Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

AQA A-level Economics new 7136 - 06, 13 & 19 Jun 2017 [Exam Discussion]

Scroll to see replies

Also for the 25 marker I made a lot of points for and against but I didn't ta
lol much about tarrifs as intervention but I did draw a tarring free world supply diagram to show how these resources can be re allocated is that okay

Reply 1161

Sap434

Original post by 03dmason

Why?

I used the process of elimination... two options gave the wrong difewrence... so it was either cyclical or real wage and the qs was not related to an economic cycle so i picked real wage

Reply 1162

junky27

Check multiple choices in thread I have made

Reply 1163

mo501

For the 25 marker - I wrote about REASONS FOR intervention and REASONS AGAINST. I didn't really talk about which methods of intervention, because I felt that the question was asking for reasons not methods of intervention. Is this alright?

Reply 1164

Sam10711

Original post by junky27

Check multiple choices in thread I have made

Link?

Reply 1165

Bn1222

Can nobody remember what unit of output the firm produced at to be profit maximising? A B C D?

Reply 1166

junky27

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4791866 Multiple choice thread

Reply 1167

junky27

Original post by Sam10711

Link?

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4791866

Reply 1168

tp15229

Original post by SANTR

For the 15 marker, I made several points but I feel one of my points is invalid. I talked about mechanisation and automation as a reason for a fall in employment in manufacturing sector :frown:

i wrote about this too, it also mentioned technological change in extract 3 as one of the reasons

Reply 1169

matthew9812

Did you have to put a method of intervention for the 25marker . I just talked about whether it was necessary through comparative advantage, structural unemployment etc

Reply 1170

Remaine

It was a tricky MCQ, as it definitely tried to catch you out, and I slightly remember one question that did.

It was regarding how much tax a person earning £40000 has to pay, with 10k-30k = 10/20% and 30k-(whatever number) 30%

Whaddaya got, people?

Reply 1171

Sam10711

Original post by Remaine

I think I got £5000?

Reply 1172

MB98Yeezy

For 15 marks I said about services being more elastic (was mentioned in the extracts), cheaper overseas and that higher skills & living standards in rich nations meant they don't work in manuf as much but I acknowledged that some manufacturing is high skill e.g. Space tech

Anyone know if this is valid?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1173

Massos

Quite a strange paper overall. Multiple choices took me way too long (probably not helped by the heat) but I hopefully got through them without dropping too many marks.

In terms of the textual questions:

31) Basically picked out three factors from the extract that could be perceived to show a declining industry and then evaluated the usefulness of the data provided. From memory these were the decline in total output, the decline in employment and one other.

32) Initially talked about how rising wages meant that the supply curve in terms of manufactured goods shifted to the left for economically developed nations and therefore they couldn't compete at the world price that developed nations competed at. Then talked about how in services supply side polices and people who lost their jobs in manufacturing caused the MRP and labour supply curves to shift to the right, meaning that more people get hired.

33) Talked about how as steel is an essential good in many economic programmes a tariff on it and therefore increase in price would lead to SRAS shifting to the left, reducing RNO. 2nd paragraph on how a tariff could cause retaliatory measures such as tariffs on UK services and therefore shift AD to the left and worsen the balance of payments. 3rd paragraph on how a subsidy would shift the supply curve for the steel industry to the right and therefore make UK steel more competitive in the world market. However this would be expensive and arguably regressive. Overall did not recommend intervention but said that short term support and supply side policies to reeducate workers who lost their jobs may be necessary.

Not the best paper ever but ok I hope. Need an A

Original post by mo501

As long as you alluded to methods of intervention where it was relevant then you're fine. Personally I talked about reasons for and against with specific methods of intervention and then in the conclusion talked about some methods being better than others. The point of the question is whether intervention is good, not how intervention works.

Reply 1176

steph_diep

For the 15 marker I spoke about the income elasticity for services so as we have higher growth and and incomes rise there's more demand for the service industry and labour is a derived demand etc and then also about how China has low wage labour whereas the U.K. doesn't and how that increases costs and the shift from labour to machinery causing unemployment

and then for the 25 marker
- Defined government intervention
-Case for intervening - structural employment and consequences of this - Keynesian demand diagram
- How to intervene with the 'reduced business rates and reduced carbon emission targets'
- Evaluated this with government budget deficit and negative externalities from pollution plus negative externalities diagram
- Case against - Sunset industry stuff about elongating the decline of the industry by protecting it uhh even if there is investment China and other countries may still have a comparative advantage
- judgement - no shouldn't support it, just the natural development of the structural changes in the economy from manufacturing to service sector
- But should use government intervention through supply side policies education & training to reduce structural unemployment

Reply 1177

Anthony27

This is roughly what I did for the questions, did anyone else do something similar or think this sounds valid?

10 marker
Basically said that the manufacturing sector has declined but it isn't in decline then briefly talked about part 3 of extract C not being relevant as it only showed prices not quantity

15 marker
Talked about cheaper wages elsewhere leading to less demand in the UK for manufacturers
Improvements in technology mean we don't require as many workers
Income elasticity of demand being greater for services rather than goods

25 marker
Paragraph one:They could intervene by way of lower business rates until the UK regains a comparative advantage but countered saying that there will always be lower wage rates + time of austerity

Paragraph two: Intervention through lax environmental laws means no direct impact to anyone+no cost. Countered talking about tragedy of the commons and risk of regulatory capture i.e every time costs rise they go to the government for help

Paragraph three: Short term would see unemployment spike but long term cheaper prices and the increase in supply would mean firms need labour so more manufacturing jobs become available.

Concluded saying that intervention shouldn't happen, also cited Thatcher and the coal mines saying that whilst unpopular it worked and this was on a larger scale (4 million unemployed vs 30,000)

Reply 1178

Dinklebop

Original post by Anthony27

10 marker
part 3 of extract C not being relevant as it only showed prices not quantity

Well, it didn't show prices, it showed the balance of trade in goods (imports/exports and the balance). You could have used that to support a point about the UK manufacturing higher value goods (export value rose in the period, despite fall in output).

Reply 1179

Holdsworth1

Was it relevant to talk about the issues relating to structural unemployment for the 25 marker, and the need for government intervention to help solve the issues relating to unemployment and the occupational immobility of labour in the economy? Because if not unemployment can have serious impacts on the economic performance if the government doesn't intervene to help this issue in the steel industry?