DOCSLIB.ORG

Econ 101 Chapter 7 Handout Part 1: "Utility, Benefits, and Consumer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Econ 101 Chapter 7 Handout Part 1: Econ 221 Chapter 5 handout Part 1: “The Utility-Maximizing Rule” This is not due for a grade Definitions: Utility is the satisfaction derived from the consumption or use of a good or service. Utility is a subjective measure, because one person’s satisfaction may be different from that of another individual. Because satisfaction is difficult to describe in quantifiable terms, we discuss measures of utility in arbitrary units. The term “utils” is often used to describe a unit of utility. This is a bit goofy, so we’ll just use “units of utility” to describe satisfaction. Soon we’ll dispense with the need for arbitrary units by putting utility in dollar terms. Total Utility (TU) is the total satisfaction or enjoyment realized by a consumer for a given quantity of a good or service. E.g.: if you consume 2 slices of pizza, the total utility is the sum of the satisfaction from both slices. Marginal Utility (MU) is the additional (extra, incremental) satisfaction realized from the consumption of another unit of the good. E.g.: if you consume a third slice of pizza the marginal utility is the extra utility derived from only the third slice. Hence the marginal utility is the change in total utility for each one-unit change in quantity. Total Benefit (TB) is the dollar value of the satisfaction realized from the consumption of a given quantity of a good or service. Hence total benefit simply expresses total utility in monetary terms. Marginal benefit (MB) is the additional dollar benefit from the consumption of an additional unit of a good or service. Hence marginal benefit simply puts marginal utility in monetary terms. Marginal benefit is the change in total benefit for each one unit change in quantity. Marginal benefit also represents the maximum willingness to pay for each unit of a good or service. Net Benefit (NB) is the difference between marginal benefits and marginal costs. If MB is greater than MC, then net benefits are positive. IF MC is greater than MB, then net benefits are negative. Application: Understanding the Utility Maximizing Rule (also known as the “Equimarginal Principle”) Consider your monthly purchases of two goods: CD’s and Movies. For this example, assume that the price of a CD is $10, the price of a movie is $5, and your monthly income of $65 is spent entirely on these two goods. # movies TUM MUM MUM/$spent #CDs TUCD MUCD MUCD/$ spent 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 1 20 1 50 2 38 2 85 3 53 3 110 4 65 4 130 5 75 5 145 6 83 6 155 7 90 7 161 → Does the law of diminishing marginal utility apply to the consumption of CD’s and movies? Given that the price of a CD is $10, and the price of a movie is $5, and your monthly income of $65 is spent entirely on these two goods, use the space below to draw a budget line for the consumption of these two goods. For each of the listed numbers of movies, determine the number of CD’s it is possible to consume. For combinations 1 through 4 determine the total utility. CD’s Combination Movies CD’s Total U 1 1 2 3 3 5 4 7 Movies Spending income 1 purchase at a time: Purchase options mu/$ choice $ spent on choice total income gone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Final consumption bundle for the month = Econ 221 Chapter 5 handout Part 1: “The Utility-Maximizing Rule” … continued The utility-maximizing rule (also known as the “equimarginal principle”) states that total utility from the consumption of two or more goods is maximized when the marginal utility per dollar spent is the same for all goods, and all income is spent. → Write a general formula for the utility maximizing rule (equimarginal principle) for goods “A” and “B” Consumer Equilibrium is attained when the utility-maximizing bundle of goods is purchased and all other things are held constant. In other words, by following the equimarginal principle, consumers reach an equilibrium. → Why is consumer equilibrium an equilibrium? → Write an equation applying the equimarginal principle for the above case of CDs and movies, and use that equation with the above data to find the utility maximizing quantity of these two goods. → Now, assume that upon reaching the 8th purchase decision, instead of having $15 left to spend, you only have $10. What will you spend the remaining income on? .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes for Econ202a: Consumption
