Which of the following is the prediction of economists about RBI’s rate hike cycle. as per the passage 7 ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following is the prediction of economists about RBI’s rate hike cycle. as per the passage 7

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which country recently decided to move ahead with its proposal to hike foreign investment ceiling in the insurance sector to 49 per cent from the present 26 per cent.?....

QA->Whichcompany becomes first firm to get RBI approval for debt recast under RBI"s newScheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A)?....

QA->Whichcompany becomes first firm to get RBI approval for debt recast under RBI"s newScheme for Sustainable Structuring of StressedAssets (S4A)?....

QA->What is the total earnings of a worker from the following data? Standard time for completing the job 50 hours. Actual time taken for completing the job 45 hours. Time rate is Rs.20 per hour, premium bonus is 60% of time saved.....

QA->Statement showing remarkable degree of prediction....

MCQ-> Read the following passage to answer the given questions based on it. Some words/ phrases are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. India’s manufacturing growth fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, 2011, reinforcing fears that an extended period of high policy rates is hurting growth, according to a closely watched index. The HSBC India Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), based on a survey of over 500 companies, fell to 50.4 from 52.6 in August and 53.6 in July. It was the lowest since March 2009. when the reading was below 50. indicating contraction. September’s index also recorded the biggest one-month fall since November 2008. The sub index for new orders. which reflects future output, declined for the sixtli successive month, while xport orders full for it Liar(‘ month on the back of weakness in global economy. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) last week indicated it was not done yet with monetary policy tightening as inflation was still high. The bank has already raised rates 12 times since March 2010 to tame inflation, which is at a 13-month high of 9.78%. Economists expect the RBI to raise rates one more time but warn that targeted growth will be hard to achieve if the slump continues. “This• (fall in PMI) was driven by weaker orders. with export orders still contracting due to the weaker global economic conditions.- HSBC said in a press release quoting its chief economist for India &ASEAN.; PMI is considered a fairly good indicator of manufacturing activity the world over. but in case of India, the large contribution of the unorganised sector yields a low correlation with industrial growth. However, the Index for Industrial Production (IIP) has been showing a weakening trend. having slipped to a 21- month low of 3.3 % in July. The core sector. which consists of eight infrastructure industries and has a combined weight of 37.9% in the IIP. also grew at only 3.5% in August. The PMI data is in line with the suffering manufacturing activity in India as per other estimates. Producers are seeing that demand conditions are softening and the outlook is uncertain, therefore they are producing less. Employment in the manufacturing sector declined for the second consecutive month, indicating it too was under pressure. This could be attributed to lower requirement of staff and rise in resignations as higher wage requests go unfulfilled, the HSBC statement said. On the inflation front, input prices rose at an 11 -month low rate, but despite signs of softening, they still remain at historically high levels. While decelerating slightly, the readings for input and output prices suggest that inflation pressures remain firmly in place. Most economists feel the RBI is close to the end of its rate hike cycle. Even the weekly Wholesale Price Index (WPI) estimates have started showing signs of softening. Having fallen more than one percentage point.The PMI is based on surveys of
....

MCQ-> If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though non-economical folk. Like serious talk anywhere — among boat desingers and baseball fans, say — the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist’s favourite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority.Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an ‘invisible hand’ and the organization of work as a ‘production function’ and his coefficients as being ‘significant’, as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language.If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks.The paying of attention to one’s audience is called ‘rhetoric’, a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president’s ‘heated rhetoric’ in a press conference or the ‘mere rhetoric’ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language: inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse.The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of ‘results’ or a stater of ‘conclusions’ free of rhetoric — speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn’t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honoured, en-Nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech.Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners whey they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office or the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful: to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship.The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist’s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve.Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, ”those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations do it.According to the passage, which of the following is the best set of reasons for which one needs to ‘look hard’ at an economist’s language?A. Economists accomplish a great deal through their language.B. Economics is an opinion-based subject.C. Economics has a great impact on other’s lives.D. Economics is damaging.
....

MCQ-> When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post- experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post- experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization’s or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals’ reactions may vary as a function of a: their prior level of commitment and b: the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals a: commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and b: perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than a: less- committed group members or b: highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.
....

MCQ->Which of the following is the prediction of economists about RBI’s rate hike cycle. as per the passage 7....