Antonyms

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

BRUTALLY

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Once upon a time there lived a vicious king, Raja Shankara - short-tempered and temperamental. "God I am'", he said to his image as he stared into the mirror everyday, many times a day. He was obsessed with himself. He loved noone but himself. He was blinded towards the injustice in his kingdom because he had little time for his subjects. He wasted most of his time in pouring milk and honey over himself.

Interruption in his possessed life was dealt with stern reprimanding and sometimes on petty issues he would behead his servants. Provoked by his evil advisor Twishar, he went on with his self-indulged life, unaware of the plot his very devoted advisor was planning. A plot to dethrone the king, rule the kingdom with his wicked ways only to harness wealth and the reputation of a King.

 One morning the king was on his usual morning horseback rounds but returned to the palace with an intense look on his face. He locked himself inside his palatial room only to unlock it at sundown. Just as the doors cracked open and Raja Shankara emerged from it, his wife rushed to embrace him. She feared a damaging incident had occurred.

The king spoke seldom that day and awoke the next day to make a proclamation to his servants and subjects. The whole kingdom feared what was in store for them from their angry king. But to their surprise he said to all gathered, "From now on I will be a different king. A softer and a patient king.”

True to his words from that day onwards, the king had truly turned on a new leaf; he cleaned out the corruption and injustice in a tender manner with punishments aimed to renew the person from within.

One fine day his evil advisor gathered courage to ask the reason for his paradigm shift. And the king answered, "When I went on horseback that morning a month ago, I noticed a dog brutally chasing a cat. The cat managed to sneak into a hole only after the dog bit her leg, maiming her for life. Not far, the dog barked at a farmer who picked up a sharp stone and hit it straight in the dog's eye. Bleeding profusely, the dog yelped in pain. As the farmer walked on, he slipped on the edge of the road and broke his head.

All this happened in a matter of minutes before me and then I realized that evil begets evil. I thought about it deeply and was ready to give up my worldly life for the betterment of my subjects. I wanted to give up evil in me as I did not want evil to encounter me."

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

PETTY

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Once upon a time there lived a vicious king, Raja Shankara - short-tempered and temperamental. "God I am'", he said to his image as he stared into the mirror everyday, many times a day. He was obsessed with himself. He loved noone but himself. He was blinded towards the injustice in his kingdom because he had little time for his subjects. He wasted most of his time in pouring milk and honey over himself.

Interruption in his possessed life was dealt with stern reprimanding and sometimes on petty issues he would behead his servants. Provoked by his evil advisor Twishar, he went on with his self-indulged life, unaware of the plot his very devoted advisor was planning. A plot to dethrone the king, rule the kingdom with his wicked ways only to harness wealth and the reputation of a King.

 One morning the king was on his usual morning horseback rounds but returned to the palace with an intense look on his face. He locked himself inside his palatial room only to unlock it at sundown. Just as the doors cracked open and Raja Shankara emerged from it, his wife rushed to embrace him. She feared a damaging incident had occurred.

The king spoke seldom that day and awoke the next day to make a proclamation to his servants and subjects. The whole kingdom feared what was in store for them from their angry king. But to their surprise he said to all gathered, "From now on I will be a different king. A softer and a patient king.”

True to his words from that day onwards, the king had truly turned on a new leaf; he cleaned out the corruption and injustice in a tender manner with punishments aimed to renew the person from within.

One fine day his evil advisor gathered courage to ask the reason for his paradigm shift. And the king answered, "When I went on horseback that morning a month ago, I noticed a dog brutally chasing a cat. The cat managed to sneak into a hole only after the dog bit her leg, maiming her for life. Not far, the dog barked at a farmer who picked up a sharp stone and hit it straight in the dog's eye. Bleeding profusely, the dog yelped in pain. As the farmer walked on, he slipped on the edge of the road and broke his head.

All this happened in a matter of minutes before me and then I realized that evil begets evil. I thought about it deeply and was ready to give up my worldly life for the betterment of my subjects. I wanted to give up evil in me as I did not want evil to encounter me."

Directions: Choose the word or group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word printed in bold as used.