    Notes for Econ202A: Consumption Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas UC Berkeley Fall 2014 c Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, 2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Disclaimer: These notes are riddled with inconsistencies, typos and omissions. Use at your own peril. 1 Introduction Where the second part of econ202A fits? • Change in focus: the first part of the course focused on the big picture: long run growth, what drives improvements in standards of living. • This part of the course looks more closely at pieces of models. We will focus on four pieces: – consumption-saving. Large part of national output. – investment. Most volatile part of national output. – open economy. Difference between S and I is the current account. – financial markets (and crises). Because we learned the hard way that it matters a lot! 2 Consumption under Certainty 2.1 A Canonical Model A Canonical Model of Consumption under Certainty • A household (of size 1!) lives T periods (from t = 0 to t = T − 1). Lifetime T preferences defined over consumption sequences fctgt=1: T −1 X t U = β u(ct) (1) t=0 where 0 < β < 1 is the discount factor, ct is the household’s consumption in period t and u(c) measures the utility the household derives from consuming ct in period t. u(c) satisfies the ‘usual’ conditions: – u0(c) > 0, – u00(c) < 0, 0 – limc!0 u (c) = 1 0 – limc!1 u (c) = 0 • Seems like a reasonable problem to analyze. 2 2.2 Questioning the Assumptions Yet, this representation of preferences embeds a number of assumptions. Some of these assumptions have some micro-foundations, but to be honest, the main advantage of this representation is its convenience and tractability.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Differentiation
    Product differentiation Industrial Organization Bernard Caillaud Master APE - Paris School of Economics September 22, 2016 Bernard Caillaud Product differentiation Motivation The Bertrand paradox relies on the fact buyers choose the cheap- est firm, even for very small price differences. In practice, some buyers may continue to buy from the most expensive firms because they have an intrinsic preference for the product sold by that firm: Notion of differentiation. Indeed, assuming an homogeneous product is not realistic: rarely exist two identical goods in this sense For objective reasons: products differ in their physical char- acteristics, in their design, ... For subjective reasons: even when physical differences are hard to see for consumers, branding may well make two prod- ucts appear differently in the consumers' eyes Bernard Caillaud Product differentiation Motivation Differentiation among products is above all a property of con- sumers' preferences: Taste for diversity Heterogeneity of consumers' taste But it has major consequences in terms of imperfectly competi- tive behavior: so, the analysis of differentiation allows for a richer discussion and comparison of price competition models vs quan- tity competition models. Also related to the practical question (for competition authori- ties) of market definition: set of goods highly substitutable among themselves and poorly substitutable with goods outside this set Bernard Caillaud Product differentiation Motivation Firms have in general an incentive to affect the degree of differ- entiation of their products compared to rivals'. Hence, differen- tiation is related to other aspects of firms’ strategies. Choice of products: firms choose how to differentiate from rivals, this impacts the type of products that they choose to offer and the diversity of products that consumers face.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Dimensions of Classical Utilitarian Economic Thought ––Bentham, J.S
    July 2012 Three Dimensions of Classical Utilitarian Economic Thought ––Bentham, J.S. Mill, and Sidgwick–– Daisuke Nakai∗ 1. Utilitarianism in the History of Economic Ideas Utilitarianism is a many-sided conception, in which we can discern various aspects: hedonistic, consequentialistic, aggregation or maximization-oriented, and so forth.1 While we see its impact in several academic fields, such as ethics, economics, and political philosophy, it is often dragged out as a problematic or negative idea. Aside from its essential and imperative nature, one reason might be in the fact that utilitarianism has been only vaguely understood, and has been given different roles, “on the one hand as a theory of personal morality, and on the other as a theory of public choice, or of the criteria applicable to public policy” (Sen and Williams 1982, 1-2). In this context, if we turn our eyes on economics, we can find intimate but subtle connections with utilitarian ideas. In 1938, Samuelson described the formulation of utility analysis in economic theory since Jevons, Menger, and Walras, and the controversies following upon it, as follows: First, there has been a steady tendency toward the removal of moral, utilitarian, welfare connotations from the concept. Secondly, there has been a progressive movement toward the rejection of hedonistic, introspective, psychological elements. These tendencies are evidenced by the names suggested to replace utility and satisfaction––ophélimité, desirability, wantability, etc. (Samuelson 1938) Thus, Samuelson felt the need of “squeezing out of the utility analysis its empirical implications”. In any case, it is somewhat unusual for economists to regard themselves as utilitarians, even if their theories are relying on utility analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Externalities
