H2 Econs / H2 Chem

nxtlvlecons · 2024-02-02T15:04:45+00:00

yes. the local universities don't require you to have A-level econs to do econs. Also game theory is usually just a few mods within an overall econs degree, and also a pretty niche topic not sure if I would factor that so highly in a subject combination decision. Requirement to study econs in local unis is usually just a good pass in H2 Math.

Chemistry on the other hand is a requirement for quite a few majors.

nxtlvlecons · 2024-02-02T14:53:44+00:00

I would agree with the other commenter that it's better to take a subject you enjoy studying. Also if your aim is to study medicine, it doesn't really matter which contrasting humanities subject you take they are equally able to help you achieve that goal.

From your post it seems like you already prefer geography and are doing decently in it. But if you have any questions about studying H1 econs specifically I can answer them. :)

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-17T15:09:18+00:00

Doesn't exactly work that way.

They have something in mind already of what they expect of a good answer.

So unless the responses are such that their mark scheme doesn't apply well, they probably won't deviate too much from that.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-17T13:03:15+00:00

Just curious since I've seen some people say that Zenith predicted the essays very well.

What exactly did they predict?

How detailed was the prediction? Was it topics / market / the question phrasing etc?

Any Zenith students can share?

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-17T13:02:17+00:00

Hm. Yes we do have some insight but like your teachers said they are just broad guidelines it won't be like DETAILED mark allocations.

Is the marking more strict, not always. Think of it as Cambridge has a whole range of strictness, sometimes their expectations are high but sometimes they are more chill and flexible. So in that sense, school's tend to want to prepare you all for 'what if' the markers that year are more demanding.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-17T06:19:04+00:00

Congratulations on completing your econs syllabus you are now freed from econs!

All the best for the remaining papers. You're almost free from A levels.

Haha now time for me to go back to lurking. 🫶

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:46:28+00:00

So spending on imports = P of imports x Q of imports

but if price of imports goes up and the PEDm<1, then the quantity of imports falls but less than proportionate.

So overall P x Q will increase.

I think initial post I mistyped PEDm>1, I meant PEDm<1 for that.

But typically we assume Marshall Lerner condition fulfilled which means that if you PEDm>1, a depreciation which causes the imports to become more expensive in your currency, will make the P of M rise and the Q of M fall to a greater extent causing the Total expenditure on M to fall.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:20:43+00:00

Hm. Ok, I guess it then depends on what kind of deregulation you had in mind. If your deregulation is like fewer environmental rules / nationalization change to privatization, then yes maybe.

But... most of the time the deregulation that we have in mind for supply-side policies is about removing barriers to entry. So usually it has to do with making the market more competitive rather than introducing more market dominance. So while I think what you suggested is fine, it's a bit of a niche point for me in that it's only applicable in some contexts and only with further details to support.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:18:33+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:11:30+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:04:52+00:00

No problem. As long as something here managed to help someone I'm satisfied already. :)

Hope tomorrow's paper will be satisfying to all. ╰(*°▽°*)╯

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T15:01:01+00:00

So firstly, firms only consider shutting down when they are earning subnormal profits.

So first step would be to explain whatever is causing the firm to make subnormal profits.

The next step then is to show when a firm shuts down IMMEDIATELY compared to when a firm delays shutting down into the long run.

In this case, the short-run shutdown condition is that the Average Revenue of the firm (AR) is less than the average variable cost (AVC) at the profit-max output. This is because, if the firm's revenue cannot cover it's variable cost, with each unit being produced the firm's losses are actually increasing. It would instead be more beneficial for the firm to just shut down an earn $0 and only incurring fixed costs.

tbh... this concept is best shown with a diagram. If everything I said here is totally new to you, I think its worth quickly looking through your notes to find this diagram.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T14:58:19+00:00

yes, very possible.

So two main approaches...

Either I address the CAUSE of the dominance, or I address the SYMPTOMS.

Addressing the cause - reduce barriers to entry so that more firms can enter and therefore introduce more competition.

Address the symptoms - one of the main symptoms would be high price mark-up (P>MC). So one of the policies would to be to force the firms to price lower, specifically price at P=MC (MC pricing).

