Conventional wisdom has it that large deficits in the United States budget cause interest rates to rise. Two main arguments are given for this claim. According to the first, as the deficit increases, the government will borrow more to make up for the ensuing shortage of funds. Consequently, it is argued, if both the total supply of credit (money available for borrowing) and the amount of credit sought by nongovernment borrowers remain relatively stable, as is often supposed, then the price of credit (the interest rate) will increase. That this is so is suggested by the basic economic principle that if supplies of a commodity (here, credit) remain fixed and demand for that commodity increases, its price will also increase. The second argument supposes that the government will tend to finance its deficits by increasing the money supply with insufficient regard for whether there is enough room for economic growth to enable such an increase to occur without causing inflation. It is then argued that financiers will expect the deficit to cause inflation and will raise interest rates, anticipating that because of inflation the money they lend will be worth less when paid back.

Unfortunately for the first argument, it is unreasonable to assume that nongovernment borrowing and the supply of credit will remain relatively stable. Nongovernment borrowing sometimes decreases. When it does, increased government borrowing will not necessarily push up the total demand for credit. Alternatively, when credit availability increases, for example through greater foreign lending to the United States, then interest rates need not rise, even if both private and government borrowing increase.

The second argument is also problematic. Financing the deficit by increasing the money supply should cause inflation only when there is not enough room for economic growth. Currently, there is no reason to expect deficits to cause inflation. However, since many financiers believe that deficits ordinarily create inflation, then admittedly they will be inclined to raise interest rates to offset mistakenly anticipated inflation. This effect, however, is due to ignorance, not to the deficit itself, and could be lessened by educating financiers on this issue.

第1题 第2题 第3题 第4题

It can be inferred from the passage that proponents of the second argument would most likely agree with which of the following statements?


The United States government does not usually care whether or not inflation increases.

People in the United States government generally know very little about economics.

The United States government is sometimes careless in formulating its economic policies.

The United States government sometimes relies too much on the easy availability of foreign credit.

The United States government increases the money supply whenever there is enough room for growth to support the increase.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

题目分析：

题目释义：

细节题目

考点：

推断（Inference）
旨在考察我们对文章的深度理解，以及逻辑推断能力。

想作对这道题目必须清楚地理解第二个论点讲的是什么。在“七经八脉”中有说明，此处不再赘述了。



选项分析：

A选项：美国政府通常不关心是否通货膨胀是否会增加。这个选项做了一个概念偷换，即美国政府不关心的是增加借贷会否引发通货膨胀，而不是不关心通货膨胀是否增加。

B选项：政府的人一般都对经济知之甚少。文章中类似的观点出现在“This effect, however, is due to ignorance, not to the deficit itself, and could be lessened by educating financiers on this issue.”。但是通过这句话我们无法推断出金融家们对经济是知之甚少的。而且值得注意的是，我们这样的解析已经有异议的把金融家和政府人画了等号，文中没有证据表明这两个是可以画等号的。所以这个选项肯定是错误的。

C选项：Correct。美国政府有时指定的经济政策是比较粗心的。这个从“the government will tend to finance its deficits by increasing the money supply with insufficient regard for whether there is enough room for economic growth to enable such an increase to occur without causing inflation.  ”可以看出，政府制定的政策是比较不小心的，因为它不管是否会引发通货膨胀。

D选项：美国政府有时候十分依赖外国的贷款。出现类似这个选项的是在原文第二段中“Alternatively, when credit availability increases, for example through greater foreign lending to the United States, then interest rates need not rise, even if both private and government borrowing increase.”，但是没有证据证明美国政府依赖这些贷款，而且这句话也和第一段提到的第二个观点无关。

E选项：美国政府只有在有足够的空间支持这个增加时才会增加金钱的供应。这个选项把第二个论点的意思弄反了。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

Prep2007E1-RC