题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
State-owned televisions accept ads in the following countries except ______.
A．Portugal
B．Sweden
C．France
D．Italy
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“State-owned televisions accept…”相关的问题
According to the text, which one about Qualys is TRUE？
A．It is a state-owned business company.
B．It is the first company that supports service-oriented model.
C．It can streamline security and tackle most of service delivery.
D．It doesn't focus mostly on vulnerability management.
A．repay some of its huge national debts and liabilities.
B．stop investing public funds into enterprises.
C．harvest a big amount of tax revenue.
D．help some depressed industrial sectors to recover.
The chief reason for the population of television among United States advertisers is that it it reaches a vast number of people at the same time. While it can cost well over 100,000 dollars, a 30- second commercial on network television can be seen and heard by as many as 25 million viewers. For manufacturers who must make prospects aware of their products and convince them of its benefits immediately, there is nothing as efficient as television advertising.
Because it employs motion as well as words, graphics, sound, and music, television is a valuable medium for products that lend themselves to demonstration. No other medium is effective in showing how quickly an automobile can accelerate or how well a brand of wristwatch will stand up under abuse and continue to run. Similarly, it is an ideal medium such as long-distance telephone calls.
Which medium carries most national advertising in Spain？
A．Radio.
B．Newspaper.
C．Television.
D．Internet.
That leaves President Jorge Batlle with a problem. Uruguay has been in recession for the past two years, mainly because of low prices for its agricultural exports, and because of Argentina's woes. But public debt is at 45% of GDP, and rising. Some economists argue that privatization would give a boost to the economy, by attracting foreign investment, and by lowering costs. CERES, a think-tank, having compared tariffs for public services in Uruguay and its neighbors, believes liberalization could save businesses and households the equivalent of 4% of GDP annually, raise growth and produce a net 45,000 jobs.
The polls that show continuing support for public ownership also show growing opposition to monopolies. So Mr. Baffle plans to keep the state firms, but let private ones either compete with them or bid to operate their services under contract.
The opposition Broad Front and the trade unions are resisting. They have gathered enough signatures to demand a "public consultation" next month on a new law to allow private operators in the ports and railways—a referendum on whether to hold a referendum on the issue. Alberto Bension, the finance minister, admits the vote will be a crucial indicator of how far the government can push. But he notes that, since 1992, attempts to overturn laws by calling referendums have flopped.
The liberalization of telecoms has already begun. Bell South, an American firm, is the first private cell-phone operator. There are plans to license others, and talk of allowing competition for fixed-line telephones. A new law allows private companies to import gas from Argentina to generate electricity in competition with the state utility. Another plan would strip Ancap, the state oil firm, of its monopoly of imports. It has already been allowed to seek a private partner to modernize its refinery.
Harder tasks lie ahead. The state-owned banks are burdened with problem loans to farmers and home owners. And Mr. Batlle shows no appetite for cutting the bureaucracy.
After a year in office, the president is popular. He has created a cross-party commission to investigate "disappearances" during Uruguay's military dictatorship of 1976-85. The unions are weakened by unemployment. At CERES, Ernesto Talvi argues that Mr. Baffle should note his own strength, and push ahead more boldly. But that is not the Uruguayan way.
Uruguay in the 1990s______.
A．moved in the privatizing wave
B．adopted the same measure as that of Argentina
C．sticked to its old economic mode
D．developed very slowly
In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe's energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home for its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well-flagged tactical retreat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 600% of the market.
Since Europe's energy market is worth 350 billion ($309 Billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market.
In other areas, especially to do with Europe's tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. Six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure—a blatant piece of re-regulation—but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatisfied liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster".
The summit's other achievements are still more fragile. Europe's leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research？ Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans' GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space."
According to those who support the liberalization of Europe's energy markets, energy supply monopoly is unlikely on the grounds that
A．business users will choose from supplier competitors.
B．energy markets call for cross-trade coordination.
C．competition will hardly be confined to business users.
D．energy suppliers might cater to economic liberalization.
By 1979, the total amount of debt, liabilities, and losses for state-controlled enterprises in the UK topped 3 billion annually. By selling off many of these companies, particularly those in the depressed industrial sector, the government decreased its debt burden and ceased pumping public funds into money losing enterprises. According to government spokesperson Alistair McBride, "Far from past practice of throwing good money after bad, the Queen's government this year expects to take in 34 billion from the proceeds of the sale". That, say some analysts, may only be the beginning. Privatization has not only been credited with rescuing whole industries but the nation's economy to boot.
