코리아헤설드 사설(2012.11.01일자) 해설(1)

코리아헤설드 사설(2012.11.01일자) 해설(2)

The Korea Herald

2012-11-01

[Editorial] A proper cure?

Political circles appear to be hurrying ― without thinking fully ― to adopt a controversial idea of introducing a tax on foreign exchange transactions, known as the Tobin tax. The steep appreciation of the won against the U.S. dollar, partly caused by the surging inflow of foreign capital in the wake of massive stimulus by the world’s key economies, has prompted the parties and major presidential candidates to consider enacting it.

The measure would have a certain degree of effect on curbing short-term currency trading. But more comprehensive consideration should be given to its full consequences.

There seems to be no need to jump to the conclusion of introducing the tax without thoroughly reviewing reasons for the recent appreciation of the won and cautiously watching for movements abroad toward taking a similar step.

The country’s financial markets proved vulnerable to speculative capital flows during the foreign exchange crisis in 1997 and the global credit crunch in 2008. Depending on an open economy for its prosperity, however, Korea is certainly not the country to take the lead in putting into practice an idea that has been subject to global debate for decades.

The Tobin tax was proposed by Nobel prize-winning U.S. economist James Tobin in 1972 as a way of reducing currency speculation and thus financial market volatility. The basic idea is to impose a seemingly small tax ― between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent ― on trades of foreign exchange, stocks, bond and derivatives.

Party officials and aides to the major presidential contenders have recently endorsed the proposal in one form or another. They say it would put a brake on the steep rise in the value of the won by curbing speculative currency trading and thus help buttress the competitiveness of Korean exporters.

A key economic adviser to Rep. Park Geun-hye, the nominee of the ruling Saenuri Party, recently raised the need for a regulatory mechanism against speculative capital flows, saying the introduction of a Tobin tax would be the most probable option. Officials of the main opposition Democratic United Party, who have usually preoccupied themselves with hitting the ruling camp over a range of issues, were quick to welcome the suggestion. A DUP lawmaker proposed implementing a two-tier tax system, under which the usual low rate of 0.02 percent could be raised up to 30 percent when the exchange rate fluctuates beyond the range of 3 percent. Aides to Ahn Cheol-soo, an independent presidential contender, have also supported introducing the tax.

Behind the enthusiastic embracing of the idea is apparently a desire to give voters the impression that the parties and the presidential candidates are coddling the national economy. But politics should be put aside in discussing the appropriateness of introducing the levy on foreign exchange transactions.

It is true that the won has appreciated against the dollar most steeply compared to other currencies in recent months. Its appreciation, however, has been driven by the country’s trade surplus and improvement in credit ratings as well as easing of monetary policy in the U.S., Japan and the eurozone. Some experts note it has yet to be seen whether the Korean currency, which breached a key resistance level of 1,100 won against the greenback last week for the first time in about 13 months, would go below 1,050 won and begin to hurt export competitiveness.

It should also be taken into account that the scheme has been enacted in few countries as even a small tax on financial transactions would drive business away unless everyone was in it together.

At the moment, the proper cure to negative effects from surging capital inflows seems to strengthen existing macro-prudential instruments, including tighter regulations on banks’ forward foreign exchange positions.

Pollsters’ moment of truth

By Robert J. Samuelson, Monday, October 29, 9:06 AM

As the election approaches, it’s not only candidates who face a reckoning. Pollsters, too, confront a moment of truth. The close election could leave many calling the wrong winner. On a recent day, six national polls reported new results. Four had Mitt Romney leading; two had President Obama. The largest victory margin was 3 points (for Romney). The average margin was 2 points. The uncertainty has fueled speculation that Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral count.

It’s not just the election. Among pollsters, there’s fear that changing technology (mainly cellphones) and growing public unwillingness to do interviews are undermining telephone surveys — and that there’s no accurate replacement in sight. A recent study by the Pew Research Center reported its response rate at 9 percent, down from 36 percent in 1997. Put differently: in 1997, Pew made about three residential calls to get one response; now it makes 10.

Beginning with answering machines and caller-ID in the ’70s and ’80s, suspicious Americans have become more selective in screening calls. Robo-calls — automated messages for products, politicians, charities and polls — have deepened the hostility. “The mass of communications coming into people’s homes ends up being a blur,” says Pew pollster Scott Keeter.

