[dayofs]

(Original post by venenecinema)
Does anybody happen to remember what they put for multiple choice question 12? It was saying that supply had shifted and was asking to calculate the PeD, anybody have any idea what it was?

-3.33?

[amish123]

i did the first 25 marker and tbh, found it really hard. Would it be right in saying that the mining industry should be left to free market forces because China will benefit from monopolsing power therefore they will make substantial profits. With these profits, they have more capital to spend on R&D which could lead to an increase in productive effiency?

[Kieran?]

(Original post by venenecinema)
Does anybody happen to remember what they put for multiple choice question 12? It was saying that supply had shifted and was asking to calculate the PeD, anybody have any idea what it was?

-1.33 (If I'm thinking of the right question)
Edit: forgot the minus sign

[venenecinema]

(Original post by Jakeeyy)
I put -1.3 as a wild guess. I didn't have a clue at all.

Haha exactly what I did, that question really confused me. The rest of the multiple choice was really good though.

[tinytadpoletim]

(Original post by venenecinema)
Does anybody happen to remember what they put for multiple choice question 12? It was saying that supply had shifted and was asking to calculate the PeD, anybody have any idea what it was?

-1.33 i think

[sreddy17]

it was -1.33

[venenecinema]

(Original post by amish123)
i did the first 25 marker and tbh, found it really hard. Would it be right in saying that the mining industry should be left to free market forces because China will benefit from monopolsing power therefore they will make substantial profits. With these profits, they have more capital to spend on R&D which could lead to an increase in productive effiency?

You talked about government intervention as well right? Such as taxing, pollution permits etc. If you did both then you should be fine.

[Jakeeyy]

(Original post by TheCommunique)
Hi, I did Context 2 too

Basically I wrote how the government could subsidise and reduce the misallocation of resources - but then I put in a bit of evaluation and said the financial crisis had left the government with little amount of money to spend on economic welfare, and backed it up with Extract D saying "changing lifestyles and ageing population" meant lower revenue for govt and hence it wouldn't be a wise choice for them to subsidise.

I then said that the only option left was to tax consumers for healthcare, and also used the "forecasted" spending (annual % change of national output) and said that 0.3% of national output (roughly) would not be enough to provide the NHS free of cost and hence taxing was the better option. I later explained that in further detail.

Hope that helps

Good point for Extract D, i missed that.

Basically i said it is good to charge to get rid of time wasters, and those are 'free riders' and how prices would perform a rationing function.

How money can be used to help develop new drugs

How charging a price can act a disincentive for those to lead an unhealthy lifestyle as they cannot afford it.

Evaluation i said how it isn't fair, incomes are not identical and the poorest will have to go without, and leads to under consumption.

New drugs take years to develop so benefits would be in the long run, not short run. Also the taxation opportunity cost argument.

And rather than punish those who chose unhealthy life choices, improve the flow of information.

[tinytadpoletim]

Should have done sooooooo much better

[venenecinema]

(Original post by tinytadpoletim)
-1.33 i think

Thanks, that's what I thought it was.

[studentroo]

For the 1st question on mining.

I put for the 25 marker negative externalities. I drew a negative externalities of production diagram with MPC greater than MSC. Mining is a negative externality. I then defined negative externalities etc.

I then talked about what would happen if the government didn't intervene, i.e. environment will become perhaps so bad that it could not be cleaned up! Firms will be doing whatever they wish, i.e. polluting lakes.

I then went on to say what government intervention could happen i.e. maximum pricing, reducing the incentive to mine for rare-earth metals as China can not price the metals at whatever it wants, this decreases its profits. Regulations, i.e. banning pollution in rivers and a certain amount of pollution can be released. Pollution permits could be used to benefit firms who do not pollute as they can sell pollution permits who need it. However, there will be an incentive for firms to decrease pollution as their costs will decrease.

Throughout it all I evaluated and concluded at the end.

[Jakeeyy]

Thank God, dropped one mark as far as i know. And i had it right the first time

[Just Josh]

I thought it was a pretty tough paper for a unit 1 exam, one of the hardest ones i've seen. especially some of the multiple choice questions with PED and stuff. I'm A2 so i found it ok because of knowledge from the unit 3 exam, but i can imagine for an AS retaker much of it would have been hard...

[lemongrass]

£36,000 for the intervention buying?

Equilibrium price would remain at OP1, OQ1 for the minimum price?

Subsidy payment was FG?

[dayofs]

(Original post by tinytadpoletim)
Should have done sooooooo much better

same T^T, fully revised on the pro and cons but my brain just shut down T^T sad retakes for sure .

[Oliver1234]

I thought it was quite a hard paper . I did the second section , the 12 marker was hard to write alot for , but for the 25 marker i wrote about how the effect of charging for the NHS could lead to people on lower incomes being excluded from using the service . Also did about government increasing health services and the opportunity cost of this . Also did a diagram and a conclusion . Some multiple choice questions were difficult .

[Kieran?]

What did everyone put for the multi choice question where it asked the cost to the government of enforcing a minimum price?

[venenecinema]

(Original post by lemongrass)
£36,000 for the intervention buying?

Equilibrium price would remain at OP1, OQ1 for the minimum price?

Subsidy payment was FG?

Not sure about the first one, I didn't put that but I may have been wrong

Second one is correct

Third is correct.

[Jakeeyy]

(Original post by lemongrass)
£36,000 for the intervention buying?

Equilibrium price would remain at OP1, OQ1 for the minimum price?

Subsidy payment was FG?

Yeah for intervention buying i did 90000-54000. Easy.
For the minimum price i cannot remember but i know the price would remain at Q1.
And i think the subsidy was correct, basically the letters that hit both curves.

[Jakeeyy]

Anyone find the 8 and 12 marker for the 2nd part (Health care) a bit tedious?