叙述政府与企业的assignemnt

中世纪时期，莱茵河是欧洲最重要的商业航道。与现代的高速公路是一样的，像这样的航道也是需要收费的。通行的费用多少由由神圣罗马帝国皇帝来决定的，但是地方性的管理人员还要收取额外的过路费用。人们把这样的行为称为“贵族强盗”。这些地方性的管理人员严重的阻碍了当地贸易的发展，帝国为了消除他们的势力，不得不选择超高的代价来进行惩罚。
今天企业与国家之间的关系还存在像中世纪时期这种地方与中央之间的角斗。当下的公司如同中世纪是期运作在莱茵河上的船只，只要它们在本国境内运营，就必须支付当地的一些相关的费用，但是如果当地的政府收取的费用过高，贸易就会遭到限制。

IN THE MIDDLE AGES the Rhine was Europe’s most important commercial waterway. Like many modern highways, it was a toll route. Toll points were meant to be approved by the Holy Roman Emperor, but local landowners often charged river traffic for passing through. These “robber barons”, as they became known, were a serious impediment to trade, and imperial forces had to take costly punitive action to remove them.

2 The relationship between business and the state bears some resemblance to this medieval tussle. Like those Rhine boatmen, the companies operating within national borders must pay something towards the cost of supporting commerce, but if the tolls are excessive, trade will suffer. At least some of the world’s 200 or so countries will be tempted to act as robber barons, charging the equivalent of protection money to the companies they deal with.

3 Some people on the left would argue that the label should be applied in the opposite way. In the late 19th century the term “robber barons” came to refer to the American railway magnates who used their monopoly power to drive competitors out of business. Politicians such as the trustbusting presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft crusaded against such corporate power.
4 Since then that anti-corporate mood has never quite dissipated. Modern multinationals are sometimes portrayed as overmighty, using their wealth to subvert politicians through their campaign contributions and lobbying power and to evade their social responsibility.
5 Much political rhetoric across the spectrum suggests that the relationship between companies and the state is in essence antagonistic. Those on the right argue that government interferes far too much in the process of wealth generation and hinders rather than helps commerce. Those on the left depict business as a ravenous predator that government needs to control, exploiting workers and consumers and evading taxes.

6 All that combative talk made it harder to respond to the 2007-08 banking crisis. The collapse of the subprime-mortgage market and the subsequent rescue of the banking sector created a sense of anger towards the financial elite which turned into a wider frustration with the corporate world. The crisis led to a plunge in tax revenues and a sharp rise in budget deficits, prompting governments to pursue austerity programmes that imposed tax increases on many middle-class people and cut the benefits of the less well-off. Such a climate breeds resentment of companies that are seen as not paying their fair share of taxes or of exploiting their monopoly pricing power.
7 In response, governments have introduced strict new regulation, particularly for banks, and sought to crack down on the use of offshore tax havens. But they have also recognised that they cannot afford to drive multinational business away. Some countries, including Britain, have cut their tax rates in order to attract new business from abroad. “Countries have got to see themselves as being an attractive shop window for multinational investment,” says John Cridland, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry. Even France’s president, François Hollande, who in 2012 came into office on a wave of anti-capitalist rhetoric, last month announced a €30 billion ($41 billion) cut in corporate taxes in an attempt to revive a stagnant economy.

8 For all their differences, the two sides need each other. Governments rely on businesses to drive economic growth, create jobs and generate the exports to ensure that their countries can pay their way in the world. Multinationals are particularly important, argues Ted Moran of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an American think-tank: they pay higher wages than other companies, export more and have a superior record in research and development. And countries would be unwise to rely on multinationals staying put come what may: WPP, an advertising and marketing group, moved its headquarters from London to Dublin in 2008 in a dispute over tax on overseas profits, then moved it back again after the rules were changed. With growth in emerging markets so much faster than in the developed world, locations like Singapore or Dubai are becoming ever more attractive.

9 Businesses, for their part, need governments. It is not just that they provide the legal systems and the basic security that allow companies to operate in the first place; they also educate the workers on whom firms depend, and they create the infrastructure—roads, railways and air-traffic control—that enables companies to get their goods to market. Moreover, governments undertake a lot of scientific research that businesses can turn into commercial products, from the internet to satellite positioning systems to drug development.
10 In many industries the government is also a key customer; after all, a typical government in a developed country spends around 40% of GDP. Defence is an obvious example, but the pharmaceutical industry is also important: national health services are huge buyers of drugs, and government bodies have to approve new products before they come to market. Construction, too, depends heavily on government action: a boost to infrastructure spending can make a big difference to the industry’s prospects.

11 Government policy also has serious (and sometimes unintended) effects on corporate structure. In America, high corporate taxes and a growing body of regulation have led to a decline in the number of public corporations and the emergence of alternative structures such as “master limited partnerships”. Around the world, the tax deductibility of interest payments has encouraged a greater reliance on debt rather than equity and favoured private-equity firms. Even though executives moan about excessive government interference, shares on Wall Street have been hitting record highs, and profits as a share of America’s GDP are close to a post-war high.

