!meeee!
Member
i think someone said this earlier but with mc it does come down to the best answer. not necessarily correct but just the best one and in my opinion that's a
M/C ANSWERS HERE! poll what u got!!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter macca202
- Start date
philbert_frog
Member
The quota means the RESTRICTION on the number of goods allowed into the eco, therefore the quota has decreased, therefore the answer is D
18 is D? are u sure?
from the look of the graph, the supply curve definitly moved up, ie an extension i think it is called. Where basically means that the supply has increased, meaning quota, or supply for imported shoes has increased. This in turn leads to a fall in domestic prices as they need to compete wif the rising imports. Remember that graph shows the market for imported shoes. Thats how i see it. And thus it is A.
from the look of the graph, the supply curve definitly moved up, ie an extension i think it is called. Where basically means that the supply has increased, meaning quota, or supply for imported shoes has increased. This in turn leads to a fall in domestic prices as they need to compete wif the rising imports. Remember that graph shows the market for imported shoes. Thats how i see it. And thus it is A.
Last edited:
I cannot believe your logic philburt-frog. Ok, lets go to a simple example.
If the quota (being the amount let in) is, say, 50 units but now we find that we have 60units coming into the country, how exactly would the quota have DECREASED????
It's (a) everyone. Der.
If the quota (being the amount let in) is, say, 50 units but now we find that we have 60units coming into the country, how exactly would the quota have DECREASED????
It's (a) everyone. Der.
Yeah 18 = a
Arggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
I put 7 d! Why:
1) I spent 10 mins reading through the topic the night before since I'd run out of time.
2) I was thinking that if it was fully decentralised then there'd be no government interactions at all - stupid I guess. I mean I can see where I was coming from - fully decentralised = no need to any agreement, but then it wouldn't really be a wage determination system at all would it? Bugger. Now I'm confusing myself
I got the same for everything else though.
-zem
Arggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
I put 7 d! Why:
1) I spent 10 mins reading through the topic the night before since I'd run out of time.
2) I was thinking that if it was fully decentralised then there'd be no government interactions at all - stupid I guess. I mean I can see where I was coming from - fully decentralised = no need to any agreement, but then it wouldn't really be a wage determination system at all would it? Bugger. Now I'm confusing myself
I got the same for everything else though.
-zem
B
Bambul
Guest
When you increse a quota you increase the supply. If you (to use a different vocab) "tighten" a quota, then you decrease the amount imported. It's designed to confuse you, as are the majority of diagrams.
You see, economists are like lawyers, they make what they publish really complicated in the hope that they'll fool more people into believing it so that they can make more money. You mention elasticity to someone on the street and they'll have no idea, so just imagine the potential confusion!
And I went through the multiple choice and I got the same 20 answers as were at the start of the thread.
You see, economists are like lawyers, they make what they publish really complicated in the hope that they'll fool more people into believing it so that they can make more money. You mention elasticity to someone on the street and they'll have no idea, so just imagine the potential confusion!
And I went through the multiple choice and I got the same 20 answers as were at the start of the thread.
-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-
Gender: MALE!!!
bubba, if u didnt notice, the first part of my post was a quote. So i was arguring the same point as u
phil frog, soz man. Ur definition is right, but 'quota' is a quantity.
u got 1 wrong! IM GONNA KILL U FOR SCALING ME DONE!!!!
phil frog, soz man. Ur definition is right, but 'quota' is a quantity.
u got 1 wrong! IM GONNA KILL U FOR SCALING ME DONE!!!!
scaling me down your mean heheOriginally posted by -=MLhtʻ=-
bubba, if u didnt notice, the first part of my post was a quote. So i was arguring the same point as u
phil frog, soz man. Ur definition is right, but 'quota' is a quantity.
u got 1 wrong! IM GONNA KILL U FOR SCALING ME DONE!!!!
as far as i can tell, 7 is D, A decentralised wage determination system involves negotiated workplace agreement. Compulsory unionism was under the industrial relations reform in 1993, and that was scrapped, and doesnt really describe a fully wage determination system, so it cant be A. Wage increases tied to inflation, most certainly comes in a centralised system, so it cant be B. And the same can be said for increased role of industrial tribunals, as a decentralised system is hoping to reduce the power of both tribunals and unions. So it cant be C, which leaves D.Originally posted by zemaj
Yeah 18 = a
Arggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
I put 7 d! Why:
1) I spent 10 mins reading through the topic the night before since I'd run out of time.
2) I was thinking that if it was fully decentralised then there'd be no government interactions at all - stupid I guess. I mean I can see where I was coming from - fully decentralised = no need to any agreement, but then it wouldn't really be a wage determination system at all would it? Bugger. Now I'm confusing myself
I got the same for everything else though.
-zem
philbert_frog
Member
Yeah I getcha.... i didn't read what the graph actually was!
stupid stupid!
"last time i checked increases means more or grows bigger etc "
no need to be harsh, dickhead
Dun worry philburt frog, i made the same mistake as you. D makes sense tho, if quota, being a restriction on the g and s allowed into a country, decreases --> more imports allowed into the country --> supply increases --> domestic price falls.
But if u define quota as a legal limit on the importation of g and s, then an increase in quota means an increase in the legal limit of g and s imported --> Supply increases --> domestic price falls.
So in conclusion, the answer to 18 depends on your definition of quota, is it a restriction on the g and s allowed into a country, or a legal limit of the g and s allowed into a country???
