Go to first unread
Back
to top
Economics AQA A level 2018 paper 1
Watch
Report
#2
(Original post by bennedwin)
How did everyone find it??
How did everyone find it??
1
reply
(Original post by goldyfish)
really regret choosing context one, legit spent 5 minutes counting the boxes for 2 marker, and off topic for 25 marker, after writing 2 paragraphs, realized the question asked about promoting competition rather than efficiency
really regret choosing context one, legit spent 5 minutes counting the boxes for 2 marker, and off topic for 25 marker, after writing 2 paragraphs, realized the question asked about promoting competition rather than efficiency
I’m sure you’ll be fine I didn’t think it was too bad tbf
0
reply
(Original post by jathurshans)
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by bennedwin)
Which 9 marker
Which 9 marker
it was like "decreasing barriers to entry," etc
0
reply
Report
#8
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
3
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by jathurshans)
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by timsfhd1)
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by jathurshans)
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Jcvjcvjcv)
Perfectly comeptitve long run or monopolistic long run were fine
Perfectly comeptitve long run or monopolistic long run were fine
0
reply
Report
#13
wrote similar for the essays (pollution) i talked about indirect tax aswell pushing the prices up and leading to a contraction in demand...then i said the demand for cars especially is inelastic (linked that to min price of alcohol in scotland) as they could be regarded as a necessity and as they are a major pollutant (then i made up some bs figure) the demand would not be heavily influences by a tax (can also say that for minimum pricing) i then said tax revenue from these firms would be high due to the increased revenue they earn from the higher price/inelsatic demand therefore the gov could subsidise substitutes without externalities eg electric car leading to fixing the market failure.
0
reply
Report
#14
yeh I did the same questions to you. I got the same answers pretty much but I Drew a different graph for the new tech increasing wages, I don't know if it was right though. and 25 I wrote same thing however for my evaluation I said that the gov should intervene because the costs are higher than the benefits like unemployment etc is worse for the economy and linked the extract as it said companies need an audience etc to buy their products but if no one has jobs no one has money to buy them so in the ling run its gonna be bad for firms anyway. and I also said that the firms that are that profit maximising and can afford all this machinery that is to a good enough level to replace the labour force it is likely to be a monopoly. idk I evaluated the point of the monopoly argument better in my exam but I don't know if it was even valid :/I chose the pollution area questions as well, for the first one I wrote the same thing and drew the negative externalities in consumption graph. (I think)and then for the 25 marker I ran out of time so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. x
so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. x
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by timsfhd1)
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
yeh I did the same questions to you. I got the same answers pretty much but I Drew a different graph for the new tech increasing wages, I don't know if it was right though. and 25 I wrote same thing however for my evaluation I said that the gov should intervene because the costs are higher than the benefits like unemployment etc is worse for the economy and linked the extract as it said companies need an audience etc to buy their products but if no one has jobs no one has money to buy them so in the ling run its gonna be bad for firms anyway. and I also said that the firms that are that profit maximising and can afford all this machinery that is to a good enough level to replace the labour force it is likely to be a monopoly. idk I evaluated the point of the monopoly argument better in my exam but I don't know if it was even valid :/ I chose the pollution area questions as well, for the first one I wrote the same thing and drew the negative externalities in consumption graph. (I think) and then for the 25 marker I ran out of time
so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. x
0
reply
Report
#16
How did everyone find paper 3?? Looking back I am thinking of different things I should have said/did wrong
0
reply
Report
#17
what were the questions asked for section 1 (trying to predict what will come up in the 2019 exam)
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by bennedwin)
How did everyone find it??
How did everyone find it??
Can people leave the questions that they remember and the amount of marks awarded please?
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by timsfhd1)
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
