Eco predictions/thoughts (1 Viewer)

[scarrrrrrr]

wait isn't 15 B?

yes sorry i meant b

 

[peepeepoopooo]

they got from me in post #156

Just really curious about your job because you are so active on this website are you a highschool teacher or something because I feel like I owe you chocolates from the amount of trials you have given me ha ha

 

[pilot_djeddie]

Aight, exam was actually alright tbh.

I did AANZFTA and then China.

I then did the question on sustainable economic growth (because I ain’t gonna solely focus on full employment) and then I did the question on appreciating AUD

 

[Ishi081]

what did people write for question 27 about international economic integration?

 

[peepeepoopooo]

what did people write for question 27 about international economic integration?

I wrote about a rise in international financial flows, a decrease in protection and increases in the number of TNC's and as a result supply chains.

 

[Ishi081]

I wrote about a rise in international financial flows, a decrease in protection and increases in the number of TNC's and as a result supply chains.

oh about how many pages did you write coz I forced in a tariff diagram so that I would have more pages coz I felt like I was repeating myself.

 

[ahihimeowmeow]

wait isn't 15 B?

Yeah right, domestic busi cycle is obvi not structural

 

[willy_g0706]

I swear question 28 a lot easier to answer but anyway.

 

[willy_g0706]

Is talking abt Australia's participation in ASEAN wrong for that multilateral question. How many marks would you lose for that cause they are technically in i

 

[ahihimeowmeow]

Is talking abt Australia's participation in ASEAN wrong for that multilateral question. How many marks would you lose for that cause they are technically in i

Ur fine thats what i did too

 

[Ishi081]

Is talking abt Australia's participation in ASEAN wrong for that multilateral question. How many marks would you lose for that cause they are technically in i

Yeh I wrote ASEAN instead of the actual name with NewZealand, Australia and ASEAN
I think would probably lose a mark definitely coz ASEAN only includes the Southeast asian countries and technically Australia is not part of it. but hopefully they are lenient enough to give two marks with decent explanation in answering the rest of the question.

 

[bruhmoment.]

what did people write for question 27 about international economic integration?

increase in trade flows - linked it to ricardos principle of comparative advantage, then talked about how basically a reduction in protection levels was beneficial blah blah, said however tho that the adoption of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is bad as it creates trade diversion rather than trade creation.

that was body para 1. body para 2 was mostly waffle where i smushed financial flows (increased levels of FDIs) and the rise of TNCs throughout the global eco - linked that to more job opportunities - higher growth - increased living standards - blah blah. then linked that to how it has however created increased income inequality as it has disproportionately benefited advanced and emerging ecos, where FDIs havent really flowed to developing nations and regions such as sub saharan africa - faked an example about benin (HOW TF WOULD THE MARKER KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF BENIN LMAO)

body para three was meant to be international division of labour/advancements in tech, but i didnt really seem to find enough coming through my brain that would make it a whole para. so i just then shifted the whole para to WTO, saying how their free trade agenda has increased eco integration where their policies regarding removal of protectionist policies such as unilateral reform have proven to be immensly effective in increasing eco integration. linked that again to a disadvantage being the rise of bilateral and multilateral agreements, which are bad.

overall i think i didnt do well tho, cause my stats were shit idk tho

 

[bruhmoment.]

increase in trade flows - linked it to ricardos principle of comparative advantage, then talked about how basically a reduction in protection levels was beneficial blah blah, said however tho that the adoption of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is bad as it creates trade diversion rather than trade creation.

that was body para 1. body para 2 was mostly waffle where i smushed financial flows (increased levels of FDIs) and the rise of TNCs throughout the global eco - linked that to more job opportunities - higher growth - increased living standards - blah blah. then linked that to how it has however created increased income inequality as it has disproportionately benefited advanced and emerging ecos, where FDIs havent really flowed to developing nations and regions such as sub saharan africa - faked an example about benin (HOW TF WOULD THE MARKER KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF BENIN LMAO)

body para three was meant to be international division of labour/advancements in tech, but i didnt really seem to find enough coming through my brain that would make it a whole para. so i just then shifted the whole para to WTO, saying how their free trade agenda has increased eco integration where their policies regarding removal of protectionist policies such as unilateral reform have proven to be immensly effective in increasing eco integration. linked that again to a disadvantage being the rise of bilateral and multilateral agreements, which are bad.

overall i think i didnt do well tho, cause my stats were shit idk tho

overall i think i did ass tho, idk i ran out of time for the employment essay, pissed me off quite a bit,

can someone tell me an approx mark for what I did:

intro - this was hella good

Body para 1 - explained cyclical unemployment at the start then linked it to Monetary and fiscal during covid, where the 1500 Jobkeeper shit was useful and stuff, added the quantitiative easing scheme that the government adopted, blah blah, then linked it to recent times where higher levels of inflation (except most recent quarter which was 2.8%) was detrimental to full employment - increasing unemployment rate - linked that to poor coordination of fiscal and monetary, contradicting aims of the RBA and Chalmers. this was overall a very chunky para, probs 3 pages

Body Para 2: I ran out of time here, so i rushed a lot of micro, i was meant to have a whole para towards government taxation (i forgot national competition policy shit so i was like fuck it) and completely waffled, literally pulled shit i learnt in business. i was tryna link it to recent albanese tax cuts and new tax brackets that happened this yr, but didnt really have time, so just waffled most of it

and i fucking ran out of time for a conclusion and its pissing me off....

anyone think i can even pull a 12/20 with this for the employment essay?

 

[bruhmoment.]

it was weird tho how the essay directive verb was "Explain" like wtf?

 

[danieljames]

no way i did the exact same for all of those questions!

 

[pilot_djeddie]

Question, did ya’ll find the last essay question (appreciating aud one) hard to fit in up to date stats?

 

[peepeepoopooo]

Question, did ya’ll find the last essay question (appreciating aud one) hard to fit in up to date stats?

yeah thats why I didn't use it

 

[danieljames]

that means I got 20 if its correct

are u on track for band 6 u reckon? thats so good dude

 

[pilot_djeddie]

yeah thats why I didn't use it

Like I managed to fit in a couple. But my structure was weird.

short para for Individiuals and firms.

FAT para on government

 

[Azan123]

Was the exam harder or easier than previous years?
What would an 80 theoretically scale to?