Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

F581/ F582 Economics June 2013 Watch

  • View Poll Results: How hard did we find this exam ?
    so hard i felt like crying through the exam
    13
    12.50%
    very difficult , but one or two were alright
    13
    12.50%
    fairly standard
    33
    31.73%
    quite easy , with one or two hard ones
    35
    33.65%
    so easy i felt like dancing throughout the exam
    10
    9.62%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fas)
    haha how'd you mess up the calculations , they were the best bits of the paper i thought ! i got that Japan had an average income of 45000 as compared to China's 4800 ( Japan is higher ) and i got investment to be 2572 billion dollars or something like that lol cant remember exactly
    For me personally I wrote 45000 and 4800 but that was an educated guess because I can never remember if they mean English billion or American billion so I came out with answers like 45 and 4.8 and used my common sense since I know China's population is very poor so it looks like I got the right answer anyway
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waddsy)
    I'm pretty sure the only supply side policies in the case study were privitisation and training- the one's I highlighted anyway. May be wrong but it did say relate to the case study
    and i did relate to the case study - last paragraph it said " proposed cuts in income tax " which is a supply-side policy and a component of fiscal policy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    For me personally I wrote 45000 and 4800 but that was an educated guess because I can never remember if they mean English billion or American billion so I came out with answers like 45 and 4.8 and used my common sense since I know China's population is very poor so it looks like I got the right answer anyway
    yeah haha thats fair enough i guess ! generally the right answer gets you the full 2 marks regardless of working
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think I've learned an important lesson from this exam. Chill the f**k out. Aside from question 1(b) I knew exactly what was going on, and I get the impression that had I given myself more than a couple of minutes to blankly stare at 1(b) I probably would have understood it also.

    I always try to give myself 45 minutes for the 18 marker, which may be a little excessive and probably damaged my marks elsewhere. Tallying up, I believe I missed out on something like 5-8 marks in the first section and 2-3 in the 18 marker. So I should be within the A boundary.

    Questions wise, they were pretty good in all honestly. For one of the reasons of a low level of consumer expenditure I wrote about income being unevenly distributed between households, with the majority of earnings being concentrated towards the top of the income spectrum. High income households tend to have a lower propensity to consume as they tend to save a larger proportion of their income as they do not need to spend as large a proportion of it - like low income households do. If the majority of household income in the country was earned by these high income households, the likelihood is consumer expenditure would be low.

    I am fully confident the examiner will stick a big, fat zero on that and move on. It's in one of the textbooks, but it's probably not on the mark scheme, so the likelihood is I'll gain no credit for it. Yey.

    Had I chilled out for a second I would have clicked that real disposable income is probably the most obvious determinant of consumer expenditure, but I was too busy panicking to realise. >.<

    ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________

    What did everyone write for the question asking about whether low unemployment should be the government's main macroeconomic policy objective?

    I outlined three positives of low unemployment. Then I discussed how it would conflict with the policy objective of low unemployment. Was this the right sort of angle to be coming at the question with?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    as long as you stated that education can lead to workers having better training and being more productive, you cannot loose the marks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fas)
    and i did relate to the case study - last paragraph it said " proposed cuts in income tax " which is a supply-side policy and a component of fiscal policy.
    My bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daniel5027)
    as long as you stated that education can lead to workers having better training and being more productive, you cannot loose the marks.
    i wrote that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    I think I've learned an important lesson from this exam. Chill the f**k out. Aside from question 1(b) I knew exactly what was going on, and I get the impression that had I given myself more than a couple of minutes to blankly stare at 1(b) I probably would have understood it also.

    I always try to give myself 45 minutes for the 18 marker, which may be a little excessive and probably damaged my marks elsewhere. Tallying up, I believe I missed out on something like 5-8 marks in the first section and 2-3 in the 18 marker. So I should be within the A boundary.

    Questions wise, they were pretty good in all honestly. For one of the reasons of a low level of consumer expenditure I wrote about income being unevenly distributed between households, with the majority of earnings being concentrated towards the top of the income spectrum. High income households tend to have a lower propensity to consume as they tend to save a larger proportion of their income as they do not need to spend as large a proportion of it - like low income households do. If the majority of household income in the country was earned by these high income households, the likelihood is consumer expenditure would be low.

    I am fully confident the examiner will stick a big, fat zero on that and move on. It's in one of the textbooks, but it's probably not on the mark scheme, so the likelihood is I'll gain no credit for it. Yey.

    Had I chilled out for a second I would have clicked that real disposable income is probably the most obvious determinant of consumer expenditure, but I was too busy panicking to realise. >.<

    ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________

    What did everyone write for the question asking about whether low unemployment should be the government's main macroeconomic policy objective?

