Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems
good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market. A price that is determined by the seller
or, for that matter (for that matter: so far as that is concerned), established by anyone other than the aggregate of
consumers seems pernicious. Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price-fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence
of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number
of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its
own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates
of free-market economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with
the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-
fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms;
it is not.
Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient
method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United states. These economies employ intentional price-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace. Were there something peculiarly efficient
about the free market and inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic
development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal
evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by a free market over which they exercise
little influence than are capitalist firms; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices.
5.
The suggestion in the passage that price-fixing in industrialized societies is normal arises from the author’s statement that price-fixing is
(A) a profitable result of economic development
(B) an inevitable result of the industrial system
(C) the result of a number of carefully organized decisions
(D) a phenomenon common to industrialized and non-industrialized societies（B）
(E) a phenomenon best achieved cooperatively by government and industry
请问C为什么不对？ hightlight的部分都是讲了price-fixing是经过深思熟虑的决定嘛？正确答案B的根据是蓝色部分，但是本人觉得蓝色部分是在讲美国以外的非社会主义经济的情况，只有第一段是在讨论generic的工业社会普遍状况，所以题5的答案应该在第一段定位。而且第一段在讨论normal不normal的话题（见绿色hightlight)
多谢牛牛解答！ | 
