英语学习笔记 02
4 Because of its irritating effect on humans, the use of phenol as a general antiseptic has been largely discontinued.
由于苯酚对人体带有刺激性作用它基本已不再被当作常用的防腐剂了。
英语学习笔记 02
1 irritating means causing annoying .
you are irritating.你真烦人啊
名词是irritation
语境：身上痒啊，眼睛进沙子了causing irritation on your body ，
irritated
irritatble 易激惹 Babies are irritable
2 human, human being , human kind
human 统称， human being 种类， 种属(species)，human kind : collective form 人类的整体
为全人类做贡献 make their contribution to human kind
3 phenol 苯酚
antiseptic 防腐剂
septic tank化粪池
disinfectant 消毒（消灭细菌）
antibotic抗生素
probotics 益生菌
hand sanitizer 洗手消毒液 ：reduce possibility of infection germs into your boby, less possible to get sick
antimicrobial抗菌剂
antiseptic还可以做形容词 其名词形式是antisepsis
germophobia : people who scares germs
相关联想单词：bacteria细菌 virus 病毒immunisation免疫力 resistence 抵抗力vaccination vaccines疫苗, antigen抗原, antibody抗体，substance, infections 感染germs细菌
OCD=obsessive compulsive disorder强迫症
psychiatrical disorder？？？
Dis联想系列单词：discontinued disappear disable
ADHD多动症
加了前缀意思不变的有 ：
inflammable flammable miss dismiss charge discharge 出院
5 In group to remain in exsitence ，a profit-making organization must, in the long run, produce something consumers consider useful or disirable.
任何盈利组织若要生存，最终都必须生产出消费者可用或需要的产品。
NPO nonprofit-making非盈利组织
是非精talking behind one's back
produce 重音在前是名词 “农产品” object n/v 反对 subject 使臣服
in the long run : 后来被引申为政客反反复复的承诺
in the long run, we are all dead...live for the moment, carpe diem , hedonism享乐主义者
In the long run的引申阅读
But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.
A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923), Ch. 3, p. 80The true meaning of “In the long run we are all dead”
Posted on 5 May 2013 by Simon Taylor • 14 Comments
Many commentators use John Maynard Keynes’ quotation “In the long run we are all dead” to suggest that Keynes, and by association those economists today who urge a moderation of government austerity policies, didn’t care about the future. The implication is that Keynes and Keynesian economists are recklessly short termist and would happily buy some temporary economic benefit at the price of ruinous long term debt increases and great damage to future generations.
The British professor of history Niall Ferguson made this implication explicit in an answer to a question at a recent conference in California. He went further and attributed Keynes’ supposed lack of interest in the future to the fact that he had no children, because he was gay. Ferguson has made an unreserved apology for his remarks. He acknowledged that Keynes (whose earlier gay life is not in dispute) was later married and his wife, the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova, suffered a miscarriage.
Ferguson is popular on the conference circuit because he makes controversial comments. With the academic credibility of a Harvard professorship this frankness gives him a ready and high paying audience. But his academic reputation lies in his distinguished work in financial history. He is not an economist and his emphatic forecasts about the inflationary consequences of high US federal debt and quantitative easing have been completely wrong
But the more important point is that he, like so many others, clearly misunderstands the point that Keynes was making. Here is the context for Keynes’ quotation:
The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
Keynes wrote this in one of his earlier works, The Tract on Monetary Reform, in 1923. It should be clear that he is not arguing that we should recklessly enjoy the present and let the future go hang. He is exasperated with the view of mainstream economists that the economy is an equilibrium system which will eventually return to a point of balance, so long as the government doesn’t interfere and if we are only willing to wait. He later challenged that view in his most important work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1935). arguing that the economy can slip into a long term underemployment equilibrium from which only government policy can rescue it.
Unemployment is the great scourge of economic life. It is far more pervasive than the hyperinflation that Fergusson and others worry about. Hyperinflation is very rare and usually occurs following wars or other major dislocations. We know how it can be stopped e.g. Bolivia’s 1985 hyperinflation was stopped in ten days – this was one of the few 20th century hyperinflations not to be caused by war or revolution. It is a very damaging but rare disease.
Unemployment causes enormous harm to individuals and families, reduces long term potential output as people lose their skill and motivation and can last for many years. The appalling rates of unemployment in southern Europe are doing great damage right now, as well as storing up serious political problems for the future (once again I have to cite the fact that the Nazis achieved power in Germany on the back of mass unemployment, not inflation). It is in this sense that economists should not let themselves off the hook by saying that these countries will somehow eventually return to full employment if we are just patient. This is both immoral and incorrect.
Keynes wrote about the future of mankind and the possibilities that greater economic prosperity might bring. He cherished a high quality of life and wanted to preserve a capitalist system capable of delivering this against the danger of a collectivist tyranny. It is nonsense to imply that he had no conception of the value of the future. And those many economists today who argue that Europe is needlessly wasting human life and capabilities are not reckless about the future either. They have both economic theory and history on their side to argue that we should not let mass unemployment continue.