Sharp

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.
The great fear in Asia a short while ago was that the region would suffer through the wealth destruction already taking place in the U.S. as a result of the financial crisis. Stock markets tumbled as exports plunged and economic growth deteriorated. Lofty property prices in China and elsewhere looked set to bust as credit tightened and buyers evaporated. But with surprising speed, fear in Asia swung back to greed as the region shows signs of recovery and property and stock prices are soaring in many parts of Asia.
Why should this sharp Asian turnaround be greeted with skepticism? Higher asset prices mean households feel wealthier and better able to spend, which could further fuel the region's nascent rebound. But just as easily, Asia could soon find itself saddled with overheated markets similar to the U.S. housing market. In short the world has not changed, it has just moved places.
The incipient bubble is being created by government policy. In response to the global credit crunch of 2008, policy makers in Asia slashed interest rates and flooded financial sectors with cash in frantic attempts to keep loans flowing and economies growing. These steps were logical for central bankers striving to reverse a deepening economic crisis. But there's evidence that there is too much easy money around. It's winding up in stocks and real estate, pushing prices up too far and too fast for the underlying economic fundamentals. Much of the concern is focused on China, where government stimulus efforts have been large and effective. Money in China has been especially easy to find. Aggregate new bank lending surged 201% in the first half of 2009 from the same period a year earlier, to nearly $ 1.1 trillion. Exuberance over a quick recovery - which was given a boost by China's surprisingly strong 7.9% GDP growth in the second quarter – has buoyed investor sentiment not just for stocks but also for real estate.
Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that bubbles could only be recognised in hindsight. But investors – who have been well schooled in the dangers of bubbles over the past decade are increasingly wary that prices have risen too far, and that the slightest bit of negative economic news could knock markets for a loop. These fears are compounded by the possibility that Asia's central bankers will begin taking steps to shut off the money. Rumours that Beijing was on the verge of tightening credit led to Shanghai stocks plunging 5%. Yet many economists believe that, "there is close to a zero possibility that the Chinese government will do anything this year that constitutes tightening." And without a major shift in thinking, the easy-money conditions will stay in place. In a global economy that has produced more dramatic ups and downs than anyone thought possible over the past two years, Asia may be heading for another disheartening plunge.

Directions: Choose the word or group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word printed in bold as used.

Buoyed

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.
The great fear in Asia a short while ago was that the region would suffer through the wealth destruction already taking place in the U.S. as a result of the financial crisis. Stock markets tumbled as exports plunged and economic growth deteriorated. Lofty property prices in China and elsewhere looked set to bust as credit tightened and buyers evaporated. But with surprising speed, fear in Asia swung back to greed as the region shows signs of recovery and property and stock prices are soaring in many parts of Asia.
Why should this sharp Asian turnaround be greeted with skepticism? Higher asset prices mean households feel wealthier and better able to spend, which could further fuel the region's nascent rebound. But just as easily, Asia could soon find itself saddled with overheated markets similar to the U.S. housing market. In short the world has not changed, it has just moved places.
The incipient bubble is being created by government policy. In response to the global credit crunch of 2008, policy makers in Asia slashed interest rates and flooded financial sectors with cash in frantic attempts to keep loans flowing and economies growing. These steps were logical for central bankers striving to reverse a deepening economic crisis. But there's evidence that there is too much easy money around. It's winding up in stocks and real estate, pushing prices up too far and too fast for the underlying economic fundamentals. Much of the concern is focused on China, where government stimulus efforts have been large and effective. Money in China has been especially easy to find. Aggregate new bank lending surged 201% in the first half of 2009 from the same period a year earlier, to nearly $ 1.1 trillion. Exuberance over a quick recovery - which was given a boost by China's surprisingly strong 7.9% GDP growth in the second quarter – has buoyed investor sentiment not just for stocks but also for real estate.
Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that bubbles could only be recognised in hindsight. But investors – who have been well schooled in the dangers of bubbles over the past decade are increasingly wary that prices have risen too far, and that the slightest bit of negative economic news could knock markets for a loop. These fears are compounded by the possibility that Asia's central bankers will begin taking steps to shut off the money. Rumours that Beijing was on the verge of tightening credit led to Shanghai stocks plunging 5%. Yet many economists believe that, "there is close to a zero possibility that the Chinese government will do anything this year that constitutes tightening." And without a major shift in thinking, the easy-money conditions will stay in place. In a global economy that has produced more dramatic ups and downs than anyone thought possible over the past two years, Asia may be heading for another disheartening plunge.

Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

heedless

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. We now know that it is bad economics,” said American President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 in the midst of the Great Depression. And the world has learnt that enlightened self-interest is good economics all over again after the Great Recession of 2009. Americans are entering a period of social change as they are recalibrating their sense of what it means to be a citizen, not just through voting or volunteering but also through commerce. There is a new dimension to civic duty that is growing among Americans – the idea that they can serve not only by spending time in communities and classrooms but by spending more responsibly. In short, Americans are beginning to put their money where their ideals are.
In a recent poll most said they had consciously supported local or small neighbourhood businesses and 40 percent said that they had purchased a product because they liked the social or political values of the company that produced it. People were alarmed about ‘blood diamonds’ mined in war zones and used to finance conflict in Africa. They were also willing to pay \$2000 more for a car that gets 35 miles per gallon than for one that gives less, though the former is more expensive but environment friendly. Of course consumers have done their own doing-well-by doing-good calculation – a more expensive car that gives better mileage will save them money in the long run and makes them feel good about protecting the environment. Moreover since 1995, the number of socially responsible investment (SRI) mutual funds, which generally avoid buying shares of companies that profit from tobacco, oil or child labour has grown from 55 to 260. SRI funds now manage approximately 11 percent of all the money invested in the US financial markets – an estimated \$2.7 trillion. This is evidence of a changing mindset in a nation whose most iconic economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1970 that a corporation’s only moral responsibility was to increase shareholder profits.
At first the corporate stance was defensive : companies were punished by consumers for unethical behaviour such as discriminatory labour practices. The nexus of activist groups, consumers and government regulation could not merely tarnish a company but put it out of business. But corporate America quickly discerned that social responsibility attracts investment capital as well as customer loyalty, creating a virtuous circle. Some companies quickly embraced the new ethos that consumers boycotted products they considered unethical and others purchase products in part because their manufacturers were responsible. With global warming on the minds of many consumers lots of companies are racing to ‘outgreen’ each other. The most progressive companies are talking about a triple bottom line-profit, planet and people – that focuses on how to run a business while trying to improve environmental and worker conditions.
This is a time when the only thing that has sunk lower than the American public’s opinion of Congress is its opinion of business. One burning question is how many of these Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives are just shrewd marketing to give companies a halo effect? After all only 8 percent of the large American corporations go through the trouble of verifying their CSR reports, which many consumers don’t bother to read. And while social responsibility is one way for companies to get back their reputations consumers too need to make ethical choices.

�����������

Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

enlightened

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. We now know that it is bad economics,” said American President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 in the midst of the Great Depression. And the world has learnt that enlightened self-interest is good economics all over again after the Great Recession of 2009. Americans are entering a period of social change as they are recalibrating their sense of what it means to be a citizen, not just through voting or volunteering but also through commerce. There is a new dimension to civic duty that is growing among Americans – the idea that they can serve not only by spending time in communities and classrooms but by spending more responsibly. In short, Americans are beginning to put their money where their ideals are.
In a recent poll most said they had consciously supported local or small neighbourhood businesses and 40 percent said that they had purchased a product because they liked the social or political values of the company that produced it. People were alarmed about ‘blood diamonds’ mined in war zones and used to finance conflict in Africa. They were also willing to pay \$2000 more for a car that gets 35 miles per gallon than for one that gives less, though the former is more expensive but environment friendly. Of course consumers have done their own doing-well-by doing-good calculation – a more expensive car that gives better mileage will save them money in the long run and makes them feel good about protecting the environment. Moreover since 1995, the number of socially responsible investment (SRI) mutual funds, which generally avoid buying shares of companies that profit from tobacco, oil or child labour has grown from 55 to 260. SRI funds now manage approximately 11 percent of all the money invested in the US financial markets – an estimated \$2.7 trillion. This is evidence of a changing mindset in a nation whose most iconic economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1970 that a corporation’s only moral responsibility was to increase shareholder profits.
At first the corporate stance was defensive : companies were punished by consumers for unethical behaviour such as discriminatory labour practices. The nexus of activist groups, consumers and government regulation could not merely tarnish a company but put it out of business. But corporate America quickly discerned that social responsibility attracts investment capital as well as customer loyalty, creating a virtuous circle. Some companies quickly embraced the new ethos that consumers boycotted products they considered unethical and others purchase products in part because their manufacturers were responsible. With global warming on the minds of many consumers lots of companies are racing to ‘outgreen’ each other. The most progressive companies are talking about a triple bottom line-profit, planet and people – that focuses on how to run a business while trying to improve environmental and worker conditions.
This is a time when the only thing that has sunk lower than the American public’s opinion of Congress is its opinion of business. One burning question is how many of these Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives are just shrewd marketing to give companies a halo effect? After all only 8 percent of the large American corporations go through the trouble of verifying their CSR reports, which many consumers don’t bother to read. And while social responsibility is one way for companies to get back their reputations consumers too need to make ethical choices.

