LIC AAO 2016: English Test – Day 13

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Find the incorrect statement on the basis of the given passage?

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

According to the author, What Can be beneficial for growth and employment?

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

What is the central theme of the passage?

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Which of the following is not absolutely essential for Fiscal deficit?

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Which of the following is ‘true’ in the context of the passage?

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Directions (Q. 6-8): Choose the word that is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage.

6. Reluctance

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Directions (Q. 6-8): Choose the word that is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage.

7. Intrinsic

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Directions (Q. 6-8): Choose the word that is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage.
8. Stance

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Directions (Q. 9-10): Select the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning of the word as used in the passage.
9. Berated

Even when the Finance Minister is convinced of the necessity of public investment, he is berated by admirers of the Washington Consensus who argue against an expansionary budget on grounds that fiscal consolidation will be damaged. India’s fiscal consolidation programme is based on norms drawn from the European Union (EU). There is no basis in economic theory for a specified fiscal deficit target. And, in any case, the EU’s economy is in such a mess that no self-respecting economist would adopt its macroeconomic architecture uncritically.

Fiscal policy is to be used imaginatively according to the needs of the economy as they arise. Instead, we run the danger of tying it to unjustified targets. If an increase in the fiscal deficit is used to expand public infrastructure, it will serve a useful purpose, both in the current context and with regard to the longer-term trajectory of the economy.

We may conclude with two observations. First, it is not absolutely essential that the fiscal deficit must expand substantially to enable a programme of increased public spending on infrastructure. Here, a sort of ‘New Delhi Consensus’, shared by all political parties, stands in the way of the expansion of public infrastructure. There is reluctance to raise public revenues even in the face of inflation.

At the Finance Minister’s annual meeting with economists in 2015, someone in the gathering had pointed out that the real value of railway fares had been eroded by up to 40 per cent due to inflation. If public bodies are starved of funds, they cannot expand. This acts as an in-built depressor. Even Mr. Modi is quick to expound that he intends not to cut subsidies, only to target them better. Is it possible that at least some of the subsidies of the Government of India may be bad for growth, and therefore employment, in the sense that they constrain expanding public investment? Possibly,

Political parties are reluctant to review the subsidy regime. They are also reluctant to divest. This stance is an exact mirror image of the position that any expansion of government is bad. It is considered a mistake to even suggest sale of public assets. But why should we not consider sale of assets in areas where a public presence is no longer considered as essential as it was some decades ago?

There can be no intrinsic argument against the government selling some assets only to acquire others. It can be beneficial for growth and employment, and therefore for welfare. It is a no-brainer to choose between a publicly-owned airline that charges more than its private sector counterparts and a stronger infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and irrigation channels. The guiding principle for our Finance Minister should be: “don’t take your foot off the accelerator of public capital formation”. A rationalisation of subsidies and some asset swapping would ensure that he can do this without much more borrowing.

Directions (Q. 9-10): Select the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning of the word as used in the passage.
10. Eroded