This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  EduGorilla 2 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #1368899 Reply
     EduGorilla 
    Keymaster
    Select Question Language :


    Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.

    Most Indian politicians, policymakers and economists have displayed a strange indifference to the major quake that shook the global economy, first in the United States and then in the European Union, from 2007-08 through 2017-18. In 2009, then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee announced Rs 40,000-crore stimulus package for the industry to smoothen their frayed nerves, which had its own deleterious effects on the government’s growth and fiscal deficit numbers. In 2013, P. Chidambaram, in his third run as finance minister, had to face the rupee volatility after the US Federal Reserve announced its decision to taper its unconventional monetary policy (UMP) of infusing funds into the tottering financial and industrial institutions. There was a flight of capital from emerging market economies like India, and it dampened the Indian economy’s prospects.
    The leaders of the BJP, who were then in Opposition, mercilessly flayed the UPA-2 government over the country’s deteriorating economy, and refused to accept the argument that the global economic squall had battered the Indian markets, especially exports. According to them, India did not depend on exports for its economic growth, and that the huge domestic market and the consumption it entailed was good enough to keep the economy in shape and the global developments were marginal. After the BJP came to power in May 2014, the commerce minister put up a stoic front in the face of sluggish exports and the finance minister confessed that seven per cent growth in GDP was laudable in the face of a subdued global economy.
    In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of the financial crisis, the Communist parties claimed credit for the relative stability of the Indian economy because they said they did not allow the government to liberalise the financial sector, and therefore no harm was done. It turned out, however, that the undisclosed global exposure of State Bank of India (SBI) and ICICI Bank ran into a few hundred million dollars. The Left was supporting UPA-1 from the outside and they exerted an invisible veto on what the government could do on the economic policy front. That is the reason for the Left’s tone of triumphant satisfaction.
    The Left parties and their intellectual fellow-travellers did not, however, proclaim the end of capitalism after the 2007-08 implosion. The criticism was muted as there was no alternative socialist model anywhere in the world which they could cite as a counter-example. The Left’s discomfiture in raising the ideological battle cry against the failing global markets was understandable. But it was the silence of the market economists, the liberals and right-wingers, that was of greater concern. For over a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet Union and along with it the state-controlled economy, the boast of the market economists had been that the markets were sure-fire engines of growth and prosperity.
    Moral critics of unbridled greed were gloating in their self-righteousness, but they were not addressing the structural flaw in the market system that had led to the breakdown. The only moment of critical self-awareness among the free market economists came when they rediscovered American economist Hyman Minsky’s 1980s’ analysis of the phenomenon of securitisation and how it could lead to complications of multiple mortgages and thus lead to a collapse. The free market enthusiasts appear to be too embarrassed to discuss the issue of the inevitable market crashes that are bound to occur because they had rather naively believed the market to be the proverbial horn of plenty, and that no inefficiencies could be associated with it. There is a slow veering round to the view, which would have been laughed out of court a few years ago, that the State has a necessary role to play in sustaining the markets.
    SOURCE: http://www.asianage.com/opinion
    What did the leaders of the BJP say regarding Indian exports?

    Options :-

    1. They said that India did depend on exports for its economic growth so the seven per cent growth in GDP was laudable in the face of a subdued global economy.
    2. They put up a stoic front in the face of sluggish exports and said that India did not depend on exports for its economic growth because the huge domestic market and the consumption it entailed was good enough to keep the economy in shape.
    3. They said that while the global developments were marginal, India did not depend on exports for its economic growth so the seven per cent growth in GDP was not laudable in the face of marginal global developments.
    4. They said that India did not depend on exports for its economic growth, but soon they realised that seven per cent growth in GDP was laudable in the face of a subdued global economy while putting up a stoic front in the face of sluggish exports.
    5. After realising that India did depend on exports for its economic growth and that the huge domestic market and the consumption it entailed was not good enough to keep the economy in shape, they said seven per cent growth in GDP was laudable in the face of a subdued global economy.
    Post your Training /Course Enquiry
    Are You looking institutes / coaching center for
    • IIT-JEE, NEET, CAT
    • Bank PO, SSC, Railways
    • Study Abroad
    Select your Training / Study category
Reply To: Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are ….
Your information:




Verify Yourself




Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account