We're at this stage in life where we reminisce too much of our near past, worry too much about our near future, are
too clueless about everything that can, will, may happen to us, think we know alot, think we don't know anything,
am confident about the wrong things, take pride in wasting time away, want too much but want to do too little.
Ohwell.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Econs
If you take H2 Econs like I do, for the first time I realise how anal my favourite subject can be. Hence being a little frustrated person who has nowhere else to vent, I've to swear here.
#$%^&*.
If you're wondering why is it that I always adore that subject so much, the answer's still the same, it's a logical subject that makes sense most of the time and it's something you can score in as long as you study. And I think I'm hardworking, and you're hardworking, so we can all score in Econs if we want to.
Yep, until I came across the AE-NY equilibrium today.
To explain this equilibrium, you first state the equilibrium condition, which is simply AE = NY. And then you'll try with all your might explain this equilibrium condition: no shortage or surplus, no investment or disinvestment into the inventories, no change in output, no change in firms hiring units of production, hence no change in household incomes, hence no change in NY.
(Yes, I can't believe it took me so long to realise the anality in Econs. You need two lines to explain a 'no change'.)
Anyway, next you're supposed to explain the deviations, which is the super ultra anal part.
Like for example, if AE is more than NY, meaning total expenditure is more than total output, then there is a shortage.
That's when I got fed up. How on earth can total expenditure be higher than total output. YOU THINK LAH. If there's only that much to buy in the shop, how can you spend more than what you can buy? Buy air arh?
._.
And then I read on to find out, oh, it's because firms draw on their inventories, so there's unplanned disinvestment.
Which brings me to be fed up point #2. Why do firms have inventories they can draw on? I don't believe all firms got inventories lor. ._.
Reading on, because of the unplanned disinvestment, in subsequent rounds of production, firms will produce more to make up for this draw in their inventories. And so they'll hire more units of production, including labour. So total output increases. And because household income rises as a result of increased hired labour, national income increases as well.
Then it becomes confusing again. Initially, it's AE more than NY. Then to adjust this, both AE and NY will increase. Doesn't make sense righttttttt.
So I smsed a 4 smses long message to my Econs teacher and he replied a 4 smses long message to answer my question. So now I understand already but I very sian diao to explain. You can ask me if you want to know.
This is a really long post about Econs.
Okay byebye. I need some Viwawa badly.
8:03:00 PM because I say so
#$%^&*.
If you're wondering why is it that I always adore that subject so much, the answer's still the same, it's a logical subject that makes sense most of the time and it's something you can score in as long as you study. And I think I'm hardworking, and you're hardworking, so we can all score in Econs if we want to.
Yep, until I came across the AE-NY equilibrium today.
To explain this equilibrium, you first state the equilibrium condition, which is simply AE = NY. And then you'll try with all your might explain this equilibrium condition: no shortage or surplus, no investment or disinvestment into the inventories, no change in output, no change in firms hiring units of production, hence no change in household incomes, hence no change in NY.
(Yes, I can't believe it took me so long to realise the anality in Econs. You need two lines to explain a 'no change'.)
Anyway, next you're supposed to explain the deviations, which is the super ultra anal part.
Like for example, if AE is more than NY, meaning total expenditure is more than total output, then there is a shortage.
That's when I got fed up. How on earth can total expenditure be higher than total output. YOU THINK LAH. If there's only that much to buy in the shop, how can you spend more than what you can buy? Buy air arh?
._.
And then I read on to find out, oh, it's because firms draw on their inventories, so there's unplanned disinvestment.
Which brings me to be fed up point #2. Why do firms have inventories they can draw on? I don't believe all firms got inventories lor. ._.
Reading on, because of the unplanned disinvestment, in subsequent rounds of production, firms will produce more to make up for this draw in their inventories. And so they'll hire more units of production, including labour. So total output increases. And because household income rises as a result of increased hired labour, national income increases as well.
Then it becomes confusing again. Initially, it's AE more than NY. Then to adjust this, both AE and NY will increase. Doesn't make sense righttttttt.
So I smsed a 4 smses long message to my Econs teacher and he replied a 4 smses long message to answer my question. So now I understand already but I very sian diao to explain. You can ask me if you want to know.
This is a really long post about Econs.
Okay byebye. I need some Viwawa badly.
8:03:00 PM because I say so