    Economics 1410 Fall 2017 Harvard University SECTION 8 I. Externalities 1. Consider a factory that emits pollution. The inverse demand for the good is Pd = 24 − Q and the inverse supply curve is Ps = 4 + Q. The marginal cost of the pollution is given by MC = 0:5Q. (a) What are the equilibrium price and quantity when there is no government intervention? (b) How much should the factory produce at the social optimum? (c) How large is the deadweight loss from the externality? (d) How large of a per-unit tax should the government impose to achieve the social optimum? 2. In Karro, Kansas, population 1,001, the only source of entertainment available is driving around in your car. The 1,001 Karraokers are all identical. They all like to drive, but hate congestion and pollution, resulting in the following utility function: Ui(f; d; t) = f + 16d − d2 − 6t=1000, where f is consumption of all goods but driving, d is the number of hours of driving Karraoker i does per day, and t is the total number of hours of driving all other Karraokers do per day. Assume that driving is free, that the unit price of food is $1, and that daily income is $40. (a) If an individual believes that the amount of driving he does wont affect the amount that others drive, how many hours per day will he choose to drive? (b) If everybody chooses this number of hours, then what is the total amount t of driving by other persons? (c) What will the utility of each resident be? (d) If everybody drives 6 hours a day, what will the utility level of each Karraoker be? (e) Suppose that the residents decided to pass a law restricting the total number of hours that anyone is allowed to drive.
    [Show full text]
  • Intertemporal Consumption-Saving Problem in Discrete and Continuous Time
    Chapter 9 The intertemporal consumption-saving problem in discrete and continuous time In the next two chapters we shall discuss and apply the continuous-time version of the basic representative agent model, the Ramsey model. As a prepa- ration for this, the present chapter gives an account of the transition from discrete time to continuous time analysis and of the application of optimal control theory to set up and solve the household’s consumption/saving problem in continuous time. There are many fields in economics where a setup in continuous time is prefer- able to one in discrete time. One reason is that continuous time formulations expose the important distinction in dynamic theory between stock and flows in a much clearer way. A second reason is that continuous time opens up for appli- cation of the mathematical apparatus of differential equations; this apparatus is more powerful than the corresponding apparatus of difference equations. Simi- larly, optimal control theory is more developed and potent in its continuous time version than in its discrete time version, considered in Chapter 8. In addition, many formulas in continuous time are simpler than the corresponding ones in discrete time (cf. the growth formulas in Appendix A). As a vehicle for comparing continuous time modeling with discrete time mod- eling we consider a standard household consumption/saving problem. How does the household assess the choice between consumption today and consumption in the future? In contrast to the preceding chapters we allow for an arbitrary num- ber of periods within the time horizon of the household. The period length may thus be much shorter than in the previous models.
    [Show full text]
  • Utility with Decreasing Risk Aversion
    144 UTILITY WITH DECREASING RISK AVERSION GARY G. VENTER Abstract Utility theory is discussed as a basis for premium calculation. Desirable features of utility functions are enumerated, including decreasing absolute risk aversion. Examples are given of functions meeting this requirement. Calculating premiums for simplified risk situations is advanced as a step towards selecting a specific utility function. An example of a more typical portfolio pricing problem is included. “The large rattling dice exhilarate me as torrents borne on a precipice flowing in a desert. To the winning player they are tipped with honey, slaying hirri in return by taking away the gambler’s all. Giving serious attention to my advice, play not with dice: pursue agriculture: delight in wealth so acquired.” KAVASHA Rig Veda X.3:5 Avoidance of risk situations has been regarded as prudent throughout history, but individuals with a preference for risk are also known. For many decision makers, the value of different potential levels of wealth is apparently not strictly proportional to the wealth level itself. A mathematical device to treat this is the utility function, which assigns a value to each wealth level. Thus, a 50-50 chance at double or nothing on your wealth level may or may not be felt equivalent to maintaining your present level; however, a 50-50 chance at nothing or the value of wealth that would double your utility (if such a value existed) would be equivalent to maintaining the present level, assuming that the utility of zero wealth is zero. This is more or less by definition, as the utility function is set up to make such comparisons possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consumption Response to Coronavirus Stimulus Checks
