex, involving such Keynesian arcana as equations designed to compute the «autonomous spending multiplier» as a tool for setting tax policy. At the height of its influence in the 1960s, some Keynesians spoke confidently of fine-tuning the entire national economy. Subsequent events, including the Vietnam War, the combined high inflation and high unemployment of the 1970s, and the soaring fiscal and trade deficits of the 1980s, brought an embarrassed silence on the subject of fine-tuning.

Yet the fact remained that in the decades after World War II, the American state explicitly accepted the principle of a mixed economy and with it governmental responsibility for national economic well-being. This became evident starting with the Employment Act of 1946, an avowedly Keynesian measure, and it continued through all postwar presidencies – even that of Ronald Reagan, who, though no Keynesian, oversaw the most drastic (and hazardous) changes in fiscal policy since World War II. This overt acceptance of responsibility for economic performance epitomized the revolution in thinking about the connections among ideas, policies, and outcomes in the relationship between government and the economy.

Thomas K. McCraw

EXERCISES

Exercise 1.Answer the following questions:

1. Why there was no serious conflict between the welfare of the American people and that of its business units until 1880s? 2. Was the percentage of federal workers in the U.S. in the 19 thcentury different from that in the late 20 thcentury?

Exercise 2.Translate into English.

1. Даже в 19 веке уровень жизни в США, в целом, был выше, чем в Европе или Азии, по крайней мере для белых. 2. В 20 веке такой показатель, как валовый национальный продукт на душу населения, почти всегда сохранялся выше, чем в любой другой стране; редкое исключение составляли лишь малые высокоразвитые государства такие, как Швейцария и Дания, а также богатые нефтью государства такие, как Кувейт. 3. По всем другим показателям уровня жизни США превосходили и Германию, и Швейцарию. 4. В заключительные годы 19 века США стали единственной крупнейшей промышленно развитой державой, принявшей законодательство, явно расчитанное на свертывание могущества крупных корпораций. 5. Ни одна из этих стратегий не укоренилась в США.

Exercise 3.Subjects for discussion:

1. Can the Government influence in any way a nation’s economy?

2. Is Government’s interference in the country’s economy good or bad for the economy?

By «economic growth» economists mean, in the first place, annual increases in the nation’s total output of goods and services – its national product. Gross national product (gnp) does not take into account the wastage of the machinery and other capital goods used in production. Net national product (nnp) makes allowances for capital replacements. Although nnp includes final consumer goods and services, it counts only net additions to capital goods. It is therefore a better measure of real growth than gnp. The reason only final consumer goods are included is that care must be taken to avoid double counting; the output of bread is included, but the output of wheat used to produce the bread is not.

The monetary equivalent of national product – national income – can be measured in various ways. One is to measure it as the «value added» by economic activity in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and so on. (Value added is calculated by summing output at producers’ prices and deducting the cost of the fuel and raw materials used to produce the output.) Another way is to measure it as the aggregate value of the final products of the economy. Still another is to total the incomes accruing to persons supplying different productive factors (such as wages and salaries, profits, rents). Each of these approaches yields the same total, provided a consistent scheme of valuation is used. The component detail of each, however, illuminates different facets of the process of production, distribution, and consumption of the nation’s output, and each serves a different use.