0 FRIEDMAN: And that goes to the whole discussion: I am not an anarchist. I am not in favor of eliminating government. I believe we need a government.
We are in the middle of a discussion. It this discussion, Friedman argues that the government should be small and limited in its powers. The following statement is relevant to the entire discussion. It goes to the entire discussion: Friedman is not an anarchist. (Anarchists are people who believe that there should be no government.) Friedman does not want to eliminate government. He is not in favor of eliminating government.

that goes to the whole discussion(More commonly) that goes to the heart of the whole discussion, this is the central issue of our discussion.

anarchist A person who believes in anarchism, a political philosophy that argues there should be no government and no state.

X is in favor of Y X supports Y; X wants Y to happen.

in favor of eliminating government The word eliminating is a Gerund: like a noun, it follows a preposition; like a verb, it has a direct object.

eliminate = To remove, to destroy, to get rid of.

7.354228855721394 But we need a government that sets a framework and rules within which individuals, pursuing their own objectives, can work together and cooperate together, and they work together and cooperate together not only in economic areas.
We need a government that sets the rules. The rules form a framework. Within that framework, people can work together. Each person, each individual has his or her own objectives. Each person pursues his own objectives. However, they follow the same rules, set by the government. Because they follow the same rules, they can work together; they can cooperate. And they can cooperate not only in economic areas.

framework a structure supporting or containing something

work together and cooperate together Cooperate means "work together." The phrase cooperate together is redundant (it says the same thing twice), and not standard English. There are very few cases when Friedman's English is not quite right; this is one of them.

19.93034825870647

McKENZIE: I want to hold you for a moment, though, to that golden age theory, that we were best when we were regulated least in the late 19th and early 20th century, because remember the sweatshop analogy comes out of there, when there was no attempt to restrict hours of work or to regulate working conditions. Now is that a view you accept of that period?

In the earlier discussion, Friedman said that in the late 19th and early 20th century, the US government was better because it was smaller and it regulated the life and work of citizens much less. At that time, the government budget was 3% of the economy. In 1980 in was 21%.

Many cultures have a myth about an ideal time in the past that was much better than the present. The Greeks called that ideal time "the Golden Age." McKenzie says that for Friedman the late 19th and early 20th century was like a Golden Age because there was so little government regulation. But for working people, it was a terrible time. They worked long hours in places called "sweatshops" where working conditions were poor and often dangerous. They could be fired for no reason and had no support if they became ill. Does Friedman really think that this was the Golden Age? (Turning to Peterson) Do you think it was the best time in the US history, simply because the country was less regulated by the government?

hold someone . . . to something Not let a person forget they said something. I'm going to hold you to your promise = I'm going to make sure you remember and keep your promise.

theory In science or philosophy, a set of principles that explain something. In conversation, however, theory often simply means an idea or a guess why something happens or is true. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I have a theory about why he is always late. (He doesn't have a watch.)

We were best when we were regulated least. best and least are irregular superlative forms of good and little. (Good, better, best; little, less, least.) Here the adjective least is used as an adverb to mean "we were regulated as little as possible."

regulated Controlled or governed with rules and regulations.

the sweatshop analogy sweatshop is a small factory, usually in the clothing industry, that is hot, crowded, and unsafe. There is no analogy (comparison) here; McKenzie means "the reference to sweatshops," or "the fact that sweatshops were legal at that time and many people worked in them."

37.06965174129354

PETERSON: Well I think it's necessary to contrast what's happened in the interim. I don't see how we can talk about that without comparing it with the interim period. Now you talked earlier about the fact that during the last fifty years we had squandered some of our inheritance of freedom, and I believe during the last fifty years we really have improved our freedom.

The period between late 1920s and 1980 is about 50 years. To understand the difference between the earlier period and 1980, we need to look at this interim period. Friedman thinks that during that period, the US lost some of its freedom. He says that the US squandered its freedom: it got rid of freedom without thinking. It had inherited freedom. It had an inheritance of freedom, which it wasted. Peterson disagrees with Friedman on this point. Peterson thinks that the New Deal policies enhanced freedom in the US.

interim a period between two events or periods of time. The word can be used as a noun (in the interim) or an adjective (the interim period).

