"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an article of home production and a similar article of foreign production.... A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does nothing more than secure free competition; ... free competition can only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monopolist.... Suppress the protection which represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign productions must immediately inundate2 and obtain the monopoly of our market."[9]
"Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the community, that the productions of the country should be protected against foreign competition, whenever the latter may be able to undersell the former."[10]
This argument is constantly recurring3 in all writings of the protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigation4 of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting5 the attention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused by diversity of taxes.
Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate consumer, who seems to have entirely7 escaped their attention. They compare the field of production to the turf. But on the turf, the race is at once a means and an end. The public has no interest in the struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are started in the course with the single object of determining which is the best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should be equalized. But if your object were to send an important and critical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity8 place obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means of attaining10 your end? And yet this is your course in relation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the well-being11 of the community.
But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of view, let us now take theirs; let us examine the question as producers.
I will seek to prove
1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the foundations of all trade.
2. That it is not true that the labor12 of one country can be crushed by the competition of more favored climates.
3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the facilities of production.
4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as possible; and
5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those which profit most by freedom of trade.
I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, is not only the shackling13 of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking of the system of mutual14 exchange in its very foundation principle. For this system is based precisely15 upon the very diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities16, which the protectionists seek to render null. If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn to Guyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from different circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of different articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges? Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their very cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bring men to live like snails17, in a state of complete isolation18. In short, there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorous deductions19, would not end in destruction and annihilation.
II. It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in two similar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any useful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because the stronger is the more useful, it does not follow that the weaker is good for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every department of France, although there are great differences in the degree of fertility existing among them. If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation20 is not useful. Analogy will show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in every kingdom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would be her interest to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one? Because the phenomena21 of political economy have a suppleness22, an elasticity23, and, so to speak, a self-leveling power, which seems to escape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse us of being theorists, but it is themselves who are theorists to a supreme24 degree, if being theoretic consists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is the difference in the value of lands, which compensates25 for the difference in their fertility. Your field produces three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times as much, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, it is more dear. It is not accidentally but necessarily that the equilibrium26 is established, or at least inclines to establish itself; and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all the systems, the one which favors this tendency?
I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one from any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently27 numerous not only to re-establish the balance, but also to make it lean on their side.
When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of exchange is not the best umpire.
This self-leveling faculty28 of political phenomena is so important, and at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of society, that I must ask permission a little longer, to turn to it the attention of the reader.
The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in being able to procure29 cheaply, coal, iron, machinery30, capital; it is impossible for us to compete with it.
We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition31, they do not bear in themselves, the former a descending32, the latter an ascending33 power, which must end by placing them in a just equilibrium.
Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B; you thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you upon your own ground.
In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little sought after in B, soon fall in price.
Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to A. It is abundant in A—very scarce in B.
But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, real dearness, which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to nominal34 dearness, the consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals.
Scarcity35 of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. Then in B, a nominal cheapness is combined with real cheapness.
Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible motives36 for deserting A, to establish itself in B.
Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature being opposed to sudden transits37, let us suppose that, without waiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is to say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness.
I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possible that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistible38 power of decentralization.
We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber39 of Commerce at Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration40 are suppressed):
"Formerly41 we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of thread for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we exported machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the construction of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are the source of capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the other, transferred themselves to other points, where their profits were increased, and where the means of subsistence being less difficult to obtain, life is maintained at a less cost. There are at present to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English talent."
We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather Providence42, with more wisdom and foresight43 than the narrow rigid44 system of the protectionists can suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly of advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, provided for dispersion, diffusion45, mutual dependence47, and simultaneous progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is in their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of nations. By this means they render much more decided48 the differences existing in the conditions of production; they check the self-leveling power of industry, prevent fusion46 of interests, and fence in each nation within its own peculiar49 advantages and disadvantages.
III. To say that by a protective law the conditions of production are equalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not true that an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most that the law can do is to equalize the conditions of sale. If it should be said that I am playing upon words, I retort the accusation50 upon my adversaries51. It is for them to prove that production and sale are synonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them.
Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea.
Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of the boxes, hot-houses, etc., which are necessary to ward6 against the severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less than a franc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the conditions of production will be equalized. The legislative52 body, yielding as usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each foreign orange.
Now I say that the relative conditions of production are in no wise changed. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing to mature themselves naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and artificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for their production much more labor on the latter than the former. The law can only equalize the conditions of sale. It is evident that while the Portuguese53 sell their oranges at a franc apiece, the ninety centimes which go to pay the tax are taken from the French consumer. Now look at the whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portuguese orange, the country loses nothing; for the ninety centimes which the consumer pays to satisfy the tax, enter into the treasury54. There is improper55 distribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange consumed, there will be about ninety centimes lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the seller just as certainly does not gain them, for even according to the hypothesis, he will receive only the price of production. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw their conclusion.
IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditions of production and those of sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they will consider as a still stranger paradox56. This is: If you really wish to equalize the facilities of production, leave trade free.
This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat57 them to listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off.
If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of each Frenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that to produce an orange by direct labor in France, one day's work, or its equivalent, will be requisite58; whilst to produce the cost of a Portuguese orange, only one-tenth of this day's labor is required; which means simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does at Paris. Now is it not evident, that if I can produce an orange, or, what is the same thing, the means of buying it, with one-tenth of a day's labor, I am placed exactly in the same condition as the Portuguese producer himself, excepting the expense of the transportation? It is then certain that freedom of commerce equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves but the one inevitable59 difference, that of transportation.
I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining enjoyments60, comforts, and general consumption; the last an object which is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless all important; since consumption is the main object of all our industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy here the results of the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants of Havre, would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and with the same facilities, the advantages which nature has in a mineralogical point of view conferred upon Newcastle.
The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go farther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two countries are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of production, that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, will gain most by freedom of commerce. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I will do so, however; first, because the question in discussion turns upon this point; and again, because it will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me to be destined61 to lead back to this science all those sects62 which, in our days, are seeking in the land of chimeras63 that social harmony which they have been unable to discover in nature. I speak of the law of consumption, which the majority of political economists64 may well be reproached with having too much neglected.
Consumption is the end, the final cause, of all the phenomena of political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final solution.
No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanently65 upon the producer. The advantages and the disadvantages, which, from his relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally pass gradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbed and fused into the community at large; the community considered as consumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects, and he who shall succeed in making it well understood, will have a right to say, "I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tribute to society."
Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course hailed with joy by the producer, for its immediate1 effect is to enable him to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures production, must equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its immediate effect is to diminish his services, and consequently his remuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, in order to influence him invincibly66 to seek the one and to avoid the other.
Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the immediate benefit of this success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is also just; because it is just that an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward.
But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of progressive and consequently infinite inequality would have been introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass on, to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity.
How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some examples.
Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up to the business of copying, received for this service a remuneration regulated by the general rate of profits. Among them is found one, who seeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that the individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished67. At the first view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding whether it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have introduced into the world, as I said above, an element of infinite inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As for the public,—the consumer,—it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to undersell all rivals.
But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial68 bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism69 of society. We will see the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, to become forever the common patrimony70 of mankind.
The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in his art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They are recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate the processes of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great and final result to which we approach. They gain much; but they gain less than the inventor, for competition has commenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomes older; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious71. Soon the new object of industry attains72 its normal condition; in other words, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated by the general rate of profits. Here then the producer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving of time, labor, effort, for a fixed73 result, for a certain number of volumes, is realized. But in what is this manifested? In the cheap price of books. For the good of whom? For the good of the consumer,—of society,—of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men,—as consumers,—they no doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers upon the community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. That has become a gratuitous74 benefit, a common heritage to mankind.
What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for the advancement75 of labor; from the nail and the mallet76, up to the locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the abundance of its use, its consumption; and it enjoys all gratuitously77. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of the price as is taken off by their intervention78, renders the production in so far gratuitous. There only remains79 the actual labor of man to be paid for; and the remainder, which is the result of the invention, is subtracted; at least after the invention has run through the cycle which I have just described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he brings a saw with him; I pay him two francs for his day's labor, and he saws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would have paid him the same for his day's labor. The usefulness then of the saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of the inheritance which, in common with my brother men, I have received from the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the labor given to attain9 it.
I invoke80 the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the conclusion at which I have arrived: Remuneration is not proportioned to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, but to the labor.[11]
I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go on to speak of natural advantages.
In every article of production, nature and man must concur81. But the portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity82 of the labor, of the skill which it requires, of its being à propos to the demand of the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary83 absence of competition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that the assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts for nothing in the price.
We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that we could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because Nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we wish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, to fill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor; or if another takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchange is between troubles, efforts, labors84. It is certainly not for hydrogen gas that I pay, for this is every where at my disposal, but for the work that it has been necessary to accomplish in order to disengage it; work which I have been spared, and which I must refund85. If I am told that there are other things to pay for; as expense, materials, apparatus86; I answer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. The price of the coal employed is only the representation of the labor necessary to dig and transport it.
We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it to us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is labor to be remunerated;—and remark, that it is so entirely labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may well happen that one of these means of lighting87, while it may be much more effective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is only necessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it.
When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him in proportion to the absolute utility of the water, my whole fortune would not be sufficient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has taken. If he requires more, I can get others to furnish it, or finally go and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of our bargain; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is so important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will still elucidate88 my idea by a few more examples.
The alimentary89 substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very dear, because a great deal of it is attainable90 with little work. We pay more for wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more labor from man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it.