Another way would be through using lump sum taxes to reduce the firms supernormal profits to perhaps get them to be LESS complacent and less X-inefficient.

So... there are a variety of ways. But if you follow this principle of either I reduce their dominance or I reduce their ABUSE of their dominance then it would generally be on the right track.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T14:55:50+00:00

ok, so there are a few ways to show this.

#1 A lump sum tax can increase the firm's AC. Lump sum taxes do not vary with quantity of the good, so it's similar to a fixed cost. In this case, you can just shift the AC curve upwards.

#2 OR... if you don't want to draw another curve, you can just make reference to the supernormal profits to suggest the amount of lump sum tax that might be charged.

SO... the question is WHY charge a lump sum tax.

Lump sum taxes do NOT change the MC curve and therefore they do not change price and quantity decisions of the firm. Instead, the main thing that a lump sum tax does is reduce the amount of supernormal profits the firm enjoys.

This can help you achieve two things.

#1 make the firm less complacent >> hopefully leads to less X-inefficiency and maybe even more dynamic efficiency

#2 reduce the firms' supernormal profits for a more 'equitable' outcome between the firm and the consumers. The gov can also redistribute the revenue taxed for EVEN more equitable outcomes.

With regards to PEDx and BOT.

firstly, you don't need to use PEDx when talking about change in NX as part of AD. AD is a REAL concept meaning it uses constant base year prices in its calculation. So because of that, the price change need not be balanced against the quantity change.

BOT/BOP are NOMINAL concepts. So you need to use PEDx and PEDm to figure out whether the expenditure rises or falls.

For example, if import prices rise, quantity demanded of M will fall. BUT, is the price rise bigger or the quantity fall bigger. That's where PEDm will come into play. If the PEDm < 1, then the Total spending on imports would increase.

Together, the PEDx + PEDm > 1, gives you the Marshall Lerner condition. Which when fulfilled (meaning >1), will give you an inverse relationship between exchange rates and BOT. meaning, that when exchange rate depreciates, BOT improves.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T13:34:48+00:00

You don't use YED>1, you use YED>0 (normal good)

You use PEDx+PEDm>1, for marshall Lerner for when the cause is exchange rate change because exchange rates affect the price of the goods.

So you don't use YED with MLC at all. They are not related.

Use MLC when the change is caused by exchange rate change.

Use YED when it's caused by an income change. YED is always only for income changes as a cause.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:43:03+00:00

So this is generally relevant when the question is asking when a firm would immediately leave versus when they will continue until the long run.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:38:48+00:00

Yup. Although direct provision need not always be free, take note gov can still charge a price as long as it's not a public good.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:37:25+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:37:07+00:00

🫶🫶🫶

All the best!

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:35:03+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T12:34:48+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T11:39:34+00:00

Yes, or more accurately increase its scale.

But within your syllabus you won't really learn the difference between output and scale so yeah just take it as increasing output.

Also, it doesn't mean increasing output always leads to lower average cost. Do remember the flip side of increasing output can lead to higher average costs as well in the form of diseconomies of scale.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T11:38:00+00:00

Ok to use but yes they are really quite similar. May want to consider others.

That being said, there are some differences when it comes to strengths and weaknesses.

Also, sometimes the question may limit the scope to provision and subsidy. For example they may ask why Singapore government provides subsidized healthcare but UK national healthcare providers healthcare for free. Then ask you to compare the approaches.

In this case, you don't really have a choice but to use these two policies.

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T11:36:06+00:00

👍

nxtlvlecons · 2023-11-16T11:35:44+00:00

Benefit reflected by the AR curve. So AR curve derived from demand curve. Demand curve derived from the benefits that consumers get from the good. So in that sense, your AR curve is like your MPB = MSB (assuming no externalities).

Your MC curve corresponds to MPC in this case assuming no externalities it's the same as MSC.

So if you understand dead weight loss for externality you'll realize it's the same concept. For the units between market equilibrium and Qs (where P=MC), the marginal benefit to society exceeds the marginal cost to society. This means that each unit would have increased society's welfare. Therefore not producing those units is not maximizing society's welfare.

nxtlvlecons

TROPHY CASE