I don't see how = I don't understand how ... This is a common use of the verb to see.

Now, you talked earlier... The word Now is used to signal a new topic.

inheritance noun formed from the verb inherit "to receive money, property, and the like after someone’s death." She had a large inheritance. She inherited several million dollars from her aunt. In a figurative sense, the verb is used to mean " to receive something from an earlier time or a previous generation. We have inherited many of our environmental problems from the 20th century.

we had squandered Past Perfect, to replace Present Perfect in reported speech. Friedman did not say, but he did imply, the following statement: "We have squandered our inheritance of freedom." Here this statement is reported with the main verb, talked, in the Past Tense, and the Present Perfect of the quoted statement becomes Past Perfect. (It would not be incorrect to use the Present Perfect: we have squandered.) This grammar rule is called "Sequence of Tenses."

improve freedom This is not the best choice of the verb. Freedom can be "extended" (made more available) or "enhanced" (increased in value) but not "improved" (made better).

59.680597014925375

I spent over half that time working for one of the world's largest industrial companies, the Dupont Company, deeply involved with the launching of new ventures; and got to know the free enterprise system well, and have a very healthy respect for it.

Half of 50 years is 25 years. Peterson spent over 25 years working for Dupont. It is one of the largest industrial companies in the world. Peterson was deeply involved in starting new projects. These were commercial projects that could result in a profit or a loss. Such projects are called ventures. Because of his deep involvement in new ventures, Peterson knows the free enterprise system well. He got to know it well, and has a high respect for it.

deeply involved This is how you express the meaning "involved in a big way, to a high degree."

launch People often say launch to mean "start, initiate." Originally, the word applied to ships or boats: launch a boat into the water.

new ventures New businesses or enterprises, especially ones that have an element of risk.

get to know same as come to know, not quite the same as learn. It means an awareness that comes through experience, not formal education.

free enterprise system An economic system in which businesses, or enterprises, are not owned by the government but by private people and organizations.

72.34626865671642

But during that interval, and particularly during the last few years when I've been more involved with governmental and with environmental matters, I have become convinced that our freedom was improved when the people are allowed to add to their freedom in the marketplace, the freedom to vote with their ballots in the polling place, to put some restraints on the excesses of the marketplace, particularly when you're concerned with such things as the long-term impact on our health from the pollution of our environment, the introduction of carcinogenic materials, or the radiation of our people with nuclear products.

After Peterson left his job at Dupont, he became involved with governmental and with environmental matters. During the last few years he has been involved with those matters. He has become convinced that economic freedom must work together with political freedom. Freedom is enhanced when people add their freedom to vote to their freedom in the marketplace. Freedom is enhanced when people understand the issues and use their voting power to influence economic and industrial policy.

In order to vote, people go to special places that are called polling places. They fill out a ballot and submit it for counting. There are many different ways to do that.

People can vote to restrain some excesses of the market. Without restraints, companies pollute the environment. They can dump materials that cause cancer. They can dump radioactive materials. These materials damage people's health. They have a bad impact on human health. The impact may not be immediate. It may be a long-term impact.

during the last few years when I've been more involved When talking about the period that continues into the present, the speaker uses Present Perfect.

excesses From word excess meaning surplus, extra, or an amount that is too great. Here, excesses has the sense of going too far, doing too much. Peterson thinks the marketplace sometimes goes too far, has too much power.

long-term impact Effects over a long period of time. Opposite: short-term impact.

have become convinced Another passive form (see F11 Hong Kong 20). to become + the Past Participle stresses the process of change, so it is not possible with many verbs.

112.68457711442788

FRIEDMAN: What about putting some restraints on the excesses of government? Hasn't that become an ever more serious problem? How is it that a government of the people, supposedly, does things which a very large fraction of the people would really prefer not to have done, such as overtax them, over govern them, over regulate them?

Peterson thinks people should put some restraints on the excesses of the free market. Friedman thinks that people should put some restraints on the excesses of government. He says that government excess, big government, has become a very serious problem; he says that it is getting more serious all the time. The US government is supposed to be "of the people," that is, it is supposed to come from the people and do what the people want. However, it does things that a very large percentage of the people don't want. It collects too many taxes, it governs too much, it regulates too much.

What about X? This is not really a question. (All three sentences in this segment are not really questions.) This simply means: "Let's talk about X."

ever more serious More and more serious

supposedly Adverb meaning "believed to be so, having the reputation of being so"

of the people All Americans know this phrase from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech he delivered at the end of the Civil War. The full phrase says that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

overtax, over-regulate, over-govern overtax and overregulation are commonly used words and therefore spelled without a hyphen; over-regulate and over-govern are much less common.

130.39203980099504

I think you're looking, again, at one side and not the other. And, of course, I agree we have to look at what's happened in the interim. We're better off than we were fifty years ago. Never would deny that. But we stand on the shoulders of the people that went before us, and we have to look at how much they achieved from where they started, and that was the period in which you had the tremendous influx of immigrants from abroad, millions and millions and millions of them, when you opened up a new continent, when you had achievements.

On one side is the benefit of government regulation, the good things that it does. On the other side is the cost of the regulation. Friedman believes that the cost of government regulation is usually greater than its benefit, and the same result could be achieved better by the free market.

Friedman seems to say: In those good years without regulation, there were great achievements. Millions of immigrants came to the US. There were no restrictions on immigration in that period. The Western part of the US was developed. Those were great achievements. In the last 50 years, we have also had achievements, but they are not as great. If we didn't have so much regulation, we would have achieved more, and our achievements would be as great as in those good years.

better off Comparative of well off.(well off, better off, best off). Depending on the context, well off can mean "rich" or simply "living a comfortable life." The immigrants were better off in America than they had been in their native lands. His family is quite well off (= very rich).

Never would deny that. Same as I would never deny that, but stronger in part because it is rough, unpolished speech.

stand on the shoulders of Figurative phrase, meaning that our achievements look big only because they are resting on top of much larger achievements of the people who went before us. The phrase "dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants" was first used in this meaning by Bernard of Chartres, a twelfth-century French scholar, and administrator. Isaac Newton repeated the phrase in his famous letter to Robert Hooke: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

tremendous Huge, enormous. A tremendous crowd. Also informally = great, wonderful, excellent. That's a tremendous idea!

influx Literally, water flowing into something, but most commonly used figuratively for any large-scale movement into some space. There has been an influx of Chinese-made goods into the American market.

immigrants People who come to live in a new country. Opposite: emigrants, people who leave their country to live in another country (in which they are immigrants).

159.18009950248756

McKENZIE: Milton, are you saying, though, that there's any sense, in which you'd rather go back to those circumstances where there are no regulations of factory work, no hours, limitations of hours worked. Do you want to return to that, or do you say that was a stepping stone to where we are now?

In those years, there was no regulation of how many hours people worked, or under what conditions they worked. Would Friedman go back to those circumstances when people worked many more hours in factories that were dirty and dangerous? The first federal law mandating (authorizing) an 8-hour working day was the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, signed by President Roosevelt.

there's any sense in which you'd rather go back Friedman's words allow several interpretations. McKenzie asks whether, in some sense that Friedman did not explain, he would like to go back to no regulation of working hours or working conditions. An simpler and more common way to ask this might be: Are you suggesting that you'd like to go back to those days?

you'd rather [go back] = You'd prefer [to go back]

a stepping stone to Originally, a stone placed in a stream which people could step on to cross the stream without getting their feet wet. Here, a path to or a means of getting to some goal.

172.44278606965176

FRIEDMAN: It depends on what you mean by circumstances. I don't want to have to go back to using a horse and buggy instead of an automobile, but I would prefer to go back to the kinds of governmental regulations, or absence of regulations, the greater degree of freedom which was given to individuals to pursue one activity or another, which prevailed then, than which prevails now.

Friedman does not reply directly. He says he would not want to go back to an old technology. He would go back to less regulation and greater degree of freedom. Greater degree of freedom prevailed then than now. Individuals have more freedom to choose an activity to pursue.

So, is Freedman in favor of repealing the Fair Labor Standards Act? He doesn't 't say.

go back to using X = Return to using X. using is a Gerund: follows a preposition, is followed by a direct object.

horse and buggy Common term for a small carriage pulled by a horse. "Horse and buggy days" means the time before automobiles.

greater degree of A higher level or extent of. Often, as here, it simply means "more." Also a higher degree. Opposite: a lesser degree. (See F14d_ Hong Kong Policies 180)

pursue . . . activity The literal meaning of pursue is to run or to chase after someone or something. The police pursued the criminal. Figuratively, as here, it means to work at or to try to achieve something. Pursue a career as a carpet maker.

one activity or another = Some activity. One X or another emphasizes that there are several X's, any one of which may be possible.

prevailed was common, was widespread. The verb prevail can also mean "win, triumph."

193.69751243781096

PETERSON: I think that, really, our industrial leaders have been dragged into the future screaming. They resisted the Child Labor Laws, they resisted Social Security, labor unions, and now the environmental movement.

Industrial leaders resisted many good changes. Those changes resulted in a better future. Industrial leaders resisted that future. They were dragged into the future screaming. They resisted the Child Labor Laws, which made it illegal for industries to employ children. They resisted Social Security, which provided money for old people, poor people, and people who can't work. They resisted labor unions, which bargain directly with companies over issues like wages and health insurance. Now they are resisting the environmental movement. (By 2007, many industrial leaders have become supportive of the environmental movement, and many are now urging universal health insurance, which is not a part of Social Security.)
Child Labor Laws The same 1938 law (see comment to 159 above) placed limits on many forms of child labor.
205.11741293532342

Once the government forced them to pay attention to those, by the voting of the people in the ballot box and in the polling place, then the industrial leaders, business leaders, paid attention to those rules and have done a good job in most cases of abiding by them. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me.

The government passed laws that placed limits on child labor, created Social Security, and protected labor unions. The government passed those laws because people voted for the government that promised those laws. Once the laws were passed, industrial leaders obeyed them. In most cases, they abided by those laws.

pay attention to Here used in the sense of "accept; take into consideration"

abide by the law Same as follow the law; obey the law.

have done a good job of This means that they have been successful at following the law; they have honorably followed the law.

220.1940298507463

McKENZIE: Now Bob Galvin is an industrialist, now come on, is that a fair statement?

Bob Galvin is an industrial leader. McKenzie wants him to comment on what Peterson said about industrial leaders. Peterson made a statement about industrial leaders. Was that a fair statement?
Now come on McKenzie wants Galvin to argue with Peterson. come on is a term of encouragement.

223.11442786069654

GALVIN: Maybe the industrialists have a clearer view of history and its prospects. The most precious asset we possess is freedom. The easiest way to lose one's freedom is to go into receivership; and I mean economic receivership. Because a receiver is a dictator.

Maybe industrialists understand history better. They have a clearer view of history. The have a clearer view of how history will develop: the prospects of history. Galvin says that our most precious asset is freedom. The easiest way to lose freedom is to be in debt to somebody.who can take control of your business because you cannot pay your debt. This is called "receivership." The receiver becomes a dictator who takes away your economic freedom.
most precious, easiest superlative forms precious and easy.
241.75820895522392

And to the degree that we employ the costs and the burdens of government that lead us in the direction of further debt, ultimate receivership, and then the political consequence of the imposition of the political dictator over the economic and the job and the living rights of the individual, maybe the industrialists can see farther down the pike as to the consequence of all this.

Galvin is not very clear here. His view of history and its prospects seems to be as follows. If we use the costs of government for our economic benefit, we owe a debt, in some sense, to the government. (He does not explain what this debt is. Is it literally money that a business owes to the government? This may happen only when the government bails out a bankrupt business, which does not happen very often.) This leads us in the direction of receivership. As we go deeper into that debt, eventually we cannot pay it, and we end up in the condition of receivership, and the government becomes the receiver, an economic dictator over the economy. This leads to political dictatorship over not only economic but also political and private rights of the individual. The industrialists can see farther down the road the consequences of relying on the government.

To the degree that we... A sentence that starts this way, normally would have another clause with the same subject: "To the degree that we rely on the government, we become in debt to the government." Galvin never comes back to the second part of the construction with which he started the sentence. This is the danger of a very long sentence: you forget how you started it.

the costs and the burdens of government Galvin speaks in long sentences whose meaning is not always clear.

