外文编译求助，有关88年改革和一年后的事件

suspicious

     在维基上看到的有关（1234567--）事件的简介，其中有一段是关于引发学生运动原因的分析与介绍，关于其中经济改革那部分看完后有些不明白，不知道是我英文理解的问题还是经济知识掌握不足的问题。希望英文好的高手给我指点一下迷津。最下面附有有原文。
我的疑问主要有：
1.原文第一段提到在1988年北戴河会议上“确立市场主导的价格体系”的改革因为引起居民恐慌性抢购、通货膨胀而取消。我的问题是为什么会引起通胀以及这项改革最终是由谁完成的和为什么当时不适合这项改革。
2.原文第二段提到学生和知识分子因为改革而面临没有合适工作的窘境。具体表现为“私人企业”可以“走后门”，不接受大学生而雇佣熟人。 （This allowed private companies to veto the job placements, instead of accepting students the universities matched them with .
employers only took students who had acquaintances in their unit regardless of the students' academic performance.）我的疑问是在问题1中改革不是被取消了吗？那文章这部分提到的改革是没被取消的部分还是后来的事？此外，私人企业不是追求利益最大化吗，这种情况下不考虑雇员的工作能力而只雇佣熟人不是很矛盾吗？
3.第三和第四段分别是支持当年改革和反对改革的观点，第四段中那个经济学家表示支持观点没太看明白。（Naughton is in agreement with the “reform without losers” view of China's economic reforms, and only because anti-reform elements in the Party failed to roll back the reforms and market forces were allowed to correct the economy, did urban inflation decrease.）特别是最后一句话，说城市通胀减弱。第一段不刚说改革使通胀增加了吗？
4.最后一个问题也是最重要的问题，学生运动的最终目的改革目的有一项是“经济自由化”。而按照前文描述，如果我没理解错的话，是学生是改革的受害者。这到底是怎么一回事？
原文如下，比较长，高手可以按我的问题对应的看一下，小弟表示不胜感激。
p.s.原文是通过在线代理去wiki看的，但有时候不稳定，不知道大家是通过什么渠道来F Q的。
原文如下：  

    Following the 1988 Beidaihe meeting, word leaked that Zhao Ziyang would listen to those members of the CPC, including Deng Xiaoping, who were urgingchuangjiageguan (to get the price right in one shot) by deciding to “establish a market-regulated price system in China within five years.”[22] Economists recommended faster reforms, for example, renowned economist Milton Friedman gave a speech and met officials in China, recommending them to free the rest of the economy, asserting that a market economy would benefit people and it should be made free from corruption, bribes, special influence, and political mechanisms.[Leaked news that there would be a relaxing of controls triggered waves of panic cash withdrawals, buying and hoarding all over China. Some even bought rooms full of matches.The decision to rescind the price reforms occurred in less than two weeks, “but its impact continued to reverberate for a long time...and as a consequence, inflation soared.”In the late 1980s, inflation was the most pronounced issue facing the Chinese economy, which was at 7.3% in 1987, but jumped to 18.5% in 1988.Compounding this was the loss of job security (the iron rice bowl), which led to a “crisis of layoffs and unemployment.”

    Intellectuals and students were especially disaffected by the reform process, as they were originally envisioned to play a leading role in the “springtime of the sciences.Due to the initial stress on educated people to guide development, the number of universities expanded (400 universities in 1977 to 1,975 in 1988), as did student enrollment (625,319 in 1977 to 2,065,923 in 1988). However, the Four Modernizations were “gradually dropped”, as central planning gave way to a market-economy development strategy being adopted.The reform process would now emphasize the role of the market, agriculture, light industry, the service sector, private initiatives, and foreign investment. This shift in orientation was not received well by the burgeoning student population, who found it difficult to find job placements as “the recently prospering industrial sectors, that, is rural collective industries and private businesses, did not really need and could not attract university graduates.”Undergraduate students in the social sciences and the humanities, 18.3% of all Beijing undergraduates in 1988, were especially hard hit because their training did not give them an advantage in the new market economy.This problem, growing since the mid-1980s, was exACerbated by a reform to the job assignment system in 1988, creating the two-way selection system. This allowed private companies to veto the job placements, instead of accepting students the universities matched them with. The two-way system is referred to by Dingxin Zhao as the “backdoor selection” system, because it was pervaded by nepotism and favoritism, as “employers only took students who had acquaintances in their unit regardless of the students' academic performance.”Popular slogans espoused by intellectuals and students during the mid-1980 included, “those who hold scalpels earn less than those who hold eel knives” and, “those who produce missiles earn less than those who sell tea eggs.”[31] Facing a dismal job market, due to the economic reforms, and limited chances of going abroad after the mid-1980s, Chinese intellectuals and students had a greater vested interest in Chinese domestic and political issues. Small-scale study groups began appearing on Beijing university campuses, the most famous being Wang Dan's Democracy Salon and Liu Gang's Caodi Salon (the salon on the lawn).These were attended by students, members of the intellectual elite; even the American ambassador and his wife participated in one meeting.[22] Discussions covered a wide range of issues about politics, which “trained many student activists” who were the “major organizational base for the coming student movement.”[22] The “worsening economic situation of intellectuals and students, and of the country as a whole” led to “student protests repeatedly breaking out in universities after 1986”[33] (see 1986–1987 Student Protests, and April–June 1988 protests).

      Wang Hui, a professor in Beijing, says that, “these changes (the economic reforms) were the catalyst for the 1989 social mobilization.”[34] Wu Xiuquan, member of the Standing Committee of the Central Advisory Commission, echoed this sentiment at the Secretariat of the Fourth Plenum of the Thirteenth CCP Central Committee on 19 June 1989, two weeks after the repression of the protest, when he said, "China has its own unique national situation and patterns of development; copying others mechanically will lead us straight to disaster. What's more, economics and politics go by different rules. Why did Zhao's shock-therapy price reforms fail last year? Because they were too much; the people panicked."[35]

      Barry Naughton states that “economic causes were an important part of the social crisis leading up to the Tiananmen debacle”[18] and he asserts that the reforms during the 1980s were overwhelmingly successful.[36] The social crisis leading up to the Tiananmen Square protests were created by deteriorating cyclical economic conditions.[37] Naughton is in agreement with the “reform without losers” view of China's economic reforms, and only because anti-reform elements in the Party failed to roll back the reforms and market forces were allowed to correct the economy, did urban inflation decrease.[18]

      In a general sense, students and intellectuals demanded economic liberalization, political democracy, media freedom, freedom of speech and association, rule of law, and to have the legitimacy of the movement recognized.[38][39] More specific demands opposed official corruption and speculation, opposition to the "Crown Prince Party" (elites with special privileges), and called for price stability, social security, and the democratic means to supervise the reform process, and the reorganization of social benefits.[34] Transitioning from a socialist ideology that espoused equality to a new market oriented ideology, the reforms, "Created a crisis of state legitimacy from two different directions: on the one hand, people could rely on the nature of state economic policy to criticize the legitimacy of the state ideology and its method of rule, while on the other they could use the ideology of socialism to take issue with the legitimacy of the new state economic policy."[34] Wang Hui encapsulates the protesters' motivation by stating that, "Regardless of whether we are talking about students, intellectuals, or any others who participated in the movement in support of reform (political or economic) and demands for democracy, their hopes for and understanding of reform were extraordinarily diverse. When looked at from a broader or synthetic perspective, however, the reforms that the greater part of the populace hoped for and their ideals for democracy and rule by law were for the purposes of guaranteeing social justice and the democratization of economic life through the restructuring of politics and the legal system