If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable91 lands were to be increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into an acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to exchange it for a less labor incorporated into some other article. If, on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly to deteriorate92, the share of Nature in production would be less, that of labor greater, and the result would be higher prices. I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at immediate effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of men as producers, we know nothing more of political economy than the quack93 does of medicine, when, instead of following the effects of a prescription94 in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat.
The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves but little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of this liberality of Nature? Not these regions, for they are forced by competition to receive simply remuneration for their labor. It is mankind who is the gainer; for the result of this liberality is cheapness, and cheapness belongs to the world.
Here in the temperate95 zone, we find coal and iron ore, on the surface of the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift of Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid according to the general rate of profits.
Thus natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, are, or have a constant tendency to become, under the law of competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of society, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy these advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the exchanges of commerce are between labor and labor; subtraction96 being made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these natural advantages. Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; in other words, is cheaper. If then all the liberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming country, which profits by her benefits.
Hence we may see the enormous absurdity97 of the consuming country, which rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though we should say: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask of us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articles only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement98, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat with you upon an equal footing."
A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then is advantageous99 to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is not between utility and utility, but between value and value. Now A furnishes a greater utility in a similar value, because the utility of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor have done; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the portion accomplished100 by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain; for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is thrown in whatever may have accrued101 from the superior bounty102 of Nature.
We will lay down the general rule.
Traffic is an exchange of values; and as value is reduced by competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides gratuitously; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most advantageous commerce is transacted103 with those countries which are the most favored by Nature.
The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace the outlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentive104 reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined in its future growth to smother105 Protection, at once with Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Commonism, and the various other schools whose object is to exclude the law of Competition from the government of the world. Competition, no doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere106 with his individual and immediate interests. But if we consider the great object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of true Commonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so many sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to the public rights, seek to reach their end by commercial legislation, it is only because they do not yet understand commercial freedom.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
inundate
|
|
| vt.淹没，泛滥，压倒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
soliciting
|
|
| v.恳求( solicit的现在分词 )；（指娼妇）拉客；索求；征求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
incongruity
|
|
| n.不协调，不一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
shackling
|
|
| 给（某人）带上手铐或脚镣( shackle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
14
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
capabilities
|
|
| n.能力( capability的名词复数 )；可能；容量；[复数]潜在能力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
snails
|
|
| n.蜗牛；迟钝的人；蜗牛( snail的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
suppleness
|
|
| 柔软； 灵活； 易弯曲； 顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
elasticity
|
|
| n.弹性，伸缩力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
compensates
|
|
| 补偿，报酬( compensate的第三人称单数 )； 给（某人）赔偿（或赔款） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
juxtaposition
|
|
| n.毗邻，并置，并列 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
descending
|
|
| n. 下行 adj. 下降的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
ascending
|
|
| adj.上升的，向上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
scarcity
|
|
| n.缺乏，不足，萧条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
transits
|
|
| 通过（transit的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
Portuguese
|
|
| n.葡萄牙人；葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
entreat
|
|
| v.恳求，恳请 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
requisite
|
|
| adj.需要的，必不可少的；n.必需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
chimeras
|
|
| n.（由几种动物的各部分构成的）假想的怪兽( chimera的名词复数 )；不可能实现的想法；幻想；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
invincibly
|
|
| adv.难战胜地，无敌地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
celestial
|
|
| adj.天体的；天上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
patrimony
|
|
| n.世袭财产，继承物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
meritorious
|
|
| adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
attains
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的第三人称单数 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
mallet
|
|
| n.槌棒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
invoke
|
|
| v.求助于(神、法律)；恳求，乞求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
momentary
|
|
| adj.片刻的，瞬息的；短暂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
refund
|
|
| v.退还，偿还；n.归还，偿还额，退款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
lighting
|
|
| n.照明，光线的明暗，舞台灯光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
elucidate
|
|
| v.阐明，说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
alimentary
|
|
| adj.饮食的，营养的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
attainable
|
|
| a.可达到的，可获得的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
arable
|
|
| adj.可耕的，适合种植的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
deteriorate
|
|
| v.变坏；恶化；退化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
quack
|
|
| n.庸医；江湖医生；冒充内行的人；骗子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
prescription
|
|
| n.处方，开药；指示，规定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
temperate
|
|
| adj.温和的，温带的，自我克制的，不过分的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
subtraction
|
|
| n.减法，减去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
inclement
|
|
| adj.严酷的，严厉的，恶劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
accrued
|
|
| adj.权责已发生的v.增加( accrue的过去式和过去分词 )；（通过自然增长）产生；获得；（使钱款、债务）积累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
transacted
|
|
| v.办理（业务等）( transact的过去式和过去分词 )；交易，谈判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
attentive
|
|
| adj.注意的，专心的；关心(别人)的，殷勤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
smother
|
|
| vt./vi.使窒息；抑制；闷死；n.浓烟；窒息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |