第2个回答 2008-11-11
1.海参
2.海底旋塞，海底门
3.码头专门敲诈上岸水手的骗子;非法占用公地的人
4.浮岛,覆有蛋白的蛋糕
5.小型升降送货机,小件升降机,自动回转式送货机
6.(餐桌上盛食物便于取食的)旋转餐盘
7.害群之马, 败类, 败家子
8.用冷水把睡着的人泼醒的办法
9.两人用手交叉搭成的座架
10.牵牛花,昙花一现的人(或事物)
11.(人的)粪便
12.妇女的聚会
13.辅助泵，副泵
14.锤式打桩机
15.存心害人的礼物
16.玉米粉，玉米粥
17.系谱,系谱图,族谱,族谱图
18.（商船上的）公司旗
第3个回答 2019-08-30
Supply-Side
Economics:
Used
and
Abused
Jonathan
Chait
has
a
question
for
the
president.
If
it's
true
that
tax
cuts
raise
tax
revenues
as
he
claims,
and
if
it's
also
true
that
he
has
restrained
spending
like
he
says
he
has
in
his
speeches,
then
why
do
we
still
have
such
a
large
deficit?
Bush's
Silly
Budget
Logic,
by
Jonathan
Chait,
Commentary,
LA
Times:
Alan
D
Viard,
a
former
Bush
White
House
economist
currently
at
the
conservative
American
Enterprise
Institute,
recently
told
the
Washington
Post:
"Federal
revenue
is
lower
today
than
it
would
have
been
without
the
tax
cuts.
There's
really
no
dispute
among
economists
about
that."
He's
right.
There's
no
dispute
among
economists.
Conservative,
moderate
or
liberal,
every
credentialed
economist
agrees
that
the
Bush
tax
cuts
caused
revenues
to
drop.
There
is,
however,
a
dispute
between
economists
and
pseudo-economists.
Supply-siders
may
be
laughed
at
by
real
economists,
but
they
still
enjoy
a
strong
following
among
politicians,
including,
alas,
the
president
of
the
United
States.
Here
is
what
President
Bush
said
a
week
and
a
half
ago:
"They
said
that
we
had
to
choose
between
cutting
the
deficit
and
keeping
taxes
low
—
or
another
way
to
put
it,
that
in
order
to
solve
the
deficit
we
had
to
raise
taxes.
I
strongly
disagree
with
those
choices.
Those
are
false
choices.
Tax
relief
fuels
economic
growth,
and
growth
—
when
the
economy
grows,
more
tax
revenues
come
to
Washington.
And
that's
what's
happened.
It
makes
sense,
doesn't
it?"
Well,
no,
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
at
all.
Bush,
of
course,
is
correct
that
tax
revenues
have
risen
over
the
last
few
years.
This
is
normal.
Except
in
certain
extreme
theoretical
conditions,
tax
cuts
cause
revenues
to
fall,
and
tax
hikes
cause
them
to
rise.
The
economy
also
can
affect
revenues.
During
an
expansion,
revenues
can
rise
unusually
fast,
and
during
a
recession,
they
can
drop
unusually
fast.
...
In
the
same
speech
in
which
he
claimed
that
his
tax
cuts
have
caused
revenues
to
rise,
Bush
bragged
that
he's
"restraining
spending."
So
why
do
we
still
have
a
deficit?
I
mean,
he
says
he's
kept
spending
down,
he's
caused
revenues
to
skyrocket
and
the
economy
is
going
great
guns.
Why
are
we
still
in
the
red?
And
if
Bush's
own
economists
say
his
tax
cuts
caused
revenue
to
drop
—
and
Viard
isn't
the
only
one
—
then
how
can
he
continually
get
away
with
insisting
the
opposite?
As
the
evidence
against
the
Laffer
curve
continues
to
accumulate,
it's
getting
harder
to
sell
the
myth
that
tax
cuts
pay
for
themselves,
or
at
least
I
hope
it
is.
Because
of
that,
tax-cut
advocates
will
likely
retreat
to
an
efficiency
argument
to
support
their
cause.
One
note.
Jonathan
Chait
says:
Supply-siders
may
be
laughed
at
by
real
economists...
Not
quite.
There
are
real
economists
that
are
supply-side
advocates.
But
supply-side
economics
has
been
misused
and
misrepresented
to
suit
political
ends
and
that
has
tarnished
its
reputation,
something
that
could
have
been
avoided
if
those
"real
economists"
had
voiced
strong
opposition
to
claims
made
on
behalf
of
the
theory
that
were
clearly
wrong
or
wishful
thinking
at
best.
Supply-side
economics
in
the
right
hands,
those
of
qualified
real
business
cycle
theorists
who
are
interested
in
how
the
world
works
rather
than
supporting
an
ideology
or
political
party,
has
a
lot
to
offer.
For
example,
I
read
an
interesting
paper
last
week
("A
Theory
of
Demand
Shocks")
that
combines
a
real
business
cycle
framework
with
a
new
classical
style
Lucas
island
model
information
structure,
where
the
information
extraction
problem
concerns
productivity
shocks.
But
that
is
just
the
tip
of
a
large
iceberg
of
very
good
research
on
real
business
cycles.
My
view
is
that
the
debate
over
which
view
is
correct
-
real
business
cycle
stories
of
aggregate
fluctuations
or
new
Keynesian
style
microfounded
friction
models
-
is
not
all
that
productive.
My
objection
comes
when
people
dismiss
the
demand
side
entirely.
I
believe
both
supply
and
demand
shocks
are
important
sources
of
aggregate
fluctuations
and
that
models
synthesizing
New
Keynesian
-
Real
Business
Cycle
theoretical
models
by
imposing
rigidities
or
other
frictions
on
a
real
business
cycle
structure
(augmented
with
an
enhanced
demand
side)
is
ultimately
where
we
will
end
up.
第4个回答 2020-07-10
根据所给中文，完成句子
1.
are
going
to,
next
week
2.
What
a
funny
用适当形式填空
1.A:Would
you
like
to
live
in
the
countryside?It's
peaceful
there.
B:But
it's
convenient
to
shop
there.I'd
rather
live
in
the
suburbs.
2.Last
Sundy.I'm
very
happy
to
have
such
a
big
bedroom
of
my
own.
5.Ben
,may
I
visit
your
new
flat
tommorrw?