it was contractionary and a depreciation lolso.. it was expansionary and appreciating rite?
8 more units supplied @ the same cost. $80 payment? / original 12 units
$8??
.A. reduce number of rewards
B. replace enterprise agreement
C. reduce min wage
D. remove safety net
LOL thought so, was abit confused with what the other bloke saidYou are a deadshit, the value of the subsidy is given by the vertical distance between the supply curves.
i've over complicated it, must have got it wrong.use some logic please, who charges an $8 subsidy on a $10 item??
It was A, the other options are ridiculous.A. reduce number of rewards
B. replace enterprise agreement
C. reduce min wage
D. remove safety net
shit i put B,A. reduce number of awards
B. replace enterprise agreement
C. reduce min wage
D. remove safety net
As part of the recent changes to fair work Australia, awards were streamlined from an estimated 4300 to 150. These consolidated awards are now referred to as modern awards
Cwhat did everyone get for Q17..
was it the foreign currency in terms of aus or the aus in terms of foreign?
it took me a while....
every subject has logic in it. subsidies are normally 10-15% so.. i doubt the markers didn't know about that.dude its a question to test our ability with economic models. its calculation, its $8. 8/1 = $8
the size of the subsidy is $1 no way it can be $2 i dont see the line extending up to $12.