268.9621890547264

McKENZIE: Michael Harrington. HARRINGTON: I just think that... two things. One, to view freedom positively. I think people over 65 years of age in the United States today are freer now because of Medicare. I do not think that the freedom to die from the lack of medicine was a very good thing.

Harrington has been trying to say something, and McKenzie calls on him to speak.

I would like to say two things. One: it is important to view freedom positively (freedom to do something), not only negatively (freedom from government). For example, people over 65 in the US get help from a government program (Medicare). Medicare helps them to buy the medicine that they need. Are they less free because they depend on the government? No, they are more free because they can get medicine that they need. Freedom to die from the lack of medicine is not a very good thing.

I just think that... Sentence abandoned.

Two things: This is not a sentence, but a legitimate way to start your statement.

One: to view freedom positively. This is the third utterance by Harrington that is not a sentence.

285.7721393034826

Secondly, related to industrialists, I think that one of the startling things about American history is that when Franklin Roosevelt was saving the system from itself, the main beneficiaries were screaming bloody murder at him for being a traitor to his class. When he was in fact the salvation of that class.

Secondly, with regard to industrialists and the capitalist system, this is what I think. The system crashed in the Great Depression of 1929. It crashed because it needed reform; it did not reform itself. Franklin Roosevelt was reforming the system. He was saving the system from its own bad features, and therefore enabling it to continue. Industrialists depend on the capitalist system. They benefited from Roosevelt's reforms more than anybody else. They were the main beneficiaries of his reforms. But they were against Roosevelt's reforms. They were attacking Roosevelt. Roosevelt's father was an industrialist, and Roosevelt himself was a rich man. He belonged to the industrialist class. He was a member of that class. Industrialists called him a traitor to his class. In fact, he saved his class. He was the salvation of that class.

Secondly This follows One: in the preceding segment. It's better to have them match: "First, ... Second, ..." or "One: ... Two:...".

related to with regard to is a more common way of returning to a recent topic.

screaming bloody murder at him This expression means "loudly object; attack verbally."

beneficiary of X somebody who benefits from X

traitor to X somebody who betrays X

salvation This is an abstract noun. It is used metaphorically to refer to a person. He could have said "savior."

304.2467661691542

And I think if you, therefore, if you look at our history, I do think you find a tremendous myopia on the part of industrialists, and you find that the positive increments to our freedom, interestingly enough, have not come from the college graduates, but often from people with... not from the best people, it's come from working people. It's come from poor people, it's come from blacks and Hispanics and the like.

Harrington disagrees with Galvin here (and agrees with Peterson who said that industrialists were dragged into the future screaming). Galvin said that industrialists see things more clearly ("they have a clearer view.") Harrington takes this metaphor of vision and reverses it. He says that industrialists are myopic: they have a problem with their vision; they can't see things that are far away (like the future). People who are myopic, who have myopia, need glasses. Harrington then leaves this metaphor and says that positive additions, positive increments to our freedom did not come from college graduates . They didn't come from "the best people." They have come from working people, from poor people, from blacks and Hispanics, and similar people.

from people with... phrase abandoned

not from the best people He does not mean this literally. He means "not the best in terms of education and wealth." He uses best people as a synonym for the term elite.

it's come Somehow, the plural they (positive increments) have come has changed to the singular it has come.

326.8666666666667

McKENZIE: Milton, would you reply, but then tell us why you took us to Hong Kong to prove something. FRIEDMAN: Sure. Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Michael Harrington, I will agree in part with what he's just said. I do not believe it's proper to put the situation in terms of industrialist versus government. On the contrary.

McKenzie: Milton, please reply to Harrington but then tell us why you took us Hong Kong. What did you want to prove or illustrate?

Friedman. I don't often agree with Michael Harrington, but I will agree in part with what he has just said. I don't think the industrialists and the government are always against each other. On the contrary, they are often together.

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing... An emphatic version of: I am unaccustomed to agreeing...

put the situation in terms of ... describe the situation as ...

X vs. Y (X versus Y) X against Y; X in opposition to Y. versus is a Latin preposition meaning "against."

343.70746268656717

One of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can't get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost; and that's why I don't want government to step in and help the business community. Now I want to go to your question about Medicare.

