A recent poll by Beijing Internet Development Centre found only 4.5 per cent of trade firms in China did online trade, while 23.6 per cent had not put online business on their agenda.

"Chinese firms also tail foreign players in adopting new business models, which has cut their global competitiveness," said Michael Kleist, president of e-trade agent meet china. corn's China operation.

41. The E-trade 2000 Forum was most likely held in __________.

A. Bangkok B. Shanghai C'. New York D. Tokyo

42. E-business refers to _________.

A. business with EU. B. electricity trade.

C. ignoring the Internet as a means of trade D. none of the above

43. What attitude do bricks-and-mortar firms hold to e-trade?

A. Active. B. Pessimistic. C. Like a spectator. D. Ignoring.

44. According to Kleist, what has cut Chinese fines' global competitiveness?

A. Independent development. B. Adopting old business models.

C. 'Tailing foreign Firms. D. Ignoring new business models.

45. According to the passage, which of the following statements is not true?

A. Opening a webpage and making an e-mail system is enough for doing e-trade.

B. WTO is working towards a uniform standard on e-trade.

C. Many Chinese firms still don't know the advantages of e-trade.

D. Internet is an important means of doing business nowadays.

3

Historians have only recently begun to note the increase in demand for luxury goods and services that took place in eighteenth-century England. McKendrick has explored the Wedgewood Firm's remarkable success in marketing luxury pottery. Plumb has written about the proliferation of provincial theaters, musical festivals and children's toys and books. While the fact of this consumer revolution is hardly in doubt, three key questions remain: Who were the consumers? What were their motives? And what were the effects of the new demand for luxuries?

An answer to the first of these has been difficult to obtain. Although it has been possible to infer from the goods and service actually produced what manufacturers and servicing trades thought their customers wanted, only a study of relevant personal documents written by actual consumers will provide a precise picture of who wanted what. We still need to know how large this consumer market was and how far down the social scale the consumer demand for luxury goods penetrated. With regard to this last question, we might note in passing that Thompson, while rightly restoring laboring people to the stage of eighteenth-century English history, has probably exaggerated the opposition of these people to the inroads of capitalist consumerism in general: for example, laboring people in eighteenth-century England readily shifted from home-brewed beer to standardized beer produced by huge, heavily capitalized urban breweries.

To answer the question of why consumers became so eager to buy, some historians have pointed to the ability of manufacturers to advertise in a relatively uncensored press. This, however, hardly seems a sufficient answer. McKendrick favors a Veblen model of conspicuous consumption stimulated by competition for status. The "middling sort" bought goods and services because they wanted to follow fashions set by the rich. Again, we may wonder whether this explanation is sufficient. Do not people enjoy buying things as a form of self-gratification? If so, consumerism could be seen as a product of the rise of new concepts of individualism and materialism, but not