    I outlined three positives of low unemployment. Then I discussed how it would conflict with the policy objective of low unemployment. Was this the right sort of angle to be coming at the question with?
    Glad I'm not the only one who completely misunderstood question 1b. All I can remember putting is "Yes, injections increase GDP".

    Personally I think your low consumer expenditure answer will get you a fair few marks, I actually think that's a good answer and I'm now disappointed I didn't include it because I only wrote along the lines of low RDI and low consumer confidence.

    For the low unemployment question, I wrote about it being important if an economy has currently high unemployment as that means the economy is operating well below maximum capacity and therefore an increase in employment will have little or no effect on the price level, while increasing national output significantly.

    I then wrote that it wouldn't be important if an economy has decent unemployment already as decreasing unemployment further may only have a small effect on national output, while increasing the price level significantly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you now for the evaluation , i wrote about multiplier effect, the initial position of the graph and by how much is exchange rates is increased as apposed to writing demand pull and cost push inflation would i lose marks, also my graph i put on 4 ad curves on the as curve all shifting to the left a 1 was above PO illustrating multiplier effect and how deducing inflation is good and stuff .. i am proper worried now. i wanted an overall b in econ. i dont think that gonna happen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    I think I've learned an important lesson from this exam. Chill the f**k out. Aside from question 1(b) I knew exactly what was going on, and I get the impression that had I given myself more than a couple of minutes to blankly stare at 1(b) I probably would have understood it also.

    I always try to give myself 45 minutes for the 18 marker, which may be a little excessive and probably damaged my marks elsewhere. Tallying up, I believe I missed out on something like 5-8 marks in the first section and 2-3 in the 18 marker. So I should be within the A boundary.

    Questions wise, they were pretty good in all honestly. For one of the reasons of a low level of consumer expenditure I wrote about income being unevenly distributed between households, with the majority of earnings being concentrated towards the top of the income spectrum. High income households tend to have a lower propensity to consume as they tend to save a larger proportion of their income as they do not need to spend as large a proportion of it - like low income households do. If the majority of household income in the country was earned by these high income households, the likelihood is consumer expenditure would be low.

    I am fully confident the examiner will stick a big, fat zero on that and move on. It's in one of the textbooks, but it's probably not on the mark scheme, so the likelihood is I'll gain no credit for it. Yey.

    Had I chilled out for a second I would have clicked that real disposable income is probably the most obvious determinant of consumer expenditure, but I was too busy panicking to realise. >.<

    ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________

    What did everyone write for the question asking about whether low unemployment should be the government's main macroeconomic policy objective?

    I outlined three positives of low unemployment. Then I discussed how it would conflict with the policy objective of low unemployment. Was this the right sort of angle to be coming at the question with?
    yes thats the same angle that i approached the question with - outlined three advantages that low unemployment could have on the economy , then mentioned conflicting policy objectives " low unemployment means tons of people have more disposable income etc etc hence AD could exceed AS etc causing inflation " as an example of one of my comments.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think your low consumer expenditure answer will get you a fair few marks, I actually think that's a good answer and I'm now disappointed I didn't include it because I only wrote along the lines of low RDI and low consumer confidence.
    I hope so. I used also low confidence and high taxation as my other two reasons. Taxation obviously lowering real disposable income and thus lowering consumer expenditure.

    I honestly think it's the examiner's discretion. If they teach AS economics and know the syllabus, they will probably give it the two marks or so. If they don't, it will get zero. I'm guessing this because I got a remark back a month or so ago that had gone up by 10 UMS! I have a suspicion that some of the examiners do not actually teach the subject.

    For the low unemployment question, I wrote about it being important if an economy has currently high unemployment as that means the economy is operating well below maximum capacity and therefore an increase in employment will have little or no effect on the price level.

    I then wrote that it wouldn't be important if an economy has decent unemployment already as decreasing unemployment further may only have a small effect on national output, while increasing the price level significantly.
    Sensible answers, will definitely fetch a few marks.

    yes thats the same angle that i approached the question with - outlined three advantages that low unemployment could have on the economy , then mentioned conflicting policy objectives " low unemployment means tons of people have more disposable income etc etc hence AD could exceed AS etc causing inflation " as an example of one of my comments.
    Good good. Though I think I forgot to add other comments
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    for 1(b) i just put that injections were higher than leakages as real GDP in China had actually increased to whatever it was , and not decreased hence this shows there was a greater amount of injections into the economy rather than leakages. Get the 2 marks you reckon ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fas)
    for 1(b) i just put that injections were higher than leakages as real GDP in China had actually increased to whatever it was , and not decreased hence this shows there was a greater amount of injections into the economy rather than leakages. Get the 2 marks you reckon ?
    Would probably fetch one out of two. They'd be looking for you to talk about types of injections increasing from the case study.