There are several reasons why I am in favor of less government. One of them is this: if there is a big government, industrialists take it over. Big government and industrialists join forces. They form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. Business is a wonderful institution, but only if it has to compete in the market place. It has to face a competition, and it can be successful only if it produces a better product for consumers, at a lower cost. That's why I don't want government to help business community.

Now I want to address what you said about Medicare.

take X over take control of X, become in control of X

provided X only if X

get away with X do some bad X but not be punished or suffer any bad consequences

374.0597014925374

There are many people who have benefited from Medicare, but you're not looking at the cost side. What has happened to the people who are paying for it? It isn't... We don't have a free good, it isn't coming from nowhere. And are they benefiting from it in a cost effective way. Those are the questions. It's demagoguery, if you'll pardon me, Michael Harrington, to say the people who have Medicare are freer.

Many people have benefited from Medicare, but what is the cost of that benefit? You are not looking at the cost. What about the people who are paying for it? It is not free, it is not coming from nowhere. Are people benefiting from Medicare in a cost-effective way? Those are the real questions. Pardon me for strong words, but what you said was demagoguery. It is demagoguery to say that people who have Medicare are freer.

It isn't... sentence abandoned.

at the cost side benefits and costs form two sides of a government program

397.1582089552239

They are freer in one dimension. They do not have to pay for most of their medical care. But they themselves have been paying for this benefit all their lives because all people who work pay a special Medicare tax. That tax covers the medical expenses of people who no longer work. Have these old people bought their Medicare benefit at a good price? Have they gotten a good bargain in exchange for the tax they paid? At the moment, people who are receive Medicare benefits have gotten a good bargain. But young people who are starting to work and to pay Social Security taxes now will not get a good bargain. They will get a raw deal. (This is because the proportion of young people in the population has diminished, while the proportion of old people in the population has increased. The result is that the ratio of young working people to old retired people has diminished. One young person's taxes have to support more Medicare benefits. The taxes have to be raised - or we have to start paying less for Medicare for old people. Or, perhaps, we can make the entire system less wasteful and more efficient.)

Conable: Here is an interesting observation regarding the point you just made. What percentage of their income do people pay for medical care? Compare people over 65 who receive Medicare, and people over 65 before Medicare became law. Before Medicare was enacted into law, people paid a smaller part of their spendable income for medical care. Medicare has not been a very successful program. Government doesn't do things well.

get a good bargain, get a good deal buy or get something for a low price or at a low cost.

get a raw deal get a bad bargain

spendable income part of your income that remains after you make the necessary payments for food and your place of living

people over 65 are paying more ... now than they were before ... The words "of their spendable income for medical care" do not need to be repeated.

Grammar topics:

  • comparative and superlative forms of adjectives
  • Gerund Phrases
  • Contrary-to-fact conditionals and the use of would

Expressions:

be in favor of + Gerund; scream bloody murder at; provided X (X is a condition);

Vocabulary:

anarchist; eliminate; government; framework; pursue; objectives; cooperate; inherit, inheritance; squander; benefit, beneficiary; betray, traitor; save, salvation, savior

Of course, in one dimension. But they themselves have been paying all their lives, and have they gotten a good bargain? At the moment they have. The young men, the young working people who are going into Social Security now, they're going to get a very raw deal indeed. CONABLE: Milton, interestingly on that point, people over 65 are paying more of their spendable income for medical care now, than they were before Medicare was enacted. It's been not a very successful program. Government doesn't do things well.

Exercises for F13d Limited Government

Grammar topics

Expressions

to be in favor of to see how the fact that to be involved with to get to know supposedly to depend on

Vocabulary

anarchist, anarchism, to eliminate, individuals, objectives, Golden Age, theory, sweatshop, restrict, regulate, inherit, inheritance, launch, venture, enterprise, excesses, long-term, restraints, tremendous, immigrants, circumstances, horse and buggy

Exercise 1.

Sequence of tenses with reported speech. .

In this exercise, you are given a sentence with quoted speech. Change the sentence to reported speech, making sure to use the correct tense and pronouns.

Given: John said, "Peter is wasting his money."
Answer: John said Peter was wasting his money. OR

Given: We heard (the following statement): "This factory is a real sweatshop."
Answer: We heard that this factory was a real sweatshop.

