Search results

Can't really speak from experience here, but as they are prohibitions I would imagine that they are interchangeable - seems the point of having the advanced stream tbh. This is the way the normal/advanced stream works for usyd maths.

Less essays would be great-apparently they are going that way in the next couple of years- 2 essays out of a choice of 3. Having 60% of the exam mark for three questions is rather stupid. Seeing there are 8 or 9 subtopics in the course, testing only 3 each year is rather limiting. Sure, no...

I don't have the stimulus booklet anymore, but from the question Papermill Farm is in AR 0732. Point C is a good kilometre west of there. Ok, they could have used a supermagnified zoom- but unlikely. Apart from that i think the shape of the hill, the road, the creek (with the dam and the bridge...

I got the same as Rockstar and co. So lets hope we are right. Compared to other subjects, geo multi choice isn't as controversial. Harder to argue about what the question means- only if the map is dodgy. Btw, did everyone else have question 8 answers changed- the typo? Seeing they all ended...

Regarding the urban dynamics question, as far as i can remember the syllabus has two different things: Impact of urban dynamics (i.e. more than one) on a developed city. Specific urban dynamic in a specific suburb or country townThat's why they asked more than one dynamic.

Firstly, i never had to do a task exactly like this, so i am guessing somewhat. Things that would seem important are: Specifically what strategies each country has taken. Off the top of my head i would group these under trade (membership of bodies such as the WTO, free trade agreements...

weren't you leaving?

good bye shut up go home. its bed time for you matey, sleep well, nice having you

fixed. =D why would you bother quoting JJmn? the last 10 pages seem to suggest you care. just a little bit

its not that you only do just that, but you continue to argue and prove how much of an idiot you are. you only did it half a dozen times. count them yourself. generally defined as hypocrisy... well done! :uhhuh:

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. If you want to discuss it, by all means do so. But don't by hypocritical. P.S. Nice job, i'm sure an English teacher would call that efficient quoting

And what a misfabrication of what he was saying...Thanks for proving our point however. Structural problems only have to be overcome by excessive AD in one area of the economy (such as low skilled), and unemployment will fall even if it doesn't fall in other sectors. And on aside, while A has...

A baker could be employed as a builder if neccessary, even if he lacks the normal skills. ie. anyway can lay bricks, they may just be a lot slower at it than the efficient builders. They would still be structurally unemployed under usual circumstances because they lack the usual skills to a...

Love the way that "sorry, but no" is supposedly a coherent argument against the extended Phillips curve. I agree with the above that the definition of NAIRU should make the answer obvious

In brief, yeah sure we could be at our NAIRU now (i severely doubt it, but anyway...), and thus no contradiction in your arguement if participation rises now. But unemployment has been falling for years and labour participation rising as well. We can hardly have been at the NAIRU for all that...

Aah, well i was too far into replying by then. I'm always happy to discuss

Yes, i know what the question says; that's not what i'm saying. I hope this makes sense. The question involves a stimulation of AD at the NAIRU. By definition, this will cause inflation due to the tightness of the labour market, in addition to other inflation such as demand-pull etc. It adds...

I think you misunderstand me. While there is no contradiction between rising unemployment and rising inflation (although its extremely presumptuous to assume this would happen-no evidence), that's not my point. What I am saying is that by definition, any demand stimulus at the NAIRU causes...

Yes it will be rather amusing if they pay both answers. I must admit i am fairy impressed with anyone who thought of hidden unemployment- but as above am fairly sure that its wrong anyway.

It's true that the NAIRU may have been miscalculated- or to be more correct it is a dynamic concept. However, very few economists would state that its below 4%. In all truth though, whether we are below the NAIRU is largely irrelevant- it was merely an attempt to explain the obvious fact that...