- 分享到:
文中衔接词和过渡词使用的很棒；作者词汇基础扎实，拼写也很棒；可适当增加复合句和从句的使用。
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 globalization holds 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 between democracy and globalisation in global markets is strained.The main contents as follows:Firstly,limit democracy for the benefit of minimizing international transaction costs, overlooking the economic globalisation.Secondly,people can restrict globalization and build democratic legitimacy or at the expense of national sovereignty establish globalize democracy which good for reconstructing the world economy. This shows we cannot have both.So if nation requires endeavour over globalized world economy,sometimes we have to give up democracy.But "global governance" tells us we can drop nation states rather than democratic politics because powerful global institutions and standard-setting powers as guarantee. To sum up, national sovereignty and globalisation integration are mutually incompatible,people can joint any two of the three, but three of them exhausted