12 Because of the sheer scale of the modern state, companies are obliged to engage with it on many levels. Governments, for their part, are expected to deal with a variety of ills in society, from banning imports of unhealthy or dangerous substances to combating global warming.

13 Perhaps the trickiest relationship at present is between governments and the technology industry. Some consumers are uneasy about the large amount of digital data being hoovered up and want governments to regulate the way that businesses use and maintain these data. The governments’ security services, for their part, want to have access to such information whenever they feel the need. Recent revelations about the extent of government monitoring of e-mails and phone calls have pushed this issue into the headlines and created a dilemma for tech companies. Do they stand up for their customers and risk being accused of compromising security, or do they give in to governments and risk alienating their customers?

14 Another set of complications arises from social benefits for citizens provided jointly by companies and governments. In health care, for instance, many small businesses think that America’s Affordable Care Act imposes an excessive administrative burden on them. Parental leave also divides the spirits. Many governments want to extend maternity leave for women and offer parental leave to fathers. That may be manageable for big businesses but is harder to implement for small companies. Given that voters are resistant to higher taxes, politicians are drawn to programmes that offer improved benefits at the expense of companies rather than the state.

15 Big businesses accept that they need a relationship with government. That has fuelled the rise of the lobbying industry and, in some countries, the growth of campaign contributions by firms. Many people now suspect that the key to success in business is not necessarily to be the most competitive but the best-connected. Lobbying creates a kind of arms race in which tax laws and regulations become ever more complex as companies seek to influence the rules to suit their own interests.

16 Favoured firms can be “national champions”, such as airlines, which governments strive to protect through regulation and restrictions on foreign ownership. In international trade negotiations they often try to protect the interests of a vital industry, as France does with agriculture and Britain with financial services. In emerging markets such practices are even more entrenched. In some industries, such as energy, Western multinationals find themselves at a disadvantage in their dealings with state-owned titans, as BP found in Russia.
17 This special report will concentrate on the relationship between business and state in the rich world, which in the aftermath of the financial crisis is clearly under strain. It will consider the role of tax, regulation and competition policy, explain why the technology industry is a special case, examine the arguments for and against lobbying and give examples of how the relationship can be managed successfully.

With the debt ceiling agreement was reached, the Treasury Department immediately start the third quarter of this year of about $331 billion in debt sales, at the same time, the Obama administration until at least 2013 can according to own actual need to sell national debt market, basic lift the U.S. debt default risk in the short term.Data shows, the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.74%, the 30-year Treasury bond yields at 4.07% fluctuations, both in a safe state, to some extent, shows its favored by investors in the market expectations.
However, short-term debt alert lift does not mean that America's debt problem in recovery.Borrow new debt is debt "debt economy" model has been curing, has been in the United States, the United States debt snowball.According to the latest figures, the U.S. federal government bonds accounted for a percentage of gross domestic product will reach 99% this year, next year is expected to further rise to 103%;According to this, according to the size of the debt ceiling Obama four-year term accumulated debt is expected to reach about $6 trillion, the previous President of the United States.High debt is bound to generate a large number of interest payments and reduce revenue for consumption and investment, and eventually contain endogenous power of economic growth.Data show that in the first seven months of government spending in the United States, one of the fastest growing types is publicly held debt interest, of $139.3 billion, seven months before an increase of 13%.And borrowing at this rate, by 2025, the U.S. national debt interest will exceed $1 trillion.
The crux of the problem is that over the next three years, the U.S. national debt is due for repayment will be faced with enormous pressure.With debts of $3 trillion in 2011, in 2012 was $1.5 trillion, $2013 in 1.3 trillion, then at about $1 trillion.And it is important to note that in order to "new debt is still the old debt" debt depend on is continuously push up America's debt dependency, therefore, according to expert estimates, in 2011 America's debt dependency will jump to more than 45%, and in the later could climb to 50%.This means that if the us treasuries strong and full of a buyer's market support, its debt programs could be cut off at any time.As it is, the international standard & poor's, a rating agency, to America's long-term sovereign credit rating of "AAA" down to "AA +", it is losing its AAA credit rating for the first time in American history.For the reason of downgrades, s&p gives conclusion is mainly due to the U.S. government debt ceiling agreement with congress lacks expected move to maintain stable medium-term debt, and s&p said the next 6 to 24 months continue to downgrade the probability for at least a third.As the s&p downgrade of U.S. debt rating direct market reaction, dow Jones and uniformly appeared a setback for the stock markets in the world, and are low in years.But in the long term, the us credit rating downgrade may occur as a result, the future of American Treasury bonds rising interest rates and higher financing costs.According to jpmorgan estimates that only the us credit downgrade will lead to the whole society to increase financing costs $100 billion a year.Therefore, dynamically, the adjustment of the U.S. debt ceiling is only temporary shielding of U.S. debt risk, or default of the tipping point to delay, and once the default become fact, the U.S. economy that doomed.