Exercise 2.

Gerunds with verbs I

Some verbs can be followed by either an infinitive or a gerund, with no difference in meaning. I love to listen to music = I love listening to music. In this exercise, you are given a few of the most common verbs that can be followed by a gerund or an infinitive with no difference in meaning. Change the infinitive into a gerund. (Also see in F11 Hong Kong.)

Given: The children like to play in the park
Answer: The children like playing in the park.

Exercise 3.

Gerunds with verbs II

Other verbs must be followed by a gerund. A few of the most common verbs that require a gerund are given here.

Given: Boris wanted to play the violin well. He practiced everyday.
Answer: Boris practiced playing the violin everyday.

Exercise 4.

Word formation with over.

In this exercise, you are given one sentence with the word "too." Rewrite the sentence using the prefix over. 

Given: Eating too much will make you fat.
Answer: Overeating will make you fat.

Exercise 5.

Word formation with -able.

In this exercise, you are given one sentence with a form of to be able and a verb. Rewrite the sentence using the suffix -able. Don't use words in brackets in your sentence, and note that verbs ending in an "e" drop the "e" before adding able: use/usable.

believable,

Given: John said [they] could do the job.
Answer: John said the job was doable.

Exercise 6.

Would rather with and without the Subjunctive

In this exercise, you are given one sentence with to prefer. Express the same idea with would rather. Note that if the subject of the second clause is different from the first, you have to use the Subjunctive. Also try to use contractions of would wherever you can.

Given: I'd prefer dying to hurting my mother.
Answer: I'd rather die than hurt my mother. .

OR

Given: They preferred he wait [Present Subjunctive Present/Future] until Thursday.
Answer: .They would rather he wait until Thursday.

Exercise 7.

Noun modifiers

In this exercise, you are given a sentence with an underlined phrase containing a plural noun. Make this noun modify, or qualify, the other noun. Note that noun modifiers are almost always singular even if they refer to something that is plural.

Given: Peterson talked about the problem of sweatshops.
Result: Peterson talked about the sweatshop problem.

Exercise 8.

Expression to be in favor of
Fill in the blanks with the correct form of this expression.

Exercise 9.

Expression

to see how X can/could

Express the following ideas using this expression.

Given: I don't understand how you can say we're not better off now.
Result: I don't see how you can say we're not better off now.

Exercise 10.

Expression the fact that

Rewrite these sentences using the correct form of this expression.

Exercise 11.

Expression

to be (or to get) involved with

Rewrite the sentences below in another way with the correct form of this expression.

Example:

Given: They got active in politics when they were in university.
Answer: They got involved with politics when they were in university.

Exercise 12.

Expression to get to know

(Irregular verb: to get, got, gotten or to get, got, got)

Fill in the blanks with the correct form of this expression.

Exercise 13.

Expression supposedly

In this exercise, you are given one sentence about what is commonly believed. Express the same idea with this expression. (Note that supposedly, like other sentence adverbs, can be inserted before or after a sentence or next to the main verb, all with little change in meaning.)

Given: Many people believe that Friedman was on the side of rich industrialists.
Answer: Friedman was supposedly on the side of big industrialists. (or Supposedly Friedman was on the side of rich industrialists.)

Exercise 14.

Expression to depend on

In this exercise, you are given a question. Answer the question with the correct form of this expression and the cue [in brackets].

Example:.

Given: What are you going to do this Saturday? [the weather]
Answer: I'm not sure. That depends on the weather. (or That will depend on the weather.)

Exercise 15.

Vocabulary Exercise

anarchist, anarchism, eliminate, individuals, objectives, Golden Age, theory, sweatshops, regulate, inherit, inheritance, launch, venture, enterprise, excesses, long-term , restraints, tremendous, immigrants, circumstances, horse and buggy

Replace the blanks with a word from the vocabulary list above. Use each word only once.

Exercise 16.

Comprehension

Watch the video clip again, and then read the following statements. If the statement summarizes the film clip correctly, say or write, "Yes, it is true that . . . ." or "Yes, Friedman says that/claims that/tells us that . . . . If it summarizes the film clip incorrectly, say or write, "No, that's not true. In fact . . . ."