Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BA.Peluso Rt Hon)
    There are already firms who are able to do fracking. Once legalised the market will be open in the UK. However it is possible to maybe get the chain of reasoning marks for what you stated. I'm not sure about the graph
    Yes true, there is firms who are allowed to do it, but in relation to extracts, its stated that it was not happening yet with "if firms are given the go ahead", the diagram is a simple demand curve shown in all AS textbooks, just a higher price and lower output then what would be competetive, fracking isn't happening in the UK yet either, or at least its minimal, so i think its a legit answer, i did mention they need to regulate to ensure environmental damage doesn't occur as an adittional point, so.. There's no right answer for that question either, it said "suggest reasons why fracking MIGHT need to be regulated", so i think in relation to the cost of fracking, the potential for monpoly is a legitimate answer.. Who knows
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    lol
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    Did anyone for the 12-marker, mention that since shale gas production has not taken off yet, as suggested in the extract "if fracking is given the go ahead" it is likely the start up costs for fracking will be significant, so therefore monpolies could develop, as a result, the government should intervene through regulation to ensure fair competition as monopolies could restrict output and increase price? Diagram just a simple demand curve showing how monopolies could do this? I seem to be the only one that's done this
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=JCB97LAW;64858763]Yes true, there is firms who are allowed to do it, but in relation to extracts, its stated that it was not happening yet with "if firms are given the go ahead", the diagram is a simple demand curve shown in all AS textbooks, just a higher price and lower output then what would be competetive, fracking isn't happening in the UK yet either, or at least its minimal, so i think its a legit answer, i did mention they need to regulate to ensure environmental damage doesn't occur as an adittional point, so.. There's no right answer for that question either, it said "suggest reasons why fracking MIGHT need to be regulated", so i think in relation to the cost of fracking, the potential for monpoly is a legitimate answer.. Who knows

    You misunderstand me. There are firms already who have the equipment to frack i.e US firms. once the go ahead is given these firms will start to frack immediately and hence yes these firms may increase the chance of monopoly due to the construction of entry barrier from the high sunk costs of equipment. However the 12 markers are usually more restrictive and although it is a perfectly reasonable answer it didn't immediately come to mind. Like you say, who knows
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jake0)
    lol
    Snake0, 1v1? What did you put? I read somewhere you didn't even use a diagram in your 25-mark answer?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    Snake0, 1v1? What did you put? I read somewhere you didn't even use a diagram in your 25-mark answer?
    Jp I heard you're going to Sheffield Hallam...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=BA.Peluso Rt Hon;64859167]
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    Yes true, there is firms who are allowed to do it, but in relation to extracts, its stated that it was not happening yet with "if firms are given the go ahead", the diagram is a simple demand curve shown in all AS textbooks, just a higher price and lower output then what would be competetive, fracking isn't happening in the UK yet either, or at least its minimal, so i think its a legit answer, i did mention they need to regulate to ensure environmental damage doesn't occur as an adittional point, so.. There's no right answer for that question either, it said "suggest reasons why fracking MIGHT need to be regulated", so i think in relation to the cost of fracking, the potential for monpoly is a legitimate answer.. Who knows

    You misunderstand me. There are firms already who have the equipment to frack i.e US firms. once the go ahead is given these firms will start to frack immediately and hence yes these firms may increase the chance of monopoly due to the construction of entry barrier from the high sunk costs of equipment. However the 12 markers are usually more restrictive and although it is a perfectly reasonable answer it didn't immediately come to mind. Like you say, who knows
    oh right, yeah fracking is extremely likely to be monpolised/oligopolistic market etc, it was an answer different to the standard negative production which is why i liked it, its likely the u.s firms will monpolise/oligopolise fracking, i think some french firms already have permission to frack in UK, so i think my answer is fine tbh, there's no right answer as the question was 'suggest reasons why governments may need to regulate' and i think the potential of monpoloy is relevant and likely answer, the diagram is very basic but is legit, its in the textbooks lol, just worried me because no one else thought of it and went for negative production
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jake0)
    Jp I heard you're going to Sheffield Hallam...
    Bristol Law mate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcb97law)
    did anyone for the 12-marker, mention that since shale gas production has not taken off yet, as suggested in the extract "if fracking is given the go ahead" it is likely the start up costs for fracking will be significant, so therefore monpolies could develop, as a result, the government should intervene through regulation to ensure fair competition as monopolies could restrict output and increase price? Diagram just a simple demand curve showing how monopolies could do this? I seem to be the only one that's done this

    i did this!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idkshats)
    i did this!
    really?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For extract 1 I talked about the government imposing taxation due to the negative externalities are created e.g. harm to the environment and I referred to the data, have I done it completely wrong??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeccaJohn)
    For extract 1 I talked about the government imposing taxation due to the negative externalities are created e.g. harm to the environment and I referred to the data, have I done it completely wrong??
    No, that's correct for the 12-mark question
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    No, that's correct for the 12-mark question
    Thankyou, my friend told me that I had got it wrong because taxation is not a form of regulation , but is it??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    really?
    Yep i did! What did u write for the 25 marker
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BA.Peluso Rt Hon)
    for the 12 marker in context 1 I drew the negative externalities graph, defined what a negative externality was, and also what a commodity was i.e referring to the gas and how it is used to produce electricity which is a necessity. Then I spoke about how regulation i.e a price minimum would be required to set production at the socially efficient point to reduce over production. Thus implicating and defining that electricity produced from shale gas from fracking is a demerit good. Then linked this back to how this would reduce chemical affects on the environment as well as tremors, this reducing welfare loss--referring to the welfare loss area of the diagram.

