✚ relate to nothing ✚

found out today my econ prof is on the same level of fame as Paul Krugman

sadkjfsd’ljfdfsja’sdjfa’lsjdfas’dljfalsdjflsdjfa’fslj HERO WORSHIP

omfg economics

i just read this:

“Concerns about equity, fairness, responsibility, duty, self-image, etc. plat as big a role as individual optimization and personal gain.”

and in economic terms, we live and function to maximise our utilities or ‘happiness’ or ‘personal gain’.

so that means, we naturally NEED to worry about equity, fairness, duty and self image. it’s not a choice. WE WERE MADE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM.

wow

経済学きまつ試験まであと７日！！！！！！急いで復習しなきゃ！！！！

試験まだあるけど全然勉強に集中できない！！！！！！

I got up at half 6 today and was doing my abstract maths homework. Then I did my calculus and linear algebra homeworks. Then I walked to uni in the rain without an umbrella. Then I had my abstract maths tutorial on vector spaces. Then I had a linear algebra revision lecture which went over 10 weeks worth of material. Then I had a salad. Then I went to the library and read a 12 page thesis on the Phillips curve and inflation. Then I had an econ tutorial on strong and weak central bankers and their loss functions. Then I diagonalised 2 matrices in an hour. Then I had a 2 hour econ revision lecture on game theory, quality predictions and risky investment projects. Then I walked home in the cold and now I’m in my bed on Tumblr.

That’s 11 fucking hours of non-stop work. I’m fucking proud of myself.

So today in econ class my teacher was talking about strong and weak central bankers, and he asked us ‘do you know what strong central bankers are known as?’ and I replied ‘Hawk’. Then half the class turned around and gave me weird looks. Then the teacher was like ‘That’s right!’, and I was like seeeeee bitches I speak the truth.

Seriously, how can you call yourselves economists if you don’t know about the ‘hawk’ and ‘dove’????

dear violetotaku

Thank you so much for your informative answer!

However S’s are not spending anything on labour, as they are saving and investing all their income. 

What I think from an economic perspective, is that since labour and capital are both supplied (though by different parties), the economy has its factor inputs in order to operate. Therefore economically, everything is good. Since the question explains no changes/shocks in amount of L and K, I am assuming that the economy is functioning at the Golden Rule steady state (Solow model of growth), where C’s enjoy maximum consumption per worker, where the workers are the C’s themselves as they supply all the labour. Since the S’s had to give a fraction of their income to the C’s, who then spends it rather than saves it, the savings rate will drop, hence shifting back the steady state level of capital stock, decreasing their consumption and their income (or GDP per capita). This means that current C’s are well off, but for future C’s, when they arrive at the new steady state they will be worse off than initially. However this is of course talking about a change in savings rate ceteris paribus.

Well that’s what I wrote for my answer after hours of thinking… hopefully it will score something! Thanks anyway :)

just finished economics exam! whoop!

answered the first question on patents, unbranded products to consumers, government policies to promote competition between firms and firms’ reactions to threat of new entry.

relatively pleased with my paper. but for the last question (part d) i assumed that you could pick any market and talk about the different reactions to threat of entry. well in the end i picked the healthcare market like they suggested, and wrote about firms’ behaviour for a monopolistically competitive market. i reckoned it would be monopolistically competitive because of slightly differentiated products, overall quite homogeneous goods (each type of drug will still use the same ingredients and have the same effects no matter with brand), rather good market knowledge and transparency (the article said that the patent set out on RB ended in 1999), and the fact that all products were targetted to the same group of consumers (in the case consumers of all gender, age groups, interests because everyone can get ill).

sooooo.

i chose for the resulting behaviourial changes as: becoming more cost and price competitive, develop other objectives other than profit maximising such as sales revenue max (of course to do with the short run), short run limit pricing and possible vertical integration.

BUT i wrote so little for my 4th point (vertical integration) it was literally not worth even mentioning it! TT

HOPEFULLY my part c made up for it……