Cellphones pose problems because people who use them exclusively — people who don’t have landline phones — are younger, poorer and more Democratic than the general population. By late 2011, 32 percent of Americans 18 and over had only a cellphone, up from 16 percent in early 2008. Among those 25 to 29, the share was 60 percent. Under-surveying these people could distort polls. Many pollsters, though not all, now canvass cellphones. But this is increasingly expensive. By present trends, half of Americans could be exclusive cellphone users by the 2016 election.

All this threatens the largest upheaval in polling since the 1930s. Until then, Americans gauged public sentiment through newspaper straw polls, “speeches, petitions, rallies, riots, strikes, elections and letters to the editor,” writes historian Sarah Igo of Vanderbilt University in her book, “The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public.”

The big change came in 1936, when George Gallup and Elmo Roper, using population sampling techniques, forecast Franklin Roosevelt’s victory. Meanwhile, the Literary Digest magazine, relying on a straw poll of its readers, predicted Republican Alf Landon. The magazine’s readers were unrepresentative of the whole population. Scientific sampling, which attempted to reflect everyone, triumphed, though it suffered a temporary setback in 1948 when polls missed the late surge toward President Harry Truman.

Gallup and Roper were to some extent idealists, says Igo. They thought that modern polling would improve democracy by clarifying the majority’s desires. It hasn’t worked out that way, in part because polls, by exposing sizable minorities, also strengthened their sense of identity. But polls did change how we talk and think about ourselves. Concepts such as “the typical American,” “mainstream culture” and “public opinion” became common, writes Igo.

Polls are controversial today because the presidential race is tight. If either candidate had a 10-point lead, few would care how different polls decide who’s a “likely” voter or how various population segments are weighted. These details usually don’t matter much. But when the margin is a few points, they can determine which candidate is the front-runner and has “momentum.”

More menacing is whether cellphones and shrinking popular participation subvert polls’ accuracy, because samples are less representative. The answer seems to be: “not yet.” Pew did a study comparing responses to basic questions (are you: U.S. citizen, homeowner, married?) from its surveys to larger government surveys. On most questions, responses were identical or close: 37 percent of respondents in both had children in the house; 75 percent in both were registered to vote. There were a few troubling discrepancies — but no fundamental break.

Less reassuring is telephone polling’s steep and rising costs, which could cause cash-strapped media organizations to balk. Contacting cellphones is expensive, because numbers must be dialed by hand. By contrast, computers can automatically dial landline numbers, making it easier to reach live people. (Congress prohibited this for cellphones to protect people from paying for unsolicited incoming calls.) A typical survey costs Pew from $60,000 to $100,000, says Keeter. That would cover renting tens of thousands of landline and cellphone numbers to produce 1,500 interviews of about 20 minutes each.

The solution seems obvious: switch to the Internet. But technically, that’s hard. Internet users may not be a representative sample of the U.S. population. Does the person behind that e-mail live in the United States? Permanent panels of respondents may act differently from randomly contacted people. Experiments are under way. Meanwhile, pollsters are stretched between a past that’s growing untenable and a future that doesn’t yet exist.

뉴욕타임즈 사설(2012.10.27일자) 어휘해설

뉴욕타임즈 사설(2012.10.27일자) 오디오

October 27, 2012

Barack Obama for Re-Election

The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster. An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.

That is the context for the Nov. 6 election, and as stark as it is, the choice is just as clear.

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.

We have criticized individual policy choices that Mr. Obama has made over the last four years, and have been impatient with his unwillingness to throw himself into the political fight. But he has shaken off the hesitancy that cost him the first debate, and he approaches the election clearly ready for the partisan battles that would follow his victory.

We are confident he would challenge the Republicans in the “fiscal cliff” battle even if it meant calling their bluff, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and forcing them to confront the budget sequester they created. Electing Mr. Romney would eliminate any hope of deficit reduction that included increased revenues.

In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

Health Care

Mr. Obama has achieved the most sweeping health care reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The reform law takes a big step toward universal health coverage, a final piece in the social contract.

It was astonishing that Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress were able to get a bill past the Republican opposition. But the Republicans’ propagandistic distortions of the new law helped them wrest back control of the House, and they are determined now to repeal the law.

That would eliminate the many benefits the reform has already brought: allowing children under 26 to stay on their parents’ policies; lower drug costs for people on Medicare who are heavy users of prescription drugs; free immunizations, mammograms and contraceptives; a ban on lifetime limits on insurance payments. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Starting in 2014, insurers must accept all applicants. Once fully in effect, the new law would start to control health care costs.

Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms. He wants to use voucher programs to shift more Medicare costs to beneficiaries and block grants to shift more Medicaid costs to the states.

The Economy

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. The economy was cratering when he took office in January 2009. By that June it was growing, and it has been ever since (although at a rate that disappoints everyone), thanks in large part to interventions Mr. Obama championed, like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.

Last year, Mr. Obama introduced a jobs plan that included spending on school renovations, repair projects for roads and bridges, aid to states, and more. It was stymied by Republicans. Contrary to Mr. Romney’s claims, Mr. Obama has done good things for small businesses — like pushing through more tax write-offs for new equipment and temporary tax cuts for hiring the unemployed.

The Dodd-Frank financial regulation was an important milestone. It is still a work in progress, but it established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, initiated reform of the derivatives market, and imposed higher capital requirements for banks. Mr. Romney wants to repeal it.

If re-elected, Mr. Obama would be in position to shape the “grand bargain” that could finally combine stimulus like the jobs bill with long-term deficit reduction that includes letting the high-end Bush-era tax cuts expire. Stimulus should come first, and deficit reduction as the economy strengthens. Mr. Obama has not been as aggressive as we would have liked in addressing the housing crisis, but he has increased efforts in refinancing and loan modifications.

Mr. Romney’s economic plan, as much as we know about it, is regressive, relying on big tax cuts and deregulation. That kind of plan was not the answer after the financial crisis, and it will not create broad prosperity.

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. He has ended the war in Iraq. Mr. Romney, however, has said he would have insisted on leaving thousands of American soldiers there. He has surrounded himself with Bush administration neocons who helped to engineer the Iraq war, and adopted their militaristic talk in a way that makes a Romney administration’s foreign policies a frightening prospect.

Mr. Obama negotiated a much tougher regime of multilateral economic sanctions on Iran. Mr. Romney likes to say the president was ineffective on Iran, but at the final debate he agreed with Mr. Obama’s policies. Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring. The killing goes on in Syria, but the administration is working to identify and support moderate insurgent forces there. At the last debate, Mr. Romney talked about funneling arms through Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are funneling arms to jihadist groups.

Mr. Obama gathered international backing for airstrikes during the Libyan uprising, and kept American military forces in a background role. It was smart policy.

In the broadest terms, he introduced a measure of military restraint after the Bush years and helped repair America’s badly damaged reputation in many countries from the low levels to which it had sunk by 2008.

The Supreme Court

The future of the nation’s highest court hangs in the balance in this election — and along with it, reproductive freedom for American women and voting rights for all, to name just two issues. Whoever is president after the election will make at least one appointment to the court, and many more to federal appeals courts and district courts.

Mr. Obama, who appointed the impressive Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, understands how severely damaging conservative activism has been in areas like campaign spending. He would appoint justices and judges who understand that landmarks of equality like the Voting Rights Act must be defended against the steady attack from the right.

Mr. Romney’s campaign Web site says he will “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito,” among the most conservative justices in the past 75 years. There is no doubt that he would appoint justices who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Civil Rights

The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing. Mr. Obama, however, has reversed Bush administration policies that chipped away at minorities’ voting rights and has fought laws, like the ones in Arizona, that seek to turn undocumented immigrants into a class of criminals.

The military’s odious “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule was finally legislated out of existence, under the Obama administration’s leadership. There are still big hurdles to equality to be brought down, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the outrageous federal law that undermines the rights of gay men and lesbians, even in states that recognize those rights.

Though it took Mr. Obama some time to do it, he overcame his hesitation about same-sex marriage and declared his support. That support has helped spur marriage-equality movements around the country. His Justice Department has also stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act against constitutional challenges.

Mr. Romney opposes same-sex marriage and supports the federal act, which not only denies federal benefits and recognition to same-sex couples but allows states to ignore marriages made in other states. His campaign declared that Mr. Romney would not object if states also banned adoption by same-sex couples and restricted their rights to hospital visitation and other privileges.

Mr. Romney has been careful to avoid the efforts of some Republicans to criminalize abortion even in the case of women who had been raped, including by family members. He says he is not opposed to contraception, but he has promised to deny federal money to Planned Parenthood, on which millions of women depend for family planning.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need.

