Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some questions.
One-on-one basketball offers two ways to play: In “winners,” the person who scores gets the next possession and a chance to do so again. In “losers,” whoever is scored against gets the ball and a chance to even it up. As a kid, I played “losers” on the little court behind my house, because it seemed inherently fairer. But when I was on someone else’s court, or up against a bigger, stronger player, I often had to play “winners.” My opponent made the rules. For a while now, mounting evidence has suggested that the economy and society are moving toward the “winners” model, leaving more and more citizens feeling like “losers”—frustrated and resentful. We call the result of this trend income inequality—or just inequality.
Inequality is a lot like climate change: Many denied or ignored it until the data became irrefutable. The reams of research confirm a 40-year decline in average hourly wages for the bottom 90%, even as GDP, corporate profits, and the incomes of the top 10% have risen. Most recently we have seen the societal and political effects playing out in a volatile presidential campaign, with candidates railing against a ''Rigid System" and preying on people’s fears. How did we get here, and what can we do? Three new books provide a deeper understanding of inequality, sharp arguments, and some ideas for fixing the problem.
Saving Capitalism,(book)should be read first, and it is likely to make you angry. The book aims to clear a persistent smoke screen that prevents constructive discussion of inequality—that is, the relentless refrain on one side that the “free market” can cure capitalism’s ills and on the other that government must be more interventionist in restraining market forces and spreading the value they produce. He trenchantly deconstructs this “debate” and reveals a reality that many have recognized and reacted against: the “increasing concentration of political power in a corporate and financial elite that has been able to influence the rules by which the economy runs.” The real problem, he argues, is not an activist government that intrudes on the market by redistributing wealth downward through taxes and transfers; rather, it is the skewed pre-distribution of income inside the market, with an ever-increasing share moving to those who are already rich.
Rules are the key. As the Nobel Prize has pointed out, inequality is a choice—not by those who suffer its pernicious effects, but by those who create the game and decide, or at least influence, how it is played. He compares the annual income of a top hedge fund manager with that of a good teacher as a way of refuting the oft-made—and in his view, circular—argument that people are worth what they are paid because that’s the value the market places on the work they do. Does the hedge fund manager actually “earn” that huge sum? Which person contributes more to the world? “If the rules governing how the market is organized took full account of the benefits to society of various roles…some people would be paid far more,” he concludes.
He goes on to offer a range of thoughtful ideas for restoring what called “countervailing power” to average people and levelling the playing field. Among these, not surprisingly, are a higher minimum wage and stronger antitrust laws. He also calls for a “reinvention” of the corporation toward a “stakeholder” model, in which organizations are responsible to employees, customers, and the community as well as shareholders.
A more unorthodox idea, mentioned at the end of the book—paying a basic minimum income to all citizens—is taken up in much more detail in Raising the Floor, by the former president of the Service Employees International Union. His big picture largely aligns with him, but the focus is different. Stern sees rising inequality as an effect of the job losses caused by recent technological transformation, including automation.
The book’s key message is that we are at what Intel cofounder called a “strategic inflection point” in our society. The Dream of getting ahead by “working hard and playing by the rules” no longer holds, and mere economic policy fixes don’t address the core of the problem. What’s required is a clear-eyed re-examination of the role of work in our lives. He thinks that if citizens’ fundamental needs were met with a universal basic income (UBI), we could stop worrying about mere economic survival and instead engage in the long-ago-promised pursuit of happiness—or at least consider taking a job that may not pay a lot but is truly fulfilling. Sounds radical, right? Actually, the idea has a long history, with diverse admirers. It was almost adopted by the Nixon administration and has recently been debated in Silicon Valley circles.
Q1. According to the author what will happen if citizens’ fundamental needs were met with a universal basic income (UBI)?
(1) They could stop worrying about mere economic survival and instead engage in the long-ago-promised pursuit of happiness.
(2) They will engage in the long-ago-promised pursuit of happiness only.
(3) It may be necessary to treat inequality as an economic problem.
(4) Economist’s marshalling and analysis of the data are an achievement
(5) Paying a basic minimum income to all citizens—is taken up in much more detail in Raising the Floor.
Q2. According to the passage, saving Capitalism, book focuses on which of the following points?
(1) A country needs to ask, and answer, some basic questions—who gets to set the rules? What values should they reflect?
(2) To clear a persistent smoke screen that prevents constructive discussion of inequality
(3) An activist government that “intrudes” on the market by redistributing wealth downward through taxes and transfers
(4) Most recently we have seen the societal and political effects playing out in a volatile presidential campaign
(5) Call the result of this trend income inequality—or just inequality.
Q3. What according to the author is real problem?
(1) The real problem is an activist government that “intrudes” on the market by redistributing wealth downward through taxes and transfers.
(2) He compares the annual income of a top hedge fund manager with that of a good teacher as a way of refuting the oft-made.
(3) Does the hedge fund manager actually “earn” that huge sum?
(4) It is the skewed pre-distribution of income inside the market, with an ever-increasing share moving to those who are already rich.
(5) He goes on to offer a range of thoughtful ideas for restoring what called “countervailing power”.
Q4. Which of the following statement is TRUE according to the passage?
(A) He goes on to offer a range of thoughtful ideas for restoring what called “countervailing power” to average people and levelling the playing field.
(B) A more unorthodox idea, mentioned at the end of the book—paying a basic minimum income to all citizens—is taken up in much more detail in Raising the Floor, by the former president of the Service Employees International Union.
(C) Stern sees rising inequality as an effect of the job losses caused by recent technological transformation, including automation.
(1) Only A
(2) Only B and C
(3) Only A and C
(4) All A, B and C
(5) Only B
Q5. Which of the following statement is NOT TRUE according to the passage?
(A) As a kid, I played “losers” on the little court behind my school, because it seemed inherently fairer.
(B) The reams of research confirm a 40-year decline in average hourly wages for the bottom 90%, even as GDP, corporate profits, and the incomes of the top 10% have risen.
(C) Most recently we have seen the societal and political effects playing out in a volatile presidential campaign, with candidates railing against a “RIGGED SYSTEM” and preying on people’s fears.
(1) Only A
(2) Only B and C
(3) Only A and C
(4) All A, B and C
(5) Only B
Q6. Choose the word most SIMILAR in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage.
Irrefutable
(1) Disputable
(2) Questionable
(3) Controllable
(4) Liable
(5) Indisputable
Q7. Choose the word most SIMILAR in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage.
Trenchantly
(1) Wholly
(2) Vague
(3) Incisively
(4) Profound
(5) Irk
Q8. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Intrude
(1) Infringe
(2) Disturb
(3) Withdraw
(4) Interrupt
(5) Enroll
Q9. Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Pernicious
(1) Useless
(2) Beneficial
(3) Adverse
(4) Keen
(5) Dangerous
Q10. What does an expression ‘Rigged-system’ confers to in context to the passage?
(1) Fraudulent system
(2) Fully improvised system
(3) Amusing system
(4) Non-chalant system
(5) Emerging system
Answer:-
Q1. (1) Q2. (2) Q3. (4) Q4. (4) Q5. (1) Q6. (5) Q7. (3) Q8. (3) Q9. (2) Q10. (1)
