单项选择题

Financial engineers don’’t wear white lab coats. They don’’t experiment on rats or perform gas chromatography(气相层析). Their raw material-money-isn’’t as showy as what biologists and physicists investigate. But the innovations they produce will contribute just as much to economic growth.   Maybe more, in fact, because without the science of finance, all other sciences are just a bunch of neat concepts. Ideas begin to tribute to human betterment when they’’re financed-by venture capital, stock offerings, loans, or buyouts. A smoothly operating financial system showers money on good ideas. Equally important, it cuts off funding to tired ideas and tired companies, so their assets can be employed more efficiently elsewhere.   In the 21st century economy, innovation in finance will increase in concert with the increase in competition. Partly because of deregulation and globalization, competition should get tougher, and margins thinner. As products such as home mortgage loans become commoditized, financial- service companies will be forced to get more creative.   Financial technology will keep feeding off information technology. The secret to success will be a strong software platform, which will lower the cost of general services while making it possible to create high-margin variations as well. A few companies that get it right can spin away from the rest and become stronger and stronger.   In the new world of finance, size counts. Big companies enjoy economies of scale and name recognition, and they can be safer because their bets are spread across more regions and market segments. The value of U. S. bank mergers in the first half of 1998 was greater than that of the three previous years combined. The mergers are occurring across industries as well.   At the other extreme will be specialists that survive by doing one thing either very cheaply or exceptionally well. By offering lower prices or better service, specialists will discipline the financial supermarkets; the big guys know their customers can walk away if they get a raw deal. "There is no way we are going to maximize a short-term transactional benefit at the risk of destroying a long-term relationship," says Chase Manhattan Corp. Vice-Chairman Joseph G. Sponholz.   Predictably, the biggest winners from financial innovation will be companies, and families that have complex finances. Banks already show signs of losing interest in people who want just plain checking accounts.   But as incomes and wealth rise, more people will find themselves thrust into the role of asset managers. Businesses, too, will have to become more sophisticated-if only to keep pace with financially innovative rivals. In the absence of financial support, all scientific concepts

A. would remain groups of merely impractical thoughts.
B.could barely benefit the improvement of people’’s life.
C.should hardly lose venture capital and bank loans.
D.might become tired ideas that cannot be implemented.
热门 试题

填空题
Do animals have rights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground- clearing way to start. 71. Actually, it isn’’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human fights, which is something the world does not have.On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. 72. Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements. Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd ,for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account ,and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people―for instance, to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it: how do you reply to somebody who says I don’’t like this contract The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 73. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at allMany deny it. 74. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen at a mistake―a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely logical . In fact it is simply shallow: the confused centre is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning―the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl―is to weigh other’’s interests against one’’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 75. When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.