(Original post by Tallon)
I did the second question from section A and last question from section B.
Can someone tell me if this is alright please?
Compared the much larger range of food indices to non-food. And said how food index is usally above non-food index for the period blah blah. May have trawled a bit with dates and figures and stuff. For the range I even said the highest for food is this in this date and the lowest is this for this date so the range is this, and repeated for non-food. Trawling or not?
listed the loads of assumptions about large numbers of buyers and sellers such that no individual can affect price, perfectly mobility of factors of production, homogenous products, etc. Then did that industry and firm joint diagram with the demand curve shifting, making the AR=MR curve shift downwards so profit decreases. My diagram started with it in long run normal profit to making a loss after the shift though. Did anyone else find it hard to fit this diagram in with the stupid new AQA answer book?
said about economies of scale. I said that economies of scale could reduce costs and up profit and possibly market share. But could also cause limit pricing for some firms and make it impossible to compete.
said a monopoly in UK might just be an oligopoly if it's competing internationally. Did the whole kinked demand curve. stable prices, high prices though, loss of welfare. Maybe price discrimination too. WHich might be good or bad depending on whether they reinvest high profits.
Said extract C says that in real-life monopoly stuff might not be too bad because tescos are good for consumers.
Did something similar to the 10 marker, but said the analysis is the same only the supply curve could shift to the right if there's more EU competition.
Said about the exchange rate. And how it's more choice for consumers probably. More competition for retailers but they get the benefit of cheaper raw materials. Also everybody benefits from the lower cost-push inflation, right?
concluded by saying there are definitive benefits no matter what but some depends on the market structure.
did the poverty questions.
said about poverty trap, replacement ratio, waste of resource of labour if people in poverty trap, government spends on benefits and gets less in VAT and income tax if there's poverty. Said about productivity decreases as their skill set decreases. Possibly of more crime and poor mental health. Lack of competitiveness abroad.
Talked about minimum wage, how it decreases unemployment unless it's a monophony market where it can increases wages and employment. Also training. Also more information in databases. Also laws against discrimination. Also more power to trade unions. Concluded by saying you need them all but the best sure way to reduce poverty is with the tax and benefits system just cares needs to be taken so that it's no abused and there is still some incentive to find work. Think that's just about it. Tired of typing now.
Is that okay? I'm worried because my section A 25 market sounds a lot different to the one a page back!