Because the U.S. national debt as a share of GDP will be bigger and bigger, is bound to long-term pressure against the dollar, the debt ceiling increase, the United States there is the impulse of the value of the dollar, therefore, the dollar weakening has become a trend in the future.

One of the driving power of dollar weakness is derived from the needs of American dilution debt pressure.The U.S. government on the one hand want to issue bonds by overseas investors, especially the subscribe of related national central bank and sought after, but on the other hand don't hope to form a large foreign debt pressure, even the result of the default.To this end, the U.S. government must put a dollar depreciation and inflation repeatedly try unbeaten.Data show that over the past five years, only the United States use currency to make its foreign debts "evaporate" ($3.58 trillion).And according to the measurement, if U.S. inflation at an annual rate of 6%, as long as after four years, America's national debt balance the ratio of GDP will decline 20%.

Us Treasury monetized constitutes the value of the dollar and a huge driving force.The United States to maintain the "debt economy" mode of deficit spending, a important premise is the constantly new bonds can have enough match the market demand.Public data shows, at present, the United States 14. Balance of $3 trillion in Treasury bonds, the holder is divided into two basic categories: one is publicly held debt, about $9.68 trillion, accounting for 68% of the total debt;Another kind of medical insurance fund, such as civil servant pension fund, a total of $4.63 trillion, accounting for 32% of the total debt.In public holders, American commercial Banks hold $301.8 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, only accounts for 2.1% of the total, ranked 11th, is this kind of commercial agency of the Treasury market earnings prospects do not look good.In addition, if the devaluation of the dollar lead to overseas buyers purchasing motivation, Treasury auction results may occur at any time.Out for this, the fed will act as the Treasury last the role of the borrowers, and through the "printing money" purchasing bonds directly.This will monetizing the debt of behavior on the one hand, can make use of the dollar's reserve currency status to the United States to maintain market confidence in the ability to repay its debt, at the same time inevitably leads to the dollar in the global, aggravate the devaluation of the dollar trend;And driven by a weaker dollar, inflation will be permanent.
From $2.1 trillion over the next three years to increase the debt limit of $2.5 trillion and over the next 10 years to cut government deficits can be seen in the simple comparison, the fiscal deficit cuts obviously weaker than the growth rate of national debt.This means that, along with the expansion of government debt, the government fiscal deficit will be synchronized to swell.Expert estimates, the next 10 years the us government deficit as much as $10 trillion, is expected to take out 2.5 trillion, deficits need to control in the equivalent of $750 billion a year.

High deficits will undoubtedly formed a huge bind on economic growth.Reason is very simple, as long as the deficit is not controlled, Treasury long-term interest rates will rise sharply, this not only will curb economic growth, and will force the government to devote more taxes to repay the debts of the past, led to a decline in government service and other functions of the government spending, a "low growth and high debt - high deficits - low growth" of the economic cycle.The crux of the problem is that, as an important way to reduce the budget deficit - tax increases for the United States space is waning.Not only because the foundations of the U.S. economic recovery is fragile formed a constraint to the tax increases, more important is the republican exception is firmly opposed to tax increases attitude, and as a return for raising the debt ceiling chip, the Obama administration has agreed to the bush administration's tax cuts to expire on January 1, 2013, the corresponding means of tax increases has been frozen., on the other hand, because the fiscal expenditure structure of legal spending more than 50%, including social security and medical expenses and other basic can't cut spending accounts for higher, by contrast, autonomous spending in overall spending accounts for the relatively small, which means spending cuts space is quite limited.
Further analysis shows that a massive deficit reduction in the U.S. economy is not good.According to the congressional budget office's latest report, since the financial crisis of the U.S. economy growth is almost entirely from fiscal stimulus, of which 2010 four quarters, fiscal stimulus contributed an average of 1.5% - 1.5% of the rate of economic growth, after deducting stimulus economic is still negative.Also, the first two quarters of economic growth this year, comes from the contribution of fiscal stimulus is between 1.1% and 3.0%.On this basis, analysts on average expect, according to Mr Obama's fiscal spending cuts, only from the first step has identified 1 trillion cost-cutting scheme, aggregate demand means that the entire economic system to reduce 100 billion per year on average.According to the 2010 fiscal year America's GDP for 14.7 trillion, 100 billion and downsizing will lead to economic growth fell by 0.6%.Obviously, the U.S. economy has been abducted by fiscal deficits depth - as long as the debt ceiling raised its practices exist, America's economy could not come under pressure from the fiscal deficit, and the limitations of cutting the fiscal deficit is bound to restrict the economic future of the ascension space.