DOCSLIB.ORG

Intermediate Microeconomics W3211 Lecture 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intermediate Microeconomics W3211 Lecture 8 3/1/2016 1 Intermediate Microeconomics W3211 Lecture 8: Introduction Equilibrium and Efficiency 1 Columbia University, Spring 2016 Mark Dean: [email protected] 2 3 4 The Story So Far…. Today’s Aims • We have solved the consumer’s problem We are now going to talk about the welfare properties of an • Determined what we think people will do given prices and income equilibrium Arguably this is one of the most interesting, but also misunderstood lectures in the entire course • We have solved for equilibrium in an endowment economy • Determined what we think prices and allocations will be It is where economists sometimes stop being scientists and start being policy makers Positive economics: what will happen • This is quite impressive! Normative economics: What should happen • We have our first prediction of how a simple economy works! • Granted it is an economy that only has consumers in it • We will get to firms soon enough 5 Today’s Aims Begin by defining the concept of Pareto optimality Most economists would agree that if an allocation is ‘good’ it should be Pareto optimal Then introduce the first ‘fundamental theorems of welfare economics’ Describes the relationship between Pareto optimality and Market equilibria Pareto Optimality 6 1 3/1/2016 7 8 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Pareto Ranking Allocation x Allocation y Economists use a very specific way of comparing allocations: Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Definition: Let ,, , be an allocation in an economy. 3553 We say it is Pareto dominated by ,, , if 10 10 1 1 100101010 , , and 10 10 9.9 10000 , , And Allocations describe the utility that each person gets If you as the government could choose between allocation X , , or and allocation Y which would you choose? , , Bundle y is at least as good for everyone and better for at least one person 9 10 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Allocation x Allocation y Allocation x Allocation y Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor 3553 3553 10 10 1 1 10 10 11 100101010 100 10 10 10 10 10 9.9 10000 10 10 9.9 10000 11 12 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Allocation x Allocation y Allocation x Allocation y Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor 3553 10 10 9.9 10000 10 10 1 1 Why are we not prepared to say that y is better that x 100101010 Kendrick only loses 0.1 units of utility, but Taylor gains 9990 10 10 9.9 10000 Surely this is a good deal? What about this allocation? No! Makes Taylor MUCH better off But makes Kendrick worse off Pareto ranking is not complete: Not all bundles can be compared 2 3/1/2016 13 14 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Pareto Optimality Allocation x Allocation y Along with the definition of Pareto dominance comes the Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor definition of Pareto optimality 10 10 9.9 10000 Definition: An allocation is Pareto optimal if it is not Pareto Not necessarily, for two reasons dominated by any other feasible bundle 1. Remember, utility numbers don’t mean anything beyond bigger or smaller We could find another utility representation which would mean that Taylor i.e., in our simple 2-person, 2-good economy, a bundle is Pareto only gains 0.0001 units optimal if there is no other way of dividing up the endowments 2. Even if we equated utility with happiness, we would be making interpersonal comparisons to make at least one person better off without making the other Would you be prepared for one person to lose 1000 utility units if 1000 person worse off people gained 1 utility unity each? Some people might say yes, some no Pareto optimality is also sometimes referred to as Pareto Everyone should agree that Pareto optimality is a good thing Efficiency You (as a person) may prefer y to x. You (as an economist) do not 15 16 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Finding Pareto Optimal Points We can find Pareto Optimal points by solving a constrained 1. CHOOSE ,, , optimization problem: 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 1. CHOOSE ,, , 3. SUBJECT TO 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , , u 3. SUBJECT TO Feasibility + + and + + , u What do solutions to the social planner’s problem look like? Feasibility + + and + + This is sometimes called the social planner’s problem We can solve the problem in two stages Maximize the utility of consumer 1 while fixing consumer 2’s utility at First, use feasibility to get rid of and u + The solution must be Pareto optimal + No way to improve the utility of consumer 1 without reducing the utility of consumer 2 17 18 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Finding Pareto Optimal Points Problem becomes ,, , + , + u 1. CHOOSE , Taking derivatives: 0 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 3. SUBJECT TO 0 + , + u Now set up the Lagrangian: + ,+ u0 ,,, + , + u ) Using the first two equations gives 3 