�����������

The author attributes emergence of the new class of customers to ‘this transformation’. According to the passage ‘this transformation’ is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Indian banking has undergone a total transformation over the last decade. Moving seamlessly from a manual, scale-constrained environment to a technology-lending tradition, it has been a miracle. Nowhere in the world has such a transformation taken place in such a short span of time at such a low cost. The process began in 1999-2000, when a couple of banks signed their first core-banking transformation deal with Infosys. By 2009, about 50 banks with about 55,000 branches had completed the migration, offering their customers anywhere, anytime banking through various channels. Today, a consumer can go to an ATM across more than 44,000 locations, operate the bank account through the web, with instant reconciliation facility and all information available in a single database to help the decision makers.
Banking industry has grown at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20% during the last decade. It has grown by a factor of five times. Total deposits have grown by 4.8 times, assets by 6.6 times, income interest by 9.5 times and net-worth by 4.5 times. Employee strength has grown by a mere 5%. This is an incredible transformation of an industry with no parallel in country. During 2000-2009, the gross domestic product (GDP) nearly trebled from Rs. 19,25,000 crore to Rs. 54,75,000 crore. Return on assets (ROA) which varies between 0.25% and 1.5% worldwide has risen from 0.87% to 1.0% in 2009 in the country.
In contrast to most countries, in India retail deposit forms a sizeable chunk of gross domestic savings, creating a large potential for investment. The ratio of the total deposit to GDP, which stood at 44% in 2000, has now climbed to 74%. However, the credit to GDP ratio presents an opposite picture and at 55% India lags behind many countries whose banks lend more than the size of their economies. We also have to catch up with the world’s best run banks in the area of cost management. India’s cost-income ratio lies anywhere between 37% and 66% and it is no match for international benchmark of 30-35%.
But the transformation is remarkable and this transformation has largely been enabled by indigenously developed information technology tools. Looking forward, the journey becomes even more remarkable, possibly because of the technology transformation that the banking sector has undergone. Although impressive, these numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the projected growth in the customer base. As per an estimate, Indian banks will add another 400 million customer accounts in the next decade. The focus on financial inclusion will deepen with the government and the industry working together. This has enormous implications for the industry, which must scale up systems, processes and infrastructure as well as boost the employee productivity to manage such growth. Likewise, the industry must change its mindset and innovate to cater to the unique needs of the next generation consumers when, according to a demographic projection for 2019, 450 million Indians will be below the age of 20.
The emergence of the new class of customers is the result of this transformation process of the last decade. The emerging challenges call for a new, more dynamic, and aggressive and challenging banking culture which meets the demands of customer relationships, product differentiation, brand values, reputation, corporate governance and regulatory prescriptions. Every bank, depending on its strategy, will have to migrate to its best position in this new structure from the branch level itself. The basic aim of the above strategies will have to be to improve the business performance of the banks. The size of ubiquitous and mass market retail banking and entry of non-traditional players will result in both seeking to collaborate more. And banking will wear a totally new look as urban consumers use their hand-held devices in lieu of cash and their rural counterparts discover the benefits of smart cards and other plastic technologies.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold.

EXTENSIVE

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, specially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in. Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria- transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around \$200 million per year, far less than \$1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in ubsistence farm households. From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just \$30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost \$5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than \$3 was for emergency aid, about \$4 went for servicing Africa's debts and \$ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about \$12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub- Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold.

MYTH

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, specially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in. Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria- transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around \$200 million per year, far less than \$1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in ubsistence farm households. From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just \$30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost \$5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than \$3 was for emergency aid, about \$4 went for servicing Africa's debts and \$ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about \$12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub- Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold.

PROLONGED

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, specially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in. Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria- transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around \$200 million per year, far less than \$1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in ubsistence farm households. From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just \$30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost \$5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than \$3 was for emergency aid, about \$4 went for servicing Africa's debts and \$ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about \$12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub- Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.