Questões de Inglês

TEXT: New law targets fast-food toys

 

San Francisco has passed a law banning fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with some children's meals. Supporters say many fast-food meals are very unhealthy, but McDonald’s called the legislation misguided.

 

It could spell the end of the Happy Meal, the fast-food snack that's a hit with children at McDonald‟s, because it comes with a free toy. City leaders in San Francisco argued the same meals also come with too many calories and they say that has added to a situation where nearly 20% of American children are obese.

 

Now San Francisco has become the first major US city to ban fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with meals that don't meet nutritional guidelines. In future, you'll only get the toy if you buy a healthy snack.

 

The burger giant McDonald‟s sent senior executives to the city to oppose the measure. In a statement, the company said: ''Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility, not the government's, to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children.''

 

McDonald‟s, Burger King and 15 other food companies have signed up to self-regulate how they advertise food to youngsters.

(FONTE: MIRCHANDANI, Rajesh.Words in the News © British Broadcasting Corporation 2010)

“Supporters say many fast-food meals are very unhealthy, but McDonald’s called the legislation misguided.”

The underlined prefix in the word misguided, means:

TEXT: New law targets fast-food toys

 

San Francisco has passed a law banning fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with some children's meals. Supporters say many fast-food meals are very unhealthy, but McDonald’s called the legislation misguided.

 

It could spell the end of the Happy Meal, the fast-food snack that's a hit with children at McDonald‟s, because it comes with a free toy. City leaders in San Francisco argued the same meals also come with too many calories and they say that has added to a situation where nearly 20% of American children are obese.

 

Now San Francisco has become the first major US city to ban fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with meals that don't meet nutritional guidelines. In future, you'll only get the toy if you buy a healthy snack.

 

The burger giant McDonald‟s sent senior executives to the city to oppose the measure. In a statement, the company said: ''Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility, not the government's, to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children.''

 

McDonald‟s, Burger King and 15 other food companies have signed up to self-regulate how they advertise food to youngsters.

(FONTE: MIRCHANDANI, Rajesh.Words in the News © British Broadcasting Corporation 2010)

According to the text, choosing what is right for the children is

TEXT: New law targets fast-food toys

 

San Francisco has passed a law banning fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with some children's meals. Supporters say many fast-food meals are very unhealthy, but McDonald’s called the legislation misguided.

 

It could spell the end of the Happy Meal, the fast-food snack that's a hit with children at McDonald‟s, because it comes with a free toy. City leaders in San Francisco argued the same meals also come with too many calories and they say that has added to a situation where nearly 20% of American children are obese.

 

Now San Francisco has become the first major US city to ban fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with meals that don't meet nutritional guidelines. In future, you'll only get the toy if you buy a healthy snack.

 

The burger giant McDonald‟s sent senior executives to the city to oppose the measure. In a statement, the company said: ''Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility, not the government's, to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children.''

 

McDonald‟s, Burger King and 15 other food companies have signed up to self-regulate how they advertise food to youngsters.

(FONTE: MIRCHANDANI, Rajesh.Words in the News © British Broadcasting Corporation 2010)

Nutritional guideline is

TEXT: New law targets fast-food toys

 

San Francisco has passed a law banning fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with some children's meals. Supporters say many fast-food meals are very unhealthy, but McDonald’s called the legislation misguided.

 

It could spell the end of the Happy Meal, the fast-food snack that's a hit with children at McDonald‟s, because it comes with a free toy. City leaders in San Francisco argued the same meals also come with too many calories and they say that has added to a situation where nearly 20% of American children are obese.

 

Now San Francisco has become the first major US city to ban fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with meals that don't meet nutritional guidelines. In future, you'll only get the toy if you buy a healthy snack.

 

The burger giant McDonald‟s sent senior executives to the city to oppose the measure. In a statement, the company said: ''Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility, not the government's, to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children.''

 

McDonald‟s, Burger King and 15 other food companies have signed up to self-regulate how they advertise food to youngsters.

(FONTE: MIRCHANDANI, Rajesh.Words in the News © British Broadcasting Corporation 2010)

The Happy Meal is a hit with children at McDonald‟s because of

TEXT:

The net isn’t as important as we think

 

Ha-Joon Chang, born in South Korea in 1963, is an economist based at Cambridge University specializing in development. He is the author of several books, including Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (2008). In his new book, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism (Allen Lane) Chang debunks many myths about the free market. In one chapter, he says: “The washing machine changed the world more than the internet.”