3/1/2016 19 20 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Pareto Efficiency in the Edgeworth Box 1 2 w b+w b In other words , , Slope of the indifference curve of consumer 1 is the same as that of 2 For a Pareto optimum, the rate at which consumer 1 trades off good a for b is the same as the rate at which consumer 2 trades off good a for X b Good b This makes sense: say consumer 1 ‘valued’ a more than consumer 2 Z i.e. consumer 1 was prepared to give up more b to get one unit of a than was consumer 2 Y Could this be a Pareto optimum? No! Could make both consumers better off by giving 1 more of a and 1 2 2 more than b w a+w a Good a 21 22 The Contract Curve The Contract Curve 1 2 w b+w b Remember the Social Planner’s problem is given by 1. CHOOSE ,, , 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 3. SUBJECT TO , u Good b Feasibility + + and + + There are many such problems, with different levels of u for consumer 2 I.e. different indifference curves The Contract Curve Each of these problems has a different solution The set of solutions to all such problems is the set of Pareto optimal points 1 2 w a+w a This is sometimes also called the contract curve Good a 24 Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality So we now have two different classifications of allocations What we think will happen (the equilibrium of the economy) What we think should happen (Pareto optimality) A natural question is: what is the relationship between these two? Equilibrium and Pareto Specifically, we may want to ask two questions Optimality 1. Are equilibria Pareto efficient? 2. Are Pareto efficient points equilibria? The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics To give away the punchline, the answer to both questions is a qualified yes These are two of the most fundamental theorems in economics Hence the names! 23 4 3/1/2016 25 26 A Worked Example A Worked Example First we will show that market equilibria are Pareto efficient The equilibrium allocations were 3 4 29 ∗ ,, Last week we calculated the equilibrium for the following 2 7 14 economy 21 29 ∗ ,, 1 8 8 1. The endowment of each agent ∗ 1 20 27 , , =3 2 14 14 7 5 27 ∗ =2 , , 8 2 8 =1 ∗ =5 And equilibrium price was 2. The preferences of each agent Is this Pareto optimal? ,= , = 27 28 A Worked Example A Worked Example Let’s check From before, problem becomes 1. CHOOSE , First, fix the utility of person 2 at the level achieved in equilibrium: 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE ,= ,= 3. SUBJECT TO + , + 4 7 Now figure out the maximal utility of consumer 1 given feasibility First set up the Lagrangian: and making sure that consumer 2 gets the above utility 729 ,, 4 7 ) 112 29 30 A Worked Example A Worked Example 729 , , 4 7 ) 7 112 4 Taking derivatives: Using the fact that 4 and 7 , this implies that 7 0 7 4 4 0 And so, plugging into the constraint on the utility of consumer 2 729 4 7 ) 112 or Using the first two equations gives 27 14 , or Plugging back in to the above identities will recover the rest of the 7 competitive equilibrium 4 5 3/1/2016 31 32 A Worked Example Competitive Equilibria Lie on the Contract Curve 1 2 w b+w b Competitive So this particular equilibrium is also Pareto optimal Equilibrium Why? Magic! The Contract Curve (It’s not Magic) Good b Endowment The key observation is the following: For Pareto optima, the MRS of consumer 1 equals the MRS of consumer 2 For a market equilibrium the MRS of consumer 1 equals the price ratio and the MRS of consumer 2 equals the price ratio 1 2 And therefore equal each other w a+w a Good a 33 34 The First Fundamental Theorem of The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics Welfare Economics Now you should be asking the question: was there something Proof of the FFTWE (by contradiction) special about this particular example? Assume that ,, , are equilibrium allocations for some price No! But they are not a Pareto optimal The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics: If Then there exists another feasible allocation ,, , such that preferences are monotonic, then any competitive equilibrium is , , and Pareto efficient , , This result is so fundamental that we are going to prove it! And , , or , , Without loss of generality, assume that , , 35 36 The First Fundamental Theorem of The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of Mathematical Economics Implementation of Pareto Efficient Allocations
