2018年翻譯資格考試中級筆譯模擬題：自由貿(mào)易
漢譯英
自從經(jīng)濟學家李嘉圖于1817年提出基本理論以來，經(jīng)濟學方面的經(jīng)典著作都說自由貿(mào)易免除關稅、限額和補貼，也沒有政府的其他小動作，因此會增加雙方的利益。美國的政策是不遺余力地實行這一理論。為什么說自由貿(mào)易可以使大家普遍受益呢?這可以在所謂"相對優(yōu)勢"的理論中找到答案。
打個簡單的比方，假如一位外科醫(yī)生，既擅長動手術，又會做常規(guī)的驗血工作，要取得較好的效益，就應讓她集中精力做手術，同時雇一個能力較差的技術員去搞化驗，因為這樣就能讓這位外科醫(yī)生最有效的利用自己的時間。
引申而言，雖然美國既擅長發(fā)明高級的生物技術，有精于日常的藥品生產(chǎn)，明智的做法還是把藥品生產(chǎn)從美國轉移至生產(chǎn)費用更低的國家。這樣，美國人就可以一方面因廉價產(chǎn)品獲利，一方面把自己的資源用來從事更有價值的事業(yè)。這一向就是討論問題的前提。但是現(xiàn)在薩繆爾森卻提出了不同的看法。如果低工資國家也掌握了先進的產(chǎn)業(yè)，怎么辦?
據(jù)他估計，假如把過多的美國工人失去的較高工資的工作包到國外去，美國從廉價商品的獲益不見得能補償它購買力下降造成的損失。
薩繆爾森斷言："自由貿(mào)易并不總是一種雙贏的局面。"他說，當今世界這個問題尤其突出。因為像印度和中國這樣的大國，他們的工資低的多，可是他們的能力有在不斷提高，美國能生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品，他們幾乎都能生產(chǎn)，美國能提供的服務，他們也幾乎都能夠提供。
假如美國與這些國家進行自由貿(mào)易，它們低的多的工資產(chǎn)生的巨大影響就會把美國的平均工資往下拉。據(jù)他推算，美國的經(jīng)濟仍然會增長，不過比應有的增長速度要低。
參考譯文
Ever since the economist David Ricardo offered the basic theory in 1817, economic scripture has taught that open trade-free of tariffs, quotas, subsidies or other government distortions-improves the well-being of both parties. U.S. policy has implemented this doctrine with a vengeance. Why is free trade said to be universally beneficial? The answer is a doctrine called "comparative advantage".
Here's a simple analogy. If a surgeon is highly skilled both at doing operations and performing routine blood tests, it's more efficient for the surgeon to concentrate on the surgery and pay a less efficient technician to do the tests, since that allows the surgeon to make the most efficient use of her own time.
By extension, even if the United States is efficient both at inventing advanced biotechnologies and at the routine manufacture of medicines, it makes sense for the United States to let the production work migrate to countries that can make the stuff more cheaply. Americans get the benefit of the cheaper products and get to spend their resources on even more valuable pursuits, That, anyway, has always been the premise. But here Samuelson dissents. What if the lower wage country also captures the advanced industry?
If enough higher-paying jobs are lost by American workers to outsourcing, he calculates, then the gain from the cheaper prices may not compensate for the loss in U.S. purchasing power.
"Free trade is not always a win-win situation," Samuelson concludes. It is particularly a problem, he says, in a world where large countries with far lower wages, like India and China, are increasingly able to make almost any product or offer almost any service performed in the United States.
If America trades freely with them, then the powerful drag of their far lower will begin dragging down U.S. average wages. The U.S. economy may still grow, he calculates, but at a lower rate than it otherwise would have.