영문사설과의 만남

이번 것은 연합뉴스의 영문사설입니다.
비교적 친숙하고 관심이 갈만한 기사들을 골라
약간의 강의를 곁들이겠습니다.

일단은 흥미를 가지게 되는 것이 중요합니다.
가볍게, 재미있게 자주 접하시기만 해도
일단은 성공입니다.
영어공부에서 효율은 가장 덜 중요합니다.
효율적으로 하루만 하고 말아버리면 아무런 소용이 없지요.
꾸준히 지속적으로 영어를 접할 수 있는 방법!
이것이 정답입니다.

기회가 된다면 연합뉴스외에도
The Korea Times,
The Korea Herald,
The Washington Post,
The New York Times,
The Wall Street Journal 등의 사설들 중에서
가볍고 재미있고 우리의 관심을 끌만한 것들이 있으면
소개하고자 합니다.

(연합뉴스 사설 / Yonhap Editorial)  SEOUL, Oct. 24, 2012 

Measures needed to curb students' high risk of smartphone addiction (curb 막다/addiction 중독)

Smartphone addiction at elementary, middle and high schools is becoming serious, with most students crouching over their gadgets to chat and text even during breaks and lunch time, instead of playing on the playground. (crouch over ~위에 구부리고 있다/gadget 기계,장치/text 문자를 보내다)

   Strife in classrooms has also notably increased, as students using their smartphones during class strongly challenge their teachers when they attempt to confiscate them. A student attacked his teacher with a knife at a Daegu high school after the teacher tried to confiscate his smartphone, a case that has become a culmination of the conflict present in almost all schools nationwide. (strife 논쟁,분쟁/notably 현저하게/confiscate 압수하다/culmination 절정/conflict 분쟁,다툼/nationwide 전국적으로)

   A survey conducted by the Gyeonggi Provincial Education Administration of 1.45 million students in its jurisdiction last month showed six out of every 10 students had smartphones. (conduct 실시하다/jurisdiction 관할)

   About 45 percent of those surveyed said they use their smartphones for one to three hours a day on average, mostly for chatting and text messaging, while 10 percent said they spend more than five hours a day on their devices. (on average 평균적으로/device 기계,장치)

   When using a diagnostic quiz to measure addiction levels developed by the National Information Society Agency, 2.2 percent of the respondents were considered addicts, with 5.7 percent being potential addicts, according to the survey. (diagnostic quiz 진단테스트/addict 중독자/potential 잠재적인)

   The outcomes in Gyeonggi Province are unlikely to significantly differ if and when similar surveys are conducted in other regions. (outcome 결과/significantly 현저하게,의미있게)

   With smartphone overuse, many addicted students said they cannot manage their daily life properly, and have difficulties in their studies and interpersonal relationships. (overuse 과사용/interpersonal relationship 대인관계)

   Young smartphone addicts show symptoms similar to withdrawal, becoming restless and nervous, and feeling helpless when their smartphones are taken away from them. (symptom 증상/withdrawal 금단증상/restless 안절부절 못하는,불안한/helpless 무력한,어쩔 수 없는)

   It is notable that the addiction rate is growing in parallel with age, contrary to Internet addiction, indicating that the issue will continue to deteriorate. (notable 주목할만한,현저한/in parallel with ~와 비례하여/contrary to ~와 반대로/deteriorate 악화되다)

   Accordingly, banning the use of smartphones at least at schools seems to be needed, although some schools currently allow their students to use smartphones and other electronic devices, citing their human rights. (cite 인용하다,거론하다)

   It is timely that the Education Ministry distributed a booklet on the prevention of youth addiction to the Internet, gaming and smartphones to schools nationwide for the first time last month. (distribute 배포하다/booklet 소책자)

   Student addicts should be given access to professional counseling as early as possible. The issue, however, cannot be resolved solely by schools.

It is meaningful that some local governments are operating counseling programs, and that civic organizations are staging a campaign to call on the National Assembly to enact a law to prevent and treat students' smartphone addiction. (professional 전문적인/local government 지방정부/civic organization 시민단체/stage a campaign 캠페인을 전개하다/call on 요청하다)

   Smartphone manufacturers and mobile carriers, who rake in huge profits from their smartphone sales, should also join the efforts.

All of society should aggressively seek ways to head off student addiction at a time when the gadget has become an influential part of daily life. (mobile carrier 이동통신사/rake in 쓸어담다/huge 거대한/aggressively 공격적으로/head off 막다)