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 45 (2009) 113–123 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Mathematical Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco Implementation of Pareto efficient allocations Guoqiang Tian a,b,∗ a Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA b School of Economics and Institute for Advanced Research, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China. article info abstract Article history: This paper considers Nash implementation and double implementation of Pareto effi- Received 10 October 2005 cient allocations for production economies. We allow production sets and preferences Received in revised form 17 July 2008 are unknown to the planner. We present a well-behaved mechanism that fully imple- Accepted 22 July 2008 ments Pareto efficient allocations in Nash equilibrium. The mechanism then is modified Available online 5 August 2008 to fully doubly implement Pareto efficient allocations in Nash and strong Nash equilibria. The mechanisms constructed in the paper have many nice properties such as feasibility JEL classification: C72 and continuity. In addition, they use finite-dimensional message spaces. Furthermore, the D61 mechanism works not only for three or more agents, but also for two-agent economies. D71 © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. D82 Keywords: Incentive mechanism design Implementation Pareto efficiency Price equilibrium with transfer 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation This paper considers implementation of Pareto efficient allocations for production economies by presenting well-behaved and simple mechanisms that are continuous, feasible, and use finite-dimensional spaces. Pareto optimality is a highly desir- able property in designing incentive compatible mechanisms. The importance of this property is attributed to what may be regarded as minimal welfare property.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:0803.2996V1 [Q-Fin.GN] 20 Mar 2008 JEL Classification: A10, A12, B0, B40, B50, C69, C9, D5, D1, G1, G10-G14
    The virtues and vices of equilibrium and the future of financial economics J. Doyne Farmer∗ and John Geanakoplosy December 2, 2008 Abstract The use of equilibrium models in economics springs from the desire for parsimonious models of economic phenomena that take human rea- soning into account. This approach has been the cornerstone of modern economic theory. We explain why this is so, extolling the virtues of equilibrium theory; then we present a critique and describe why this approach is inherently limited, and why economics needs to move in new directions if it is to continue to make progress. We stress that this shouldn't be a question of dogma, but should be resolved empir- ically. There are situations where equilibrium models provide useful predictions and there are situations where they can never provide use- ful predictions. There are also many situations where the jury is still out, i.e., where so far they fail to provide a good description of the world, but where proper extensions might change this. Our goal is to convince the skeptics that equilibrium models can be useful, but also to make traditional economists more aware of the limitations of equilib- rium models. We sketch some alternative approaches and discuss why they should play an important role in future research in economics. Key words: equilibrium, rational expectations, efficiency, arbitrage, bounded rationality, power laws, disequilibrium, zero intelligence, mar- ket ecology, agent based modeling arXiv:0803.2996v1 [q-fin.GN] 20 Mar 2008 JEL Classification: A10, A12, B0, B40, B50, C69, C9, D5, D1, G1, G10-G14. ∗Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Rd., Santa Fe NM 87501 and LUISS Guido Carli, Viale Pola 12, 00198, Roma, Italy yJames Tobin Professor of Economics, Yale University, New Haven CT, and Santa Fe Institute 1 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 What is an equilibrium theory? 5 2.1 Existence of equilibrium and fixed points .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes General Equilibrium Theory: Ss205
    LECTURE NOTES GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY: SS205 FEDERICO ECHENIQUE CALTECH 1 2 Contents 0. Disclaimer 4 1. Preliminary definitions 5 1.1. Binary relations 5 1.2. Preferences in Euclidean space 5 2. Consumer Theory 6 2.1. Digression: upper hemi continuity 7 2.2. Properties of demand 7 3. Economies 8 3.1. Exchange economies 8 3.2. Economies with production 11 4. Welfare Theorems 13 4.1. First Welfare Theorem 13 4.2. Second Welfare Theorem 14 5. Scitovsky Contours and cost-benefit analysis 20 6. Excess demand functions 22 6.1. Notation 22 6.2. Aggregate excess demand in an exchange economy 22 6.3. Aggregate excess demand 25 7. Existence of competitive equilibria 26 7.1. The Negishi approach 28 8. Uniqueness 32 9. Representative Consumer 34 9.1. Samuelsonian Aggregation 37 9.2. Eisenberg's Theorem 39 10. Determinacy 39 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY 3 10.1. Digression: Implicit Function Theorem 40 10.2. Regular and Critical Economies 41 10.3. Digression: Measure Zero Sets and Transversality 44 10.4. Genericity of regular economies 45 11. Observable Consequences of Competitive Equilibrium 46 11.1. Digression on Afriat's Theorem 46 11.2. Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu Theorem: Anything goes 47 11.3. Brown and Matzkin: Testable Restrictions On Competitve Equilibrium 48 12. The Core 49 12.1. Pareto Optimality, The Core and Walrasian Equiilbria 51 12.2. Debreu-Scarf Core Convergence Theorem 51 13. Partial equilibrium 58 13.1. Aggregate demand and welfare 60 13.2. Production 61 13.3. Public goods 62 13.4. Lindahl equilibrium 63 14.