Riddle me this batman!
But if u define quota as a legal limit on the importation of g and s, then an increase in quota means an increase in the legal limit of g and s imported --> Supply increases --> domestic price falls.
So in conclusion, the answer to 18 depends on your definition of quota, is it a restriction on the g and s allowed into a country, or a legal limit of the g and s allowed into a country???
Riddle me this batman!
btw, just to stir the pot a little, i did put (a) for 14 because it is the most correct answer, but i believe that (d) is also correct...
Don't the bottom few quintiles have their incomes more commonly from transfer payments and wages, whereas the top few quintiles have interest, profits and rent as their main sources? If this is the case, even though it is a 10% rise for ALL wage earners, it would still (although not as efficiently as (a)) go some way to reducing income inequalities!
Don't the bottom few quintiles have their incomes more commonly from transfer payments and wages, whereas the top few quintiles have interest, profits and rent as their main sources? If this is the case, even though it is a 10% rise for ALL wage earners, it would still (although not as efficiently as (a)) go some way to reducing income inequalities!
But...if we define "wage earners" as people that are currently employed, then the lower quintiles that are on transfer payments are unemployed...and if all "wage earner's" get a pay rise, certeris parbis, the unemployed that do not earn a "wage" will be disadvantaged, coz they dont get a rise in their transfer payments to counter the wage increases...and therefore, inequality will actually deteriorate
B
Bambul
Guest
Interest, profit and rent as their main income sources, top few quintiles!!?? Maybe the top 1% derives most of their income from non-wage sources but most of the high income individuals reveive a salary, in particular managers, executives and professionals. And oftern their income is not as high for tax purposes, they just leave it in a trust and have everything re-invested (take Kerry Packer and his $12 or so of tax he pays annually).
But these people are still in the minority. By far the major source of income is wages (about 60% of GDP) and about half of company profits are not distributed as dividends so you can effectively add another 10% to that (it actually becomes 60/90 which is 67%) because we are only looking at individuals.
If you increase wages by 10%, all those earning wages will still be the same relative to themselves, but earning more relative to those not on a wage (unemployed, pensioners, etc). So income inequality will increase because wages account for twice as much as other forms of income for individuals and would dwarf the effects on them.
Besides, you are thinking too far ahead, and if you want to do that, then be prepared to think as far ahead as I did or you'll just have a complex answer that is incorrect.
Now, anyone else want to take me on?
Lets just put it this way, both answers are logical, and have their rights and wrongs, DEPENDING on who views what, and how they feel towards wateva. The point of multiple choice i guess, is to get the BEST answer, A, i hear is the best one. So i guess there is no point on arguing the validity of the answers, as there is only one best answer.
healthy debate helps learning..
to those people who point out trivial isues, i did make clear it wouldn't be very efficient or the best answer...
BUT... fancy statistics aside, even if 50.1% of wage earners are in the bottom 50% of the population and 49.9% of wage earners are in the top 50% of the population then a 10% wage increase for all wage earners would (however slightly) decrease inequality.
BESIDES, and i quote:
" Which policy could reduce income inequalities in an economy"
As you can see, it does not, as you imply, read: "Which policy would reduce income inequalities in the Australian economy", in which case you would probably be right, bamble.
I would like others to open their minds a little and see that my theory is correct, it just may not (as perhaps proven by bambul) work for the specific statistics of Australia. Seeing as it could reduce income inequalities for a theoretical economy depending on the individual statistics of that economy, then answer (d) would also be correct and should be marked as such. (Although i again point out this is not a personal grudge, i put (a)). Just because the exam writers may not have intended an answer to be correct does not mean that it cannot be so, and the fact that an answer is not the best answer does not mean that it must therefore be incorrect.
And before someone says "Well any answer could be correct depending on your "theoretical" choice of economy" i will point out that it is not entirely unlikely that an economy with more wage earners in the bottom 50% of income recipients than the top 50% may exist.
C'mon people, think outside the square!
to those people who point out trivial isues, i did make clear it wouldn't be very efficient or the best answer...
BUT... fancy statistics aside, even if 50.1% of wage earners are in the bottom 50% of the population and 49.9% of wage earners are in the top 50% of the population then a 10% wage increase for all wage earners would (however slightly) decrease inequality.
BESIDES, and i quote:
" Which policy could reduce income inequalities in an economy"
As you can see, it does not, as you imply, read: "Which policy would reduce income inequalities in the Australian economy", in which case you would probably be right, bamble.
I would like others to open their minds a little and see that my theory is correct, it just may not (as perhaps proven by bambul) work for the specific statistics of Australia. Seeing as it could reduce income inequalities for a theoretical economy depending on the individual statistics of that economy, then answer (d) would also be correct and should be marked as such. (Although i again point out this is not a personal grudge, i put (a)). Just because the exam writers may not have intended an answer to be correct does not mean that it cannot be so, and the fact that an answer is not the best answer does not mean that it must therefore be incorrect.
And before someone says "Well any answer could be correct depending on your "theoretical" choice of economy" i will point out that it is not entirely unlikely that an economy with more wage earners in the bottom 50% of income recipients than the top 50% may exist.
C'mon people, think outside the square!
Last edited:
!meeee!
Member
ok guys, usually i'm all for healthy debate but how about we give it a rest? i mean each m/c is only one mark and it's not worth it when none of us are really that sure of the answers anyway