Section I - Multiple Choice (3 Viewers)

[cu46_Keith]

I can see what your saying, you might for example have a physics question that, when caculated says an individidual can run at the speed of light, you get answers in maths like that as well, however, not in economics look at every other question in the examine everyone is theoretically possible and conforms with conventional wisdom

 

[cu46_Keith]

also munchiecrunchie looked at your UAI results very impressive, particularly maths, (a girl from my school Caz bah came first in state), why did you go to NSW, Sydney is so much better and you actually got in

 

[daniel81]

a person who is expected to top the state, as he has been averaging over 94% in each economics test, agrees with me. and our school was ranked 164 in 2007. and also the economics papers are marked very hard at our school. he said yes the answer is a, and explained why, which is $6800x 130/150. then for year 1 6000 divided by 130 x100.

look buddy top rank averaging 96% in our school (2nd in state in 07 and 08) says its C and an economics teacher with 15+ years of experience and an undergrad says its C. The correct answer is C.

The fact that you maintain that it's A means you're either a troll or an idiot.

 

[munchiecrunchie]

thankyou keith =)

I chose UNSW based on three things. Firstly - Good Universities Guide - ranked UNSW Law as the best across Australia, comparing in terms of many different factors. Secondly, I just felt more comfortable at UNSW. The degree is for 5 years, so I think at that length of time "the feel" becomes important.

Lastly, its the the teaching methods that I found more favourable. UNSW Law doesn't have big lectures; rather, they're seminars with about 30 people in it (so its like a high school classroom style feel) and there is a big emphasis on class discussion and building critical thinking.

 

[anthonysak]

Answer my question!!!

 

[JAM91]

eh dudes
what did u guys put for the first inflation question in short answer
i got food
which was what evryone at my school got

i go to baulko btw

what was the question

 

[anthonysak]

eh dudes
what did u guys put for the first inflation question in short answer
i got food
which was what evryone at my school got

i go to baulko btw

 

[DMT92]

OMG THE BASE YEAR IS 130!!!!!! 6000 divided by 130which is base year) x 100 = $4615
Now for the 2nd one, it = 6800 x 130/150=5893 . usually when the human development index rise 0.15 there is not a decline in gdp, standards of living wuld be higher, people wuld be earning higher incomes etc, less unemployment. damnnn MATEEEEEEEEEE! geeez how many fucken times do i hav to explain shit to ppl who wont admit there wrong.

Geez!!! Stop trying to convince yourtself and others that you are correct. U will neva go anywhere. u obviouslly are not intelligent enough to get q12 right, so now you are pulling stupid little statistics such as "0.15%" shit or whateva, THE BASE YEAR IS ALWAYS 100. look oiot up in your text book. The formula is nominal * (100 or BASE /CPI current) LOOK it up in your text and shut yourself up. In ECONOMICS BASE IS ALWAYS 100.

 

[gurmies]

Okay, how about everybody just forgets formulae for a second. Year 1 has the following situation:

$6000bn Nominal GDP with a CPI of 130.

If Real GDP is to remain constant, let's utilise some simple mathematics:

6000 ===> 130

6800 ===> Z

Z = (130 x 6800)/6000 = 147.3*

Therefore, if Real GDP were equal in year 2, with 6800, there would need to be a CPI of 147.3*. However, the CPI is 150. This means there is higher inflation and thus Real GDP has in fact decreased. Answer is C, final judgement.

 

[DMT92]

a person who is expected to top the state, as he has been averaging over 94% in each economics test, agrees with me. and our school was ranked 164 in 2007. and also the economics papers are marked very hard at our school. he said yes the answer is a, and explained why, which is $6800x 130/150. then for year 1 6000 divided by 130 x100.

OH great. Some kid from a school ranked 164!!!!! thats such a great rank, Well he must be correct. La Bomba, U know everything you are gonna top the fucken state. (By the way that was all sarcasm)
What you dont seem top understand is that the base is always 100 because you start every year with a possible CPI of 100, from which you can manouvre up or down causing stagflation or deflation. in your calculations u are pretty much assuming that CPI for year 2 simply starts the year off at 130. INCORRECT!!

The real formula ..... Nominal * (100/current CPI)

FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[RaMaNa]

the answerrrrrrr to 12 is..... C

 

[DMT92]

please close the case. the answer is A. i have explained enough.

Go back to the Ukraine, they may need your expansive and vast economic skills moore than we do!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[La Bomba]

ohhh wat the fuckkk, yu just a racist, mann thats wack, u say that over a message board. ur a disgrace

 

[La Bomba]

the answer is C as gurmies stated, i made a miscalculation as $6000 is suposed to remain the same. although the base year is 130, which means nominal year 2 gdp * 130/150. which is thus less than $6000

 

[La Bomba]

but dmt yu nothin but a gronk.

 

[DMT92]

ohhh wat the fuckkk, yu just a racist.

LOOK IN THE TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF you dont want to do that then look it up on wikipedia......... The BASE YEAR is always 100. and then the current CPI is multiplied. This is due to the fact that the REal rate must be lower which by simple mathematics multiplying nominal GDP with in the instance of year 1 which is 100/130 i.e Nominal multiplied by around 77%. This is due to the fact inflation has risen and thus the real rate is lower than the nominal one.

Nominal multiplied by (100/Current CPI)

100, in economics must always be the base, you in your calculations are simply showing the increase from year to year.... every year must begin with a base of 100, and inflation for each year is recorded seperatley, thus an increase from one year does not mean that you begin the next with a CPI of 130 or 150, the rate is recorded, and a clean sheat is made, thus commencing calculations of a new cpi. If your argument were correct, then in 10 years time we would have a CPI of 5 billion. this in fact is not true and thus i and anyone who put c is correct.

As for your comment. I am not a racist, i firmly believe in racial equality, in this instance i was merley referring to your lack of knowledge, and how the Ukranian economy really aint too strong. I however am planning on persuing a career in economics, i take it you are not!!!! especially considering you do not understand even the most basic of formulas. SORRY BRO.

 

[La Bomba]

Go back to the Ukraine, they may need your expansive and vast economic skills moore than we do!!!!!!!!!!!

dmt is a racist.

 

[La Bomba]

and in case u didnt notice, look at the post above yours. where i admitted it was wrong, due to an error in my calculation

 

[gurmies]

Yeah, enough guys...it's all water under a bridge. P.S. - I'm from Ukraine, you not say Ukraine weak!!!!! :burn:

 

[madsam]

I am not a racist

That's exactly what a racist would say.


You sir, are worse than Hitler