帮我翻译一下这段话——英译汉

Question

For the time being, however, it seems that the US will continue to impose strict anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods. For the United States, a move by China from low-value to high-value goods could have a very sudden and detrimental affect on the US economy in the near future (especially if China is perceived as a market economy, in which case, anti-dumping measures have less of an effect). Unarguably, US industries have much to fear from such Chinese importation and, by some accounts; the US is justified in taking such measures. Presently, one could make an argument that the increased level of cooperation of US domestic industries has increased their success of winning anti-dumping cases. While this trend is apparent from the cases examined here, this does not necessarily mean that this will continue to be the case in the future.
It is impossible to overlook the fact that questionable practices exist on behalf of the United States in terms of anti-dumping trade remedies. When considering anti-dumping measures against China, the US is inevitably presented with a tradeoff: between jobs/profitability to US producers and low-cost goods to consumers. The ideal solution would be to balance the two but it is clearly easier said than done. The truth is that protectionist policies have always been present in international trade; currently both the US and China utilize anti-dumping measures. But these countries should note that the end effect of such practices may unnecessarily produce higher tensions. In some cases, the costs may exceed the intended benefits of such measures. US producers also need to consider the long-run and whether trade remedy measures offer a lasting solution. While competition with Chinese goods is challenging, domestic industries cannot rely on protective measures forever. Finally, as a last consideration, US non-compliance with the WTO dispute settlement rulings sets a dangerous precedent for international trade law. While the idea is to make trade as fair as possible (i.e. offsetting unfair dumping), just as important is the need to respect and maintain the efficacy of the international economic legal system.

Answer 1

google在线翻译 凑合着看吧

就目前来说，但是，它似乎，美国将继续对中国商品严格的反倾销税。对于美国来说，中国从一个由低附加值转向高附加值产品可能会在不久的将来（特别是如果中国是一个市场经济的形象，对美国经济的不利影响非常突然在这种情况下，反倾销措施的影响不大）。无可争议的，美国企业有很多担心从中国进口这些，并通过一些帐户;美国是有理由采取这种措施。目前，人们可以作出一个论点，即美国国内产业的合作有所增加，增加了他们对打赢反倾销案件的成功。尽管这一趋势是从检查的情况显然在这里，这并不一定意味着这将继续成为未来的情况。
这是不可能忽视的反倾销贸易救济措施条款的事实，问题的做法对美国的名义存在。在考虑反倾销措施对中国，美国不可避免地提出了一个折衷：待业/利润对美国生产商和低成本商品的消费者。理想的解决办法是平衡两个，但它显然是谈何容易。事实是，保护主义的政策一直是国际贸易的存在;目前美国和中国使用反倾销措施。但是这些国家应该注意的是，这种做法的效果可能会不必要地产生更高的紧张局势。在某些情况下，成本可能会超过这些措施的预期效益。美国生产商还需要考虑长期的贸易救济措施，以及是否提供了一个持久的解决办法。虽然与中国商品的竞争挑战，国内企业不能永远依靠的保护措施。最后，设置为最后的考虑，美国不遵守世贸组织的争端解决的裁决为遵守国际贸易法律的危险先例。虽然想法是使尽可能公平的贸易（即抵销不公平的倾销），同样重要的是，必须尊重和维护国际经济法律制度的功效。

Answer 2

你给的太少了。不想浪费这个时间。如果有需要，联系我。

Answer 3

然而,看来我们将继续严格对中国货物征收反倾销税。对于美国的一个步骤,从低点,由中国的高附加值产品能有一个很突然的和不利影响美国经济在不久的将来(特别是中国是被作为市场经济条件下,在这种情况下,反倾销措施的效果却越来越少。毋庸置疑,美国的工业有不少来自中国这样的进口和通过一些帐户;我们在采取这样的措施。目前,一个能让一个论点,增加我们的合作水平增加了他们的国内产业的成功赢得反倾销案件。虽然这种趋势是明显的案例,从这里检查,这并不意味着这将继续在这个案子的未来。
它是不可能忽略了这样一个事实,即可疑的行为存在代表美国的贸易救济的反倾销。当考虑反倾销措施,美国对中国必然与权衡:对我们的工作之间/盈利低成本产品生产者和消费者。理想的解决办法是一种平衡,但它无疑是说起来容易做起来难。真相是,贸易保护主义政策一直在国际贸易中,目前美国和中国运用反倾销措施。但是这些国家应注意到,最后的结果可能产生更高的紧张局势不必要的做法。在某些情况下,成本可能超过预期效益等措施。美国生产商也需要考虑长期是否和贸易的补救措施提供一个持久的解决办法。虽然中国商品的竞争和挑战,不能依靠国内产业的保护措施,直到永远。最后,作为最后的考虑,我们不符合WTO争端解决裁决设置一个危险的先例,国际贸易的法律。虽然这个想法是为了使贸易博览会(即不公平尽可能地抵消倾销),同样重要的是要尊重和维护功效的国际经济法律制度。