急求2篇英译中1）List’s framed economic nationalism conveniently rem

急求2篇英译中
1）List’s framed economic nationalism conveniently reminds us that the French revolution was no more a break in economic nation-building than in the development of political-territorial sovereignty.For list nationality was simply the intermediate layer of human existence between individuality and humanity.He used the adjective national to mean "political",and he used the terms political economy and national economy interchangeably.The shift in terminology from the political to national represented no more of a conceptual change for list than for Adam smith.Rather,List’ emphasis was on the incongruence between national politics and world markets.The problem was that politically not viable until fundamental changes in the modern world had taken place.Modern politics could not be realist without considering the future trajectory of jealousy of trade and finding a way of dealing with it.
2）When Hume and Smith argued that it was commerce,not the heroes of the renaissance and reformation that had created modern liberty,they advanced a very powerful argument.They suggested that modern liberty,and hence liberalism,can never be understood simply in political and moral terms,but instead must be considered as a product of the peculiarly modern strain between politics and the economy.Like list,they expected this tension to persist into the foreseeable future.The so-called end of history,adumbrated during the brief euphoria that followed the end of the cold war in 1989,was no victory for western moral and religious values.It was a victory of capitalism over socialism,the free market over planning and the "open" commercial state over the "closed" one.It represented yet another important historical instance of commerce having created liberty.Similarly,it was a step forward in solving the "social question",the reconciliation of liberty and inequality in the modern republic.The end of the cold war,however,has not signaled an end to the incongruence between the fixed boundaries of states and the ever expanding frontiers of the global economy that has upset the modern world order ever since the eighteenth century.
翻译器翻译的就不要贴上来了，

从李斯特创立的经济学的国民体系理论让我们很容易看出：与政治主权的巨变相比,法国革命更是一场国家经济建设领域的革命.李斯特认为国家的本质是处于个人与整个人类之间的中介体.他使用“national（国家的）”这个形容词来代表“political（政治的）”这个词.他互换着使用政治经济和国家经济这两个术语.比起亚当.斯密斯,这种从“政治的”到“国家的”术语的转化对李斯特来说更代表着一种观念上的改变.李斯特强调的重点是国家经济政策和世界市场之间的无法一致.直到现代市场发生了根本改变时政策才有可行性.不考虑将来的贸易竞争和应对方法,这样的现代经济政策是不太切合实际的.
当休谟和斯密斯争论：是商业而不是文艺复兴的英雄们和改革,产生了现代自由时,他们推动了一个非常强有力的争论.他们提出：现代自由或者说自由主义,永远也不能简单的理解为政治和道德词汇,而是必须被理解为一种介于政治和经济之间的特别的现代社会的产物.他们期待着这种张力持续到可预见的将来.,在紧随着1898（1989）年那场残酷的战争之后的短暂的胜利期间,这种所谓的历史的终结点即预示了西方的道德和宗教观无法获得胜利.它是资本主义对社会主义的一次胜利,是自由的市场对计划的市场、开放的市场状态对封闭市场的一次胜利.它代表着这种开创了自由的商业的一个重要历史时刻.同样的,它也推动了自由和现代共和国的无法调和这个会问题的解决.然而战争的结束并不意味着自18世纪以来一直在扩张的已经打乱现代世界秩序的全球经济边界和固定的国境线之间的和解.（水平有限,还望高手指教）|