    the 25 marker was more expansive -I explained the issue set out by the question and extract, defined government failure, and one other I can'e remember.

    I drew a monopoly diagram and then explained how the market for energy is concentrated, inferring that the supernormal profit is a symptom of such a market structure. supernormal profit is rarely used for innovation as the monopolistic/oligopolistic firms have no threat of competition and thus they would most likely not aid the development of renewable sources especially when oil is so cheap at around $48 a barrel of brent crude. This justifies therefore the need for government intervention etc, potentially in the form of subsidies for smaller (renewable energy) firms to overcome these entry barriers and develop renewable sources -referring to the welsh example in the extract. I then evaluated after expanding saying how subsidies are unlikely due to the current £110bn budget deficit (2015).

    Then I made a point for market freedom to aid the development of renewable source for example how as fossil fuels are depleted the supply of them is ergo reduced and the price should thus inflate as demand remains stationary due to energy being pretty much a necessity. thus I drew a supply demand graph........ evaluated again and made anther point of which I cannot remember-linked to government failure however.

    Conclusion was along the lines of that subsidies would be unlikely due to my previous statement. However there is a need for government intervention as large energy firms face little competition so are not innovating in renewable energy. More cost efficient methods of intervention include legislation i.e. the competition and markets authority to reduce entry barriers into the market.

    Of course there are many other topics to include but that's the broad outline of what i put
    My points I used where:

    1) Price mech. fails as doesn't show negative externalities of production from fossil fuels, therefore allowing firms to continue using non renewable energy instead of price mech. rationing demand and signalling, so gov. intervention is needed

    2) Gov. could use subsidies for firms aiming to develop renewable energy sources to lower barriers to entry and allow more investment and output

    3) Tradable permits given to firms using non-renewable sources so that polluter pays and in long run they shift to using more renewable sources instead

    Then concluded with market therefore can't help develop renewable sources as fails to ration those that are non-renewable and provides barriers to entry for firms trying to enter the wind turbine market for example. Therefore gov. intervention is needed through subsidises and permits
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idkshats)
    Yep i did! What did u write for the 25 marker
    Messed the 25-marker up a bit tbh, wrote about how there is not enough production of renewable energy in the free-market, the free-market has thus already failed, so i drew a positive production externality, then spoke about how a subsidy can help to achieve these, I then drew the same externality diagram but with a subsidy in it, then my next point was about regulation I think, can't really remember what I put.. Something about competition in renewable energy promoting the production of it or something.. Finished off with a conclusion where i mentioned the possibility of taxing non-renewables and using the revenue gained to subsidise renewables.... But i didn't really put an argument for the free market as I percieved from the texts that the free-market had already failed... Not sure...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone got the paper?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What u guys reckon grade boundaries will be
    60 for A ?
    54 for B?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCB97LAW)
    Messed the 25-marker up a bit tbh, wrote about how there is not enough production of renewable energy in the free-market, the free-market has thus already failed, so i drew a positive production externality, then spoke about how a subsidy can help to achieve these, I then drew the same externality diagram but with a subsidy in it, then my next point was about regulation I think, can't really remember what I put.. Something about competition in renewable energy promoting the production of it or something.. Finished off with a conclusion where i mentioned the possibility of taxing non-renewables and using the revenue gained to subsidise renewables.... But i didn't really put an argument for the free market as I percieved from the texts that the free-market had already failed... Not sure...
    sounds good to me, i wrote something similar actually. I wrote about competition, subsidies, cost of administration (gov failure), causes problems to local residents eg eyesore, market failure of external costs of solar panels etc. Sure we will be fine x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboutAWeekAgo)
    What u guys reckon grade boundaries will be
    60 for A ?
    54 for B?
    I really think the boundaries could be higher. I mean the only ones doing ECON 1 and ECON 2 this year are A2 students
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I messed up my 12 marker for context 1, I done a supply and demand graph showing supply shifting to the right. When the question was suggesting if fracking goes ahead how it will increase and encourage competition - incentive to produce- profit maximise. Then linked it to substitute of fossil fuels, and it will be cheaper "energy supply". I also mentioned in my chain of analysis that it has despite the environment effects firms and government regulation, the firm can get do fracking through black market and import - to the demand of consumers needs and wants. I basically messed up the whole question, realistically I should of spoke about negative externalities.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.