Ocr economics f581 (16/05) and/or f582 (23/05) retakes

Scroll to see replies

How is government spending not a supply side policy are you saying spending into infrastructure isn't government spending or spending into education and training? That doesn't make sense mate. It can be used for multiple policies

I said gov spending too bc I thought dereg and privatisation was too micro-y :frown:

but I don't know if we'll get the mark!

Reply 521

Newitt97

Original post by alicec11

I said gov spending too bc I thought dereg and privatisation was too micro-y :frown:

but I don't know if we'll get the mark!

If you said government spending on healthcare then this should be correct as it in theory should mean workers are taking less time off work, boosting productivity and shifting AS

Reply 522

jakei1234

For supply side policy can you say privatisation, as this means more firms will open up, and with more firms means more investment increasing productive capacity of economy as more workers hired shifting AS right?

Reply 523

Yousf

Can somebody tell me how many marks i will get out of four for the questions regarding why a cut in benefits may increase unemployment.

I drew a graph with AD and AS. I then shifted AD left and said government spending is a component of AD, spending less on benefits means government expenditure falls so AD shifts left, resulting in a fall in output and hence fall in employment. And said also cause of less output means less firms so more people out of work.
Thanks!

Reply 524

Berke0

Original post by Yousf

U kinda missed the point. U had to say how unemployed would have less disposable income. For your sake I hope you'll still get some marks

Reply 525

Yousf

Original post by Berke0

U kinda missed the point. U had to say how unemployed would have less disposable income. For your sake I hope you'll still get some marks

You didn't have to talk about less disposable income if there's less benefits, you could have just talked about less government expenditure leading to unemployment.

Reply 526

Berke0

Original post by Yousf

You didn't have to talk about less disposable income if there's less benefits, you could have just talked about less government expenditure leading to unemployment.

If you "could" have done that why u even posting Yusuf?

A graph with that much explanation if you "could" do that would likely get you 4 marks. Think for yourself bit

Reply 527

Yousf

Original post by Berke0

If you "could" have done that why u even posting Yusuf?

A graph with that much explanation if you "could" do that would likely get you 4 marks. Think for yourself bit

I wanted to know how many marks i would get because i wasn't sure if i would get all the marks if i included a diagram as the question didn't really want one, and i'm just saying you could have because you gave an alternative approach to the question hence the reason i said you 'could' have also. Don't bother replying because you don't know what your on about mate, cheers.

Reply 528

Berke0

Original post by Yousf

U got it wrong pal. Stop clutching at straws and revise ur global

Reply 529

jakei1234

Original post by Berke0

U got it wrong pal. Stop clutching at straws and revise ur global

Your bored Berke...

Reply 530

Berke0

Original post by jakei1234

Your bored Berke...

Who was speaking to you ?

Reply 531

Pato1

Original post by Yousf

You didn't have to talk about less disposable income if there's less benefits, you could have just talked about less government expenditure leading to unemployment.

Benefits is not part of government spending at all

Reply 532

Yousf

Original post by Pato1

Benefits is not part of government spending at all

It is unemployment related benefits like job seekers allowance

Reply 533

jakei1234

Original post by Berke0

Who was speaking to you ?

Don't go around being a prick, idiot.

Reply 534

Pato1

Original post by Yousf

It is unemployment related benefits like job seekers allowance

from textbook pg 83:

'Government spending is spending by the central government and local government on, for example, education, health care and the police service. It does not include transfer payments such as housing benefit, JSA and state pensions.'

Reply 535

Yousf

Original post by Pato1

Oh, but it doe say on the unofficial mark scheme that lower government spending on benefits will reduce g and so reduce aggregate demand leading to cyclical unmployment

Reply 536

Ablojo

Original post by Yousf

Oh, but it doe say on the unofficial mark scheme that lower government spending on benefits will reduce g and so reduce aggregate demand leading to cyclical unmployment

You can definitely say what you said! Government spending is a component of AD (AD=C+I+G+(X-m)) thus a reduction in government spending (or any fall in the components of AD) would lead to a fall in AD (shift to the left). Hence forth leading to a fall in output produced by firms in the market, leading to less workers needed by firms. Thus leading to demand-deficient or cyclical unemployment!
So you'd definitely get full marks if that was your chain of reasoning!
Hope this helps!

Reply 537

Arlenambxx

F584 notes anyone??

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 538

lagoon

hi, does anyone have time to look at my f582 paper (I re-wrote it) and give me a raw mark as guided by the unofficial mark scheme please? I've marked it myself but would also like at least one other person's opinion to be more certain