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MODELING THE CONSUMPTION RESPONSE TO THE CARES ACT Christopher D. Carroll Edmund Crawley Jiri Slacalek Matthew N. White Working Paper 27876 http://www.nber.org/papers/w27876 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 September 2020 Forthcoming, International Journal of Central Banking. Thanks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for funding the original creation of the Econ-ARK toolkit, whose latest version we used to produce all the results in this paper; and to the Sloan Foundation for funding Econ- ARK’s extensive further development that brought it to the point where it could be used for this project. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. https://sloan.org/grant-detail/8071 NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2020 by Christopher D. Carroll, Edmund Crawley, Jiri Slacalek, and Matthew N. White. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Modeling the Consumption Response to the CARES Act Christopher D. Carroll, Edmund Crawley, Jiri Slacalek, and Matthew N. White NBER Working Paper No. 27876 September 2020 JEL No. D14,D83,D84,E21,E32 ABSTRACT To predict the effects of the 2020 U.S. CARES Act on consumption, we extend a model that matches responses to past consumption stimulus packages.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Evaluation Glossary of Terms
    Economic Evaluation Glossary of Terms A Attributable fraction: indirect health expenditures associated with a given diagnosis through other diseases or conditions (Prevented fraction: indicates the proportion of an outcome averted by the presence of an exposure that decreases the likelihood of the outcome; indicates the number or proportion of an outcome prevented by the “exposure”) Average cost: total resource cost, including all support and overhead costs, divided by the total units of output B Benefit-cost analysis (BCA): (or cost-benefit analysis) a type of economic analysis in which all costs and benefits are converted into monetary (dollar) values and results are expressed as either the net present value or the dollars of benefits per dollars expended Benefit-cost ratio: a mathematical comparison of the benefits divided by the costs of a project or intervention. When the benefit-cost ratio is greater than 1, benefits exceed costs C Comorbidity: presence of one or more serious conditions in addition to the primary disease or disorder Cost analysis: the process of estimating the cost of prevention activities; also called cost identification, programmatic cost analysis, cost outcome analysis, cost minimization analysis, or cost consequence analysis Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA): an economic analysis in which all costs are related to a single, common effect. Results are usually stated as additional cost expended per additional health outcome achieved. Results can be categorized as average cost-effectiveness, marginal cost-effectiveness,
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism and Wealth Transfer Taxation
    Utilitarianism and Wealth Transfer Taxation Jennifer Bird-Pollan* This article is the third in a series examining the continued relevance and philosophical legitimacy of the United States wealth transfer tax system from within a particular philosophical perspective. The article examines the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and his philosophical progeny and distinguishes the philosophical approach of utilitarianism from contemporary welfare economics, primarily on the basis of the concept of “utility” in each approach. After explicating the utilitarian criteria for ethical action, the article goes on to think through what Mill’s utilitarianism says about the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers, the United States federal wealth transfer tax system as it stands today, and what structural changes might improve the system under a utilitarian framework. I. INTRODUCTION A nation’s tax laws can be seen as its manifested distributive justice ideals. While it is clear that the United States’ Tax Code contains a variety of provisions aimed at particular non-distributive justice goals,1 underneath the political * James and Mary Lassiter Associate Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law. Thanks for useful comments on the project go to participants in the National Tax Association meeting, the Loyola Los Angeles Law School Tax Colloquium, the Tax Roundtable at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, and the University of Kentucky College of Law Brown Bag Workshop, as well as Professors Albertina Antognini, Richard Ausness, Stefan Bird-Pollan, Zach Bray, Jake Brooks, Miranda Perry Fleischer, Brian Frye, Brian Galle, Michael Healy, Kathy Moore, Katherine Pratt, Ted Seto, and Andrew Woods.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 4 Utility
