<p>what bout micro q1? i thought that was pretty ez haha</p>
<p>Did q1 ask you about the price level?</p>
<p>you’re right Bcell, and that would be the same analysis that i would have done but i just dont know why they would say assume it adjusts to a new long run equilibrium, so thats why i made the LRAS shift</p>
<p>I could have remembered incorrectly, but didn’t the “different equilibrium” have to do with the loanable funds part, where they were basically just telling you to draw a new graph? At least that’s what I got from it</p>
<p>I meant quantity 1.</p>
<p>The Lras doesn’t shift for the new equilibrium,only the SRAS</p>
<p>I remember it said it shifted to a new equilibrium output. That question was worded TERRIBLY</p>
<p>What was the answer on the micro to the question about comparing the ATC level at price vs. the ATC level at the quantity?</p>
<p>hey
for the corn question of micro, 1.c) is the demand for corn gonna change?
1.d) wat happen to cereal things.
for Q2) is MP gonna change if demand for widgets decreases?
The tests are fking hard, OMG, self studying is not even close enough…</p>
<p>Aggie, the new EQ output was the point at SRAS and AD1.</p>
<p>P > ATC 10 char</p>
<p>Yeah, I see how I missed that now. At least the rest of the question did not stem off of that. #2 confused me a bit but #3 was cake.
MC I thought was extremely easy probably missed around 5-6</p>
<p>No, it asked how the ATC level at PF2 compared to the ATC level at QF2 or something like that.</p>
<p>Atc < pf2 10 char</p>
<p>I said the ATC level at QF2 was lower than the ATC level at PF2. Does that make sense? I just looked at my graph.</p>
<p>omggg are you serious haha fail</p>
<p>Did I misread the question? It asked for a comparison of the ATC level between those two points: QF2 and PF2 … right?</p>
<p>nono i am saying that i failed haha. i thought it just asked like how do price and atc compare so i was like: oh MR=MC so P > ATC at that point</p>
<p>yea i got the same as 1a1 but I just realized now it was wrong because I got the two mixed up since at pf2 the quanitty decreased the atc is lower and since at qf2 the quantity increased along with the price it was greater. Crap 
As far as the ethanol, corn, cereal. I said that as ethanol demand increases, corn supply decreases, and since more corn supply is being used for ethanol the supply of cereal decreases. I guess you could also sort of imagine ethanol and cereal like gun and butter competing for resources.
For the last question on micro, was the consumer surplus after taxes the same as the original consumer surplus since the negative externalities were being adjusted.
I shifted LRAS because it said there was increased government spending but i shifted it in the wrong direction 
The argentina/US ones werent 2 bad
the one on credit cards, I said that the interrest rate would increase, would bond prices increase or decrease in the short run and there was another short run question after that i forgot that i wasn’t sure about? then i said that they would need to sell to a secondary market to decrease money supply</p>
<p>This is my answer: as ethanol demand increases, demand for corn increases also (corn is input and in short-run input does not change so supply can’t change) -> price go up, for both market and firm -> P > ATC
demand for corn increases -> price of corn increases -> supply for cereal decreases (corn is input) -> price increases and output decreases</p>
<p>uhh didnt it say that corn was used in ethanol? if demand for ethanol increases demand for corn should increase. thus prices for corn increase along with quantity used in ethanol. </p>
<p>==> higher input prices = lower supply for cereal</p>