    I can confidently say I scored zero on this one as I said something like. "No you can't conclude injections have increased." ^_^
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I was wondering if any one can tell me how they got their calculation for Japan and china question. Btw does anyone remember the GDP figures and population figures for both countries in the case study
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Pro Crastination;42599838]I think I've learned an important lesson from this exam. Chill the f**k out. Aside from question 1(b) I knew exactly what was going on, and I get the impression that had I given myself more than a couple of minutes to blankly stare at 1(b) I probably would have understood it also.

    I always try to give myself 45 minutes for the 18 marker, which may be a little excessive and probably damaged my marks elsewhere. Tallying up, I believe I missed out on something like 5-8 marks in the first section and 2-3 in the 18 marker. So I should be within the A boundary.

    Questions wise, they were pretty good in all honestly. For one of the reasons of a low level of consumer expenditure I wrote about income being unevenly distributed between households, with the majority of earnings being concentrated towards the top of the income spectrum. High income households tend to have a lower propensity to consume as they tend to save a larger proportion of their income as they do not need to spend as large a proportion of it - like low income households do. If the majority of household income in the country was earned by these high income households, the likelihood is consumer expenditure would be low.

    I am fully confident the examiner will stick a big, fat zero on that and move on. It's in one of the textbooks, but it's probably not on the mark scheme, so the likelihood is I'll gain no credit for it. Yey.

    Had I chilled out for a second I would have clicked that real disposable income is probably the most obvious determinant of consumer expenditure, but I was too busy panicking to realise. >.<

    ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________

    What did everyone write for the question asking about whether low unemployment should be the government's main macroeconomic policy objective?

    I outlined three positives of low unemployment. Then I discussed how it would conflict with the policy objective of low unemployment. Was this the right sort of angle to be coming at the question with?[/QUOTE

    I firstly analysed the benefits of low unemplyment - for evaluation I considered 3 other macroeconomic objectives and then concluded they should all be given the same weighting... do you think that'd be right? i think the anlaysis will get 3 but maybe 0 for eval.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi I was wondering if any one can tell me how they got their calculation for Japan and china question. Btw does anyone remember the GDP figures and population figures for both countries in the case study
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I firstly analysed the benefits of low unemplyment - for evaluation I considered 3 other macroeconomic objectives and then concluded they should all be given the same weighting... do you think that'd be right? i think the anlaysis will get 3 but maybe 0 for eval.
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    I think I've learned an important lesson from this exam. Chill the f**k out. Aside from question 1(b) I knew exactly what was going on, and I get the impression that had I given myself more than a couple of minutes to blankly stare at 1(b) I probably would have understood it also.

    I always try to give myself 45 minutes for the 18 marker, which may be a little excessive and probably damaged my marks elsewhere. Tallying up, I believe I missed out on something like 5-8 marks in the first section and 2-3 in the 18 marker. So I should be within the A boundary.

    Questions wise, they were pretty good in all honestly. For one of the reasons of a low level of consumer expenditure I wrote about income being unevenly distributed between households, with the majority of earnings being concentrated towards the top of the income spectrum. High income households tend to have a lower propensity to consume as they tend to save a larger proportion of their income as they do not need to spend as large a proportion of it - like low income households do. If the majority of household income in the country was earned by these high income households, the likelihood is consumer expenditure would be low.

    I am fully confident the examiner will stick a big, fat zero on that and move on. It's in one of the textbooks, but it's probably not on the mark scheme, so the likelihood is I'll gain no credit for it. Yey.

    Had I chilled out for a second I would have clicked that real disposable income is probably the most obvious determinant of consumer expenditure, but I was too busy panicking to realise. >.<

    ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________

    What did everyone write for the question asking about whether low unemployment should be the government's main macroeconomic policy objective?

    I outlined three positives of low unemployment. Then I discussed how it would conflict with the policy objective of low unemployment. Was this the right sort of angle to be coming at the question with?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I firstly analysed the benefits of low unemplyment - for evaluation I considered 3 other macroeconomic objectives and then concluded they should all be given the same weighting... do you think that'd be right? i think the anlaysis will get 3 but maybe 0 for eval.
    Analysis = 3/3. Evaluation would probably be zero unless they are justified, so for example, "low inflation may be a more important policy objective if the economy is already operating near its productive capacity."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did both the country's real GDP/inc in population... pretty sure that's right.. Japan was definitely more
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yeah that's what I thought after the exam... I think I could have got 18 on the 18 marker but lost marks elsewhere... for the explain the changes in price level using fig 1 question... everybody here seems to have described the graph I put: "Rapid decrease followed by rapid increase as wage rates increased faster than output and another reason from the case study... what did you put?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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