- 分享到:
作者词汇量积累不错，能较准确地使用高级词汇，单词拼写要仔细；可适当增加从句和复杂句使用；全文结构较为严谨。
By reading for the article,to start with there is an undeniable fact that deep globalization National and democracy are incompatible duo to democratic politics casts chasm shadow on financial markets and rather unlikely for a state to piece out to a large extent with the world economy.In addition,when globalization and domestic politics are incompatible especially have something to do with sovereignty.When the two collide ,an intelligent investor prefers to choose politics,deeply integrate incapable maintain itself so much even as its requirements and goals are fully internalized through nation's political leadership.Tom Friedman outlined in the article when the economy grows while politics might be result in shrink which it also explains the relationship between economy with politics.Moreover,global economy owns the basic feature with about conflict between globalization and domestic social arrangements because globalizationholds up national democracy. It also mentions duo to too much trade regime ,there is no clear boundary between national sovereignty and international obligations. The relationship beetween democracy and globalisation in global markets are strained. ? We have three options. We can restrict democracy in the interest of minimizing international transaction costs, disregarding the economic and social whiplash that the global economy occasionally produces. We can limit globalization, in the hope of building democratic legitimacy at home. Or we can globalize democracy, at the cost of national sovereignty. This gives us a menu of options for reconstructing the world economy. The menu captures the fundamental political trilemma of the world economy: we cannot have hyperglobalization, democracy, and national self-determination all at once. We can have at most two out of three. If we want hyperglobalization and democracy,