    [Show full text]
  • An Equilibrium-Conserving Taxation Scheme for Income from Capital
    Eur. Phys. J. B (2018) 91: 38 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2018-80497-x THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B Regular Article An equilibrium-conserving taxation scheme for income from capital Jacques Temperea Theory of Quantum and Complex Systems, Universiteit Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Antwerpen, Belgium Received 28 August 2017 / Received in final form 23 November 2017 Published online 14 February 2018 c The Author(s) 2018. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract. Under conditions of market equilibrium, the distribution of capital income follows a Pareto power law, with an exponent that characterizes the given equilibrium. Here, a simple taxation scheme is proposed such that the post-tax capital income distribution remains an equilibrium distribution, albeit with a different exponent. This taxation scheme is shown to be progressive, and its parameters can be simply derived from (i) the total amount of tax that will be levied, (ii) the threshold selected above which capital income will be taxed and (iii) the total amount of capital income. The latter can be obtained either by using Piketty's estimates of the capital/labor income ratio or by fitting the initial Pareto exponent. Both ways moreover provide a check on the amount of declared income from capital. 1 Introduction distribution of money over the agents involved in additive transactions follows a Boltzmann{Gibbs exponential dis- The distribution of income has been studied for a long tribution. Note that this is a strongly simplified model of time in the economic literature, and has more recently economic activity: it is clear that in reality global money become a topic of investigation for statistical physicists conservation is violated.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 the Basic OLG Model: Diamond
    Chapter 3 The basic OLG model: Diamond There exists two main analytical frameworks for analyzing the basic intertem- poral choice, consumption versus saving, and the dynamic implications of this choice: overlapping-generations (OLG) models and representative agent models. In the first type of models the focus is on (a) the interaction between different generations alive at the same time, and (b) the never-ending entrance of new generations and thereby new decision makers. In the second type of models the household sector is modelled as consisting of a finite number of infinitely-lived dynasties. One interpretation is that the parents take the utility of their descen- dants into account by leaving bequests and so on forward through a chain of intergenerational links. This approach, which is also called the Ramsey approach (after the British mathematician and economist Frank Ramsey, 1903-1930), will be described in Chapter 8 (discrete time) and Chapter 10 (continuous time). In the present chapter we introduce the OLG approach which has shown its usefulness for analysis of many issues such as: public debt, taxation of capital income, financing of social security (pensions), design of educational systems, non-neutrality of money, and the possibility of speculative bubbles. We will focus on what is known as Diamond’sOLG model1 after the American economist and Nobel Prize laureate Peter A. Diamond (1940-). Among the strengths of the model are: The life-cycle aspect of human behavior is taken into account. Although the • economy is infinitely-lived, the individual agents are not. During lifetime one’s educational level, working capacity, income, and needs change and this is reflected in the individual labor supply and saving behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Overlapping Generations (OG) Model
    Chapter 4 The overlapping generations (OG) model 4.1 The model Now we will briefly discuss a macroeconomic model which has most of the important features of the RA model, but one - people die. This small con- cession to reality will have a big impact on implications. Recall that the RA model had a few special characteristics: 1. An unique equilibrium exists. 2. The economy follows a deterministic path. 3. The equilibrium is Pareto efficient. The overlapping generations model will not always have these characteristics. So my presentation of this model will have two basic goals: to outline a model that appears frequency in the literature, and to use the model to illustrate some features that appear in other models and that some macroeconomists think are important to understanding business cycles. 1 2 CHAPTER 4. THE OVERLAPPING GENERATIONS (OG) MODEL 4.1.1 The model Time, information, and demography Discrete, indexed by t. In each period, one worker is born. The worker lives two periods, so there is always one young worker and one old worker. We’re going to assume for the time being that workers have perfect foresight, so we’ll dispense with the Et’s. Workers Each worker is identified with the period of her birth - we’ll call the worker born in period t “worker t”. Let c1,t be worker t’s consumption when young, and let c2,t+1 be her consumption when old. She only cares about her own consumption. Her utility is: Ut = u(c1,t) + βu(c2,t+1) (4.1) The worker is born with no capital or bond holdings.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Nash Equilibria and Mixed Strategies
    Strong Nash equilibria and mixed strategies Eleonora Braggiona, Nicola Gattib, Roberto Lucchettia, Tuomas Sandholmc aDipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Milano, piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy bDipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioningegneria, Politecnico di Milano, piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy cComputer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA Abstract In this paper we consider strong Nash equilibria, in mixed strategies, for finite games. Any strong Nash equilibrium outcome is Pareto efficient for each coalition. First, we analyze the two–player setting. Our main result, in its simplest form, states that if a game has a strong Nash equilibrium with full support (that is, both players randomize among all pure strategies), then the game is strictly competitive. This means that all the outcomes of the game are Pareto efficient and lie on a straight line with negative slope. In order to get our result we use the indifference principle fulfilled by any Nash equilibrium, and the classical KKT conditions (in the vector setting), that are necessary conditions for Pareto efficiency. Our characterization enables us to design a strong–Nash– equilibrium–finding algorithm with complexity in Smoothed–P. So, this problem—that Conitzer and Sandholm [Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., 2008. New complexity results about Nash equilibria. Games Econ. Behav. 63, 621–641] proved to be computationally hard in the worst case—is generically easy. Hence, although the worst case complexity of finding a strong Nash equilibrium is harder than that of finding a Nash equilibrium, once small perturbations are applied, finding a strong Nash is easier than finding a Nash equilibrium.