Due to increased tax revenues from the newly privatized companies along with a rebound in the overall economy, economic forecasters predict that Britain will be able to repay nearly 12.5% of the net national debt within two years. That is good news indeed for the economy as a whole at a time when many sectors are desperate for any ray of sunshine. British Airways this week announced a 20% jump in overall ticket sales and profits over this quarter a year ago. British Gas announced its first profitable quarter in nine years. At Associated British Ports, a new labor contract was finalized, the first union contract signed at the port without a work stoppage in twelve years. Closer to home for most Britons, the nation's phone service, British Telecom, no longer puts new subscribers on a waiting list. Prior to privatization, new customers would sometimes have to wait months before phone service could be installed in their home. Now, according to a company press release, British Telecom is promising 24-hour turnaround for all new customers.
Part of this improved productivity has to do with new efforts to allow employees to hold a stake in the company's future. Companies now give their employees stock options that allow employees to share in the company's success (and profits). The response has been enthusiastic to say the least. At British Aerospace; 89% of those eligible to buy company shares did so. At British Telecom nearly 92% of eligible employees took part. Finally, at Associated British Ports, long synonymous with union disagreements, walkouts, and labor strife, almost 90% of employees now can call themselves owners of the company.
"When people have a personal stake in something", said Henry Dundee of Associated British Ports, "they think about it, they care about, they work to make it prosper". At the National Freight Consortium, itself no stranger to labor problems, the new employee-owners actually voted down an employee pay-increase and, pressured union representatives to relax demands for increased wages and expanded benefits. "Privatization was only the start", says one market analyst, "what we may have here is a new industrial revolution".
UK's experience in 1979 demonstrates that _____.
A．government control can be based on free market principles.
B．privatization is the only way out for UK's economic development.
C．state-owned enterprises can benefit a lot from privatization.
D．a major transformation in economic system is feasible.
Part A
Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points)
The European Union's Bareelona summit, which ended on March 16th, was played out against the usual backdrop of noisy "anti-globalisation" demonstrations and massive security. If nothing else, the demonstrations illustrated that economic liberalization in Europe-the meeting's main topic—presents genuine political difficulties. Influential sections of public opinion continue to oppose anything that they imagine threatens "social Europe", the ideal of a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
In this climate of public opinion, it is not surprising that the outcome in Barcelona was modest. The totemic issue was opening up Europe's energy markets. The French government has fought hard to preserve a protected market at home for its state-owned national champion, Electricite de France (EDF). At Barcelona it made a well flagged tactical re treat. The summiteers concluded that from 2004 industrial users across Europe would be able to choose from competing energy suppliers, which should account for "at least" 60% of the market.
Since Europe's energy market is worth 350 billion ($309 billion) a year and affects just about every business, this is a breakthrough. But even the energy deal has disappointing aspects. Confining competition to business users makes it harder to show that economic liberalization is the friend rather than the foe of the ordinary person. It also allows EDF to keep its monopoly in the most profitable chunk of the French market.
In other areas, especially to do with Europe's tough labor markets, the EU is actually going backwards. The summiteers declared that "disincentives against taking up jobs" should be removed; 20m jobs should be created within the EU by 2010. But only three days after a Barcelona jamboree, the European Commission endorsed a new law that would give all temporary-agency workers the same rights as full-timers within six weeks of getting their feet under the desk. Six out of 20 commissioners did, unusually, vote against the measure—a blatant piece of re-regulation—but the social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, was unrepentant, indeed triumphant. A dissatisfied liberaliser in the commission called the directive "an absolute disaster".
The summit's other achievements are still more fragile. Europe's leaders promised to increase spending on "research and development" from its current figure of 1.9% of GDP a year to 3%. But how will European politicians compel businesses to invest more in research？ Nobody seems to know. And the one big research project agreed on at Barcelona, the Galileo satellite-positioning system, which is supposed to cost 3.2 billion of public money, is of dubious commercial value, since the Europeans already enjoy free access to the Americans' GPA system. Edward Bannerman, head of economics at the Centre for European Reform, a Blairite think-tank, calls Galileo "the common agricultural policy in space".
According to those who support the liberalization of Europe's energy markets, energy supply monopoly is unlikely on the grounds that
A．business users will choose from supplier competitors.
B．energy markets call for cross trade coordination.
C．competition will hardly be confined to business users.
D．energy suppliers might cater to economic liberalization.
