AS and A Level: Economics: Macroeconomics Coursework

"A pretty weak 'essay' - in fact, I'm not going to treat this as an essay. It's more like a brief revision sheet. The main problem with this isn't the structure, however, it is that you haven't finished it. For one, if you're going to be giving long lists to the reader, you might as well have shown all 'M' values and definitions of money, and explain why the BoE uses these different gauges and where it may be useful in decision making purposes. You also talk about the 'cash' ratio - it's not a term I've come across and I believe the more popular term is 'Reserve ratio'. That said, you explain that well and I haven't got too much of a problem with it. Then you get to interest rates and it's a very poor show. Interest rates are one of the most powerful tools the BoE has in it's arsenal - I want you to explain what interest rates are used for, what channels a change in interest rates will affect, and any evaluation points (time lag, etc.). TSR User: chidona"

"This seems to go beyond the scope of a typical A level answer, and as such, It's weakened slightly because there simply isn't the knowledge to back it all up. For one, this essay must be slightly out of date. Greenspan is no longer the chair of the Fed - it's Bernanke now. Secondly, the claim that the most powerful tool available to the Fed is the reserve requirement is a dubious one, at best, and appears to be a more throw away comment than anything else. You also don't really spend much time on talking about the interest rate. If anything, I would argue that the Interest rates were the most powerful tool in the Fed's arsenal. I would like to see more explanation about it, and the channels through which it acts. Finally, you miss out some key evaluation points - although do offer some good alternative ones. But a major issue is time lags involved in implementing each policy, as well as how well targeted each policy is. You can concentrate spending, but interest rate rises are a blanket measure. It's a decent effort in any case. TSR User : chidona"

"Maybe I've been a little too harsh with this essay - it's 4.4/4.5 star essay, I feel. I like your introduction and your structure, everything's very clear and your logic is well explained. There's a bit of evaluation in there - not a massive amount, but enough to get by, I feel. Concerning your argument about inequality, it's good and I like the use of Lorenz curves to illustrate it, however you've only given me one Lorenz curve on the diagram. You really need 2 - one to show where the UK is before the shift and another one to show where the UK is after the shift. Your AD/AS analysis is sound in my opinion, just about, although I'm not at all convinced about your mention of income and substitution effects. I don't feel the Laffer curve analysis is really that relevant, either, because it talks of an aggregate tax percentage and doesn't differentiate between indirect and direct taxes. The conclusion isn't great as it doesn't really tie the essay together as well as it should, but it's passable. Good piece of work TSR User: chidona"

"Very good essay, especially for A-level. You do a competent job at explaining some of the relevant causes behind the credit crunch (not all of them, but it's a very complex topic, so I wouldn't expect that). A couple of additions could be made, however. Firstly, Where is the graph? This piece would be greatly benefit from some AD/AS graphs that help show what you mean, especially when you're discussing flexible labour markets (which can be shown by a vertical LRAS curve). Secondly, you could talk about the liquidity trap with regards to monetary policy - that is, monetary policy becomes increasingly ineffective as interest rates approach 0%. I would also like to see a paragraph that explicitly looks at the effect on Investment - a component of AD - because while the article hints at it, there's not really a decent explicit explanation, I feel. Otherwise, very solid work. TSR User: chidona"

"First of all, there's no real question here. I'll assume that this is simply a discussion of Free Trade and Protectionism. First things first - replace 'Nowadays' with something more formal. This is a professional piece of work, and that word is a little too chummy. Secondly, I don't like the use of bullet points. Although it makes it clear what you're saying, it's not the best thing to put into an essay. Removing them would be an improvement, I feel. Then we get onto your actual economics. In general, it's fine. Standard arguments, nothing special, fine. That said, with your tariff diagram I would like to see you mention that the reason the price of world goods is perfectly elastic is because the country is a very small buyer - i.e, it cannot influence the world price of the good. I would also like you to mention the Deadweight Welfare Loss triangles from the diagram in your arguments against protectionism. Finally, I'm not convinced about your last point for protectionism - that it prevents 'overspecialisation'. The main problem with this, is that it's based on an oversimplified model of international trade. Secondly, it's simply not a convincing argument - the economic consequences of a tariff or a subsidy would probably be greater than any gain made from keeping a relatively inefficient industry in business. I feel you could cut that out and enter more reasons for free trade (which are thin on the ground in this article). TSR User : chidona"