    Chapter 4 Utility Preferences - A Reminder x y: x is preferred strictly to y. x y: x and y are equally preferred. x ~ y: x is preferred at least as much as is y. Preferences - A Reminder Completeness: For any two bundles x and y it is always possible to state either that xyx ~ y or that y ~ x. Preferences - A Reminder Reflexivity: Any bundle x is always at least as preferred as itself; iei.e. xxx ~ x. Preferences - A Reminder Transitivity: If x is at least as preferred as y, and y is at least as preferred as z, then x is at least as preferred as z; iei.e. x ~ y and y ~ z x ~ z. Utility Functions A preference relation that is complete, reflexive, transitive and continuous can be represented by a continuous utility function . Continuityyg means that small changes to a consumption bundle cause only small changes to the preference level. Utility Functions A utility function U(x) represents a preference relation ~ if and only if: x’ x” U(x’)>U(x) > U(x”) x’ x” U(x’) < U(x”) x’ x” U(x’) = U(x”). Utility Functions Utility is an ordinal (i.e. ordering) concept. E.g. if U(x) = 6 and U(y) = 2 then bdlibundle x is stri ilctly pref erred to bundle y. But x is not preferred three times as much as is y. Utility Functions & Indiff. Curves Consider the bundles (4,1), (2,3) and (2,2). Suppose (23)(2,3) (41)(4,1) (2, 2). Assiggyn to these bundles any numbers that preserve the preference ordering; e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Moral Utility in Decision Making: an Interdisciplinary Framework
    Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2008, 8 (4), 390-401 doi:10.3758/CABN.8.4.390 INTERSECTIONS AMONGG PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND NEUROSCIENCE The role of moral utility in decision making: An interdisciplinary framework PHILIPPE N.TOBLER University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England ANNEMARIE KALIS Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands AND TOBIAS KALENSCHER University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands What decisions should we make? Moral values, rules, and virtues provide standards for morally acceptable decisions, without prescribing how we should reach them. However, moral theories do assume that we are, at least in principle, capable of making the right decisions. Consequently, an empirical investigation of the methods and resources we use for making moral decisions becomes relevant. We consider theoretical parallels of economic decision theory and moral utilitarianism and suggest that moral decision making may tap into mechanisms and pro- cesses that have originally evolved for nonmoral decision making. For example, the computation of reward value occurs through the combination of probability and magnitude; similar computation might also be used for deter- mining utilitarian moral value. Both nonmoral and moral decisions may resort to intuitions and heuristics. Learning mechanisms implicated in the assignment of reward value to stimuli, actions, and outcomes may also enable us to determine moral value and assign it to stimuli, actions, and outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest that moral capa- bilities cancan employemploy andand benefitbenefit fromfrom a varietyvariety of nonmoralnonmoral decision-makingdecision-making andand learninglearning mechanisms.mechanisms. Imagine that you are the democratically elected presi- save y people on the ground ( y x)? Or do not only hi- dent of a country and have just been informed that a pas- jackers, but also presidents, have an unconditional duty senger airplane has been hijacked.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Externality: Reduces Utility Or Profit Externalities Defined
    Chapter 7 Externalities Reading • Essential reading – Hindriks, J and G.D. Myles Intermediate Public Economics. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006) Chapter 7. • Further reading – Bator, F.M. (1958) ‘The anatomy of market failure’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72, 351—378. – Buchanan, J.M. and C. Stubblebine (1962) ‘Externality’, Economica, 29, 371—384. – Coase, R.H. (1960) ‘The problem of social cost’, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1—44. – Lin, S. (ed.) Theory and Measurement of Economic Externalities. (New York: Academic Press, 1976) [ISBN 0124504507 hbk]. – Meade, J.E. (1952) ‘External economies and diseconomies in a competitive situation’, Economic Journal, 62, 54—76. Reading – Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare. (London: Macmillan, 1918). • Challenging reading – Muthoo, A. Bargaining Theory with Applications. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) [ISBN 0521576474 pbk]. – Starrett, D. (1972) ‘Fundamental non-convexities in the theory of externalities’, Journal of Economic Theory, 4, 180—199. – Weitzman, M.L. (1974) ‘Prices vs. quantities’, Review of Economic Studies, 41, 477—491. Introduction • An externality is a link between economic agents that lies outside the price system – Pollution from a factory – Envy of a neighbor • Externalities are not under the control of the affected agent – Efficiency theorems do not apply – Competitive equilibrium unlikely to be efficient • Externalities are of practical importance – Global warming – Damage to ozone layer Externalities Defined •An externality is present whenever some economic
    [Show full text]