    [Show full text]
  • Egalitarianism in Mechanism Design∗
    Egalitarianism in Mechanism Design∗ Geoffroy de Clippely This Version: January 2012 Abstract This paper examines ways to extend egalitarian notions of fairness to mechanism design. It is shown that the classic properties of con- strained efficiency and monotonicity with respect to feasible options become incompatible, even in quasi-linear settings. An interim egali- tarian criterion is defined and axiomatically characterized. It is applied to find \fair outcomes" in classical examples of mechanism design, such as cost sharing and bilateral trade. Combined with ex-ante utilitari- anism, the criterion characterizes Harsanyi and Selten's (1972) interim Nash product. Two alternative egalitarian criteria are proposed to il- lustrate how incomplete information creates room for debate as to what is socially desirable. ∗The paper beneficiated from insightful comments from Kfir Eliaz, Klaus Nehring, David Perez-Castrillo, Kareen Rozen, and David Wettstein. Financial support from the National Science Foundation (grant SES-0851210) is gratefully acknowledged. yDepartment of Economics, Brown University. Email: [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION Developments in the theory of mechanism design, since its origin in the sev- enties, have greatly improved our understanding of what is feasible in envi- ronments involving agents that hold private information. Yet little effort has been devoted to the discussion of socially desirable selection criteria, and the computation of incentive compatible mechanisms meeting those criteria in ap- plications. In other words, extending the theory of social choice so as to make it applicable in mechanism design remains a challenging topic to be studied. The present paper makes some progress in that direction, with a focus on the egalitarian principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1701.06410V1 [Q-Fin.EC] 27 Oct 2016 E Od N Phrases
    ECONOMICS CANNOT ISOLATE ITSELF FROM POLITICAL THEORY: A MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION BRENDAN MARKEY-TOWLER ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to provide a confession of sorts from an economist to political science and philosophy. A confession of the weaknesses of the political position of the economist. It is intended as a guide for political scientists and philosophers to the ostensible policy criteria of economics, and an illustration of an argument that demonstrates logico-mathematically, therefore incontrovertibly, that any policy statement by an economist contains, or is, a political statement. It develops an inescapable compulsion that the absolute primacy and priority of political theory and philosophy in the development of policy criteria must be recognised. Economic policy cannot be divorced from politics as a matter of mathematical fact, and rather, as Amartya Sen has done, it ought embrace political theory and philosophy. 1. THE PLACE AND IMPORTANCE OF PARETO OPTIMALITY IN ECONOMICS Economics, having pretensions to being a “science”, makes distinctions between “positive” statements about how the economy functions and “normative” statements about how it should function. It is a core attribute, inherited largely from its intellectual heritage in British empiricism and Viennese logical positivism (McCloskey, 1983) that normative statements are to be avoided where possible, and ought contain little by way of political presupposition as possible where they cannot. Political ideology is the realm of the politician and the demagogue. To that end, the most basic policy decision criterion of Pareto optimality is offered. This cri- terion is weaker than the extremely strong Hicks-Kaldor criterion. The Hicks-Kaldor criterion presupposes a consequentialist, specifically utilitarian philosophy and states any policy should be adopted which yields net positive utility for society, any compensation for lost utility on the part arXiv:1701.06410v1 [q-fin.EC] 27 Oct 2016 of one to be arranged by the polity, not the economist, out of the gains to the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Pareto Efficiency by MEGAN MARTORANA