 

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

 

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of a restaurant in Liverpool, or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it’s mainly in the area of leisure.

 

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a small minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

 

And the washing machine was more transformative?

 

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionized the structure of society. As women have become active in the labor market they have acquired a different status at home – they can threaten their partners that if they don’t treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had enormous economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

 

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women feminism, the pill and so on.

 

Yes, but feminism couldn’t have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it’s not just the washing machine, it’s piped water, electricity, and son on.

 

Do we tend to overestimate the importance of communications revolutions?

 

Not always. The invention of the printing press was one of the most important events in human history. But we overestimate the internet and ignore its downsides. There’s now so much information out there that you don’t actually have time to digest it.

 

But what about the sheer speed at which it allows us to do things?

 

That is exaggerated too. Before the invention of the telegraph in the late 19th century, it took two to three weeks to carry a message across the Atlantic. The telegraph reduced it to 20 or 30 minutes – an increase of 2,000 – 3,000 times. The internet has reduced the time of sending, say, three or four pages of text from the 30 seconds you needed with a fax machine down to maybe two seconds – a reduction by a factor of 15. I can’t think of anything where it’s really so important that we send it in two seconds rather than a few minutes.

 

Do we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of capitalism, as the title of your book implies?

 

Let me start by saying that I am an advocate of capitalism. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I think it’s the worst economic system except for all the others. So I’m not an anti-capitalist, or anarchist. I want capitalism to work. But the version of capitalism that we have practiced in the past two or three decades is a very extreme free-market version which, contrary to the claims of many economists, is not the only or best way to run things. There are many different ways and in the book I show that countries that have run capitalism differently – even if they practice free-market capitalism today have done much better.

(FONTE: By William Skidelsky – The Observer – in Speak Up Magazine issue 285)

 

“But we overestimate the internet and ignore its downsides.”

Downsides means

TEXT:

The net isn’t as important as we think

 

Ha-Joon Chang, born in South Korea in 1963, is an economist based at Cambridge University specializing in development. He is the author of several books, including Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) and Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (2008). In his new book, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism (Allen Lane) Chang debunks many myths about the free market. In one chapter, he says: “The washing machine changed the world more than the internet.”

 

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

 

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of a restaurant in Liverpool, or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it’s mainly in the area of leisure.

 

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a small minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

 

And the washing machine was more transformative?

 

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionized the structure of society. As women have become active in the labor market they have acquired a different status at home – they can threaten their partners that if they don’t treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had enormous economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

 

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women feminism, the pill and so on.

 

Yes, but feminism couldn’t have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it’s not just the washing machine, it’s piped water, electricity, and son on.

 

Do we tend to overestimate the importance of communications revolutions?

 

Not always. The invention of the printing press was one of the most important events in human history. But we overestimate the internet and ignore its downsides. There’s now so much information out there that you don’t actually have time to digest it.

 

But what about the sheer speed at which it allows us to do things?

 

That is exaggerated too. Before the invention of the telegraph in the late 19th century, it took two to three weeks to carry a message across the Atlantic. The telegraph reduced it to 20 or 30 minutes – an increase of 2,000 – 3,000 times. The internet has reduced the time of sending, say, three or four pages of text from the 30 seconds you needed with a fax machine down to maybe two seconds – a reduction by a factor of 15. I can’t think of anything where it’s really so important that we send it in two seconds rather than a few minutes.

 

Do we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of capitalism, as the title of your book implies?

 

Let me start by saying that I am an advocate of capitalism. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I think it’s the worst economic system except for all the others. So I’m not an anti-capitalist, or anarchist. I want capitalism to work. But the version of capitalism that we have practiced in the past two or three decades is a very extreme free-market version which, contrary to the claims of many economists, is not the only or best way to run things. There are many different ways and in the book I show that countries that have run capitalism differently – even if they practice free-market capitalism today have done much better.

(FONTE: By William Skidelsky – The Observer – in Speak Up Magazine issue 285)

 

In “By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionized the structure of society.”

The highlighted connective express