could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return？ since opec agreed to supply_cuts in march， the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $26 a barrel， up from less than $10 last december. this near_tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock， when prices quadrupled， and 1979—1980， when they also almost tripled. both previous shocks resulted in double_digit inflation and global economic decline. so where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time？
the oil price was given another push up this week when iraq suspended oil exports. strengthening economic growth， at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere， could push the price higher still in the short term.
yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. in most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. in europe， taxes account for up to four_fifths of the retail price， so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.
rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were， and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. energy conservation， a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy， energy_intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. software， consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. for each dollar of gdp （in constant prices） rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. the oecd estimates in its latest economic outlook that， if oil prices average $22 a barrel for a full year， compared with $13 in 1998， this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25%-0.5% of gdp. that is less than one_quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. on the other hand， oil_importing emerging economies—to which heavy industry has shifted—have become more energy_intensive， and so could be more seriously squeezed.
one more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that， unlike the rises in the 1970s， it has not occurred against the backbone of general commodity_price inflation and global excess demand. a sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. the economists commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. in 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%， and in 1979 by almost 30%.
from the text we can see that the writer seems .
in the last half of the nineteenth century，“capital”and“labour”were enlarging and perfecting their rival organisations on modern lines. many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. the change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. it was moreover a step away from individual initiative， towards collectivism and municipal and state_owned business. the railway companies， though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders， were very unlike old family business！at the same time the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting， trams and other services to the taxpayers.
the growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. such large， impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class， an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners； and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. all through the nineteenth century， america， africa， india， australia and parts of europe were being developed by british capital， and british shareholders were thus enriched by the worlds movement towards industrialisation. towns like bournemouth and eastbourne sprang up to house large“comfortable”classes who had retired on their incomes， and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders meeting to dictate their orders to the management. on the other hand“shareholding”meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilisation.
the“shareholders”as such had no knowledge of the lives， thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which they held shares， and their influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. the paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the men and their demands， but even he had seldom that familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employer had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business now passing away. indeed the mere size of operations and the numbers of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. fortunately， however， the increasing power and organisation of the trade unions， at least in all skilled trades， enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. the cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each others strength and understand the value of fair negotiation.
the author is most critical of .
[a]family firm owners
在谈到family firm owners时，作者只是说：“通过雇用一大批专业人员，这一变化适应了新时代的技术要求，防止了效率的下降。而效率的下降通常是家族公司在精力充沛的创立者之后的第二三代破产的原因。”这是很客观的表述，在谈到landowners时说：“对资本与企业的如此大规模的非个人运作大大增加了作为一个阶层的持股人的数量及地位的重要性。
国民生活中这一现象的出现代表了不由个人负责的财富与土地及土地所有者的义务的分离，这也在同样程度上意味着（不由个人负责的财富）与经营管理责任的分离。“也是很客观的表述，没有表明自己的态度。c选项在原文中有两处提及，但都是指带薪经理，对经理并没有进行任何批评性评论，因而也不符合题意。只有d选项对应原文中the”shareholders“as such had no knowledge of the lives， thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares， and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good.”像这样的‘持股人’对所持股票公司雇用的工人的生活，思想和需求一无所知，他对资本与劳工关系没有什么好的影响。“显然，作者对这种”持股人“持批判的态度，所以d是正确答案。实际上，1996年第62题命题也可以直接以下面的形式出现：
the authors attitude towards shareholders is.