    RF Fall Winter 07v42-sig3-INT 2/27/07 8:45 AM Page 8 JARGONALERT Pareto Efficiency BY MEGAN MARTORANA magine you and a friend are walking down the street competitive equilibrium is typically included among them. and a $100 bill magically appears. You would likely A major drawback of Pareto efficiency, some ethicists claim, I share the money evenly, each taking $50, deeming this is that it does not suggest which of the Pareto efficient the fairest division. According to Pareto efficiency, however, outcomes is best. any allocation of the $100 would be optimal — including the Furthermore, the concept does not require an equitable distribution you would likely prefer: keeping all $100 for distribution of wealth, nor does it necessarily suggest taking yourself. remedial steps to correct for existing inequality. If the Pareto efficiency says that an allocation is efficient if an incomes of the wealthy increase while the incomes of every- action makes some individual better off and no individual one else remain stable, such a change is Pareto efficient. worse off. The concept was developed by Vilfredo Pareto, an Martin Feldstein, an economist at Harvard University and Italian economist and sociologist known for his application president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, of mathematics to economic analysis, and particularly for his explains that some see this as unfair. Such critics, while con- Manual of Political Economy (1906). ceding that the outcome is Pareto Pareto used this work to develop efficient, might complain: “I don’t his theory of pure economics, have fewer material goods, but I analyze “ophelimity,” his own have the extra pain of living in a term indicating the power of more unequal world.” In short, giving satisfaction, and intro- they are concerned about not only duce indifference curves.
    [Show full text]
  • Agent Based Models
    1 1 BUT INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT GAS MOLECULES A. Chakraborti TOPICS TO BE COVERED IN THIS CHAPTER: • Agent based models: going beyond the simple statistical mechanics of colliding particles • Explaining the hidden hand of economy: self-organization in a collection of interacting "selfish" agents • Bio-box on A Smith • Minority game and its variants (evolutionary, adaptive etc) • Box on contributions of: WB Arthur, YC Zhang, D Challet, M Marsili et al • Agent-based models for explaining the power law for price fluctuations 1.1 Agent based models: going beyond the simple statistical mechanics of colliding particles One might actually wonder how the mathematical theories and laws which try to explain the physical world of electrons, protons, atoms and molecules could be applied to understand the complex social structure and economic behavior of human beings. Specially so, since human beings are complex and widely varing in nature, properties or characteristics, whereas e.g., the electrons are identical (we do not have to electrons of different types) and indistinguishable. Each electron has a charge of 1.60218 × 10−19C, mass of 9.10938 × 10−31kg, and is a spin-1/2 particle. Moreover, such properties of Econophysics. Sinha, Chatterjee, Chakraborti and Chakrabarti Copyright c 2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim ISBN: 3-527-XXXXX-X 2 1 BUT INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT GAS MOLECULES electrons are universal (identical for all electrons), and this amount of informa- tion is sufficient to explain many physical phenomena concerning electrons, once you know the inter actions. But is such little information sufficient to in- fer the complex behavior of human beings? Is it possible to quantify the nature of the interactions between human beings? The answers to these questions are on the negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrow-Debreu Pricing: Equilibrium
    ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Spring 2021 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. 9 Arrow-Debreu Pricing: Equilibrium A Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM B The Arrow-Debreu Economy C Competitive Equilibrium and Pareto Optimum D Optimal Risk Sharing E Equilibrium and No-Arbitrage F Euler Equations Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM The Arrow-Debreu framework was developed in the 1950s and 1960s by Kenneth Arrow (US, b.1932, Nobel Prize 1972) and Gerard Debreu (France, 1921-2004, Nobel Prize 1983), some key references being: Gerard Debreu, Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Kenneth Arrow, \The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk-Bearing," Review of Economic Studies Vol.31 (April 1964): pp.91-96. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Since MPT and the CAPM were developed around the same time, it is useful to consider how each of these two approaches brings economic analysis to bear on the problem of pricing risky assets and cash flows. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Markowitz, Sharpe, Lintner, and Mossin put σ2 on one axis and µ on the other. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Markowitz, Sharpe, Lintner, and Mossin put σ2 on one axis and µ on the other. This allowed them to make more rapid progress, deriving important results for portfolio management and asset pricing. But the resulting theory proved very difficult to generalize: it requires either quadratic utility or normally distributed returns.
    [Show full text]