PAM200_Section5 - PAM200 Section 5 Problem 5.3 a) Q,I = %Q...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PAM200 – Section 5 Problem 5.3 a) , % / % / Q I Q Q Q Q I I I I I Q ε = = = I and Q must be greater than zero. In addition, assume income increases, i.e., 0 I . If the good is inferior, then 0 Q < . Thus, the first term ( / ) 0 Q I < and the second term ( / ) 0 I Q . Multiplying these two terms together implies , 0 Q I < . Inferior goods have a negative income elasticity of demand. b)If income elasticity of demand is negative then , 0 Q I Q I I Q = < . Since I and Q must be greater than zero, for , Q I to be negative, we must have 0 Q I < . This can only happen if either a) 0 Q < and 0 I or b) 0 Q and 0 I ∆ < . In both instances, the change in quantity demanded moves in the opposite direction as the change in income implying the good is inferior. Problem 5.6 a) Karl’s optimal bundle will always be such that 2 H = 3 B . If this were not true then he could decrease the consumption of one of the two goods, staying at the same level of utility and reducing expenditure. Also, at the optimal bundle, it must be true that I B P H P B H = + . Substituting the first condition into the second we get I P P B B H = + ) 5 . 1 ( which implies that the demand curve for beer is given by, ) 5 . 1 ( B H P P I B + = b) You can answer this just by looking at the demand curve. Because it has a larger coefficient, the price of hamburgers affects the demand for beer more than the price of beer. A one dollar increase in H P decreases demand for beer more than a one dollar increase in B P . Problem 5.16 a)Using the tangency condition, 4 = x y , and the budget constraint, 120 4 = + y x , Lou’s initial optimum is the basket ( x , y ) = (15, 60) with a utility of 900. b)First we need the decomposition basket. This would satisfy the new tangency condition, 3 = x y and would give him as much utility as before, i.e. 900 = xy . This gives ) 3 30 , 3 10 ( ) , ( = y x or approximately (17.3,51.9). Now we need the final basket, which satisfies the same tangency condition as the decomposition basket and also the new budget constraint: . 120 3 = + y x Together, these conditions imply that ( x , y ) = (20, 60). The substitution effect is therefore 17.3 – 15 = 2.3, and the income effect is 20 – 17.3 = 2.7. c)The compensating variation is the amount of income Lou would be willing to give up after the price change to maintain the level of utility he had before the price change. This equals the difference between the consumer’s actual income, $120, and the income needed to buy the decomposition basket at the new prices. This latter income equals: 3*17.3 + 1*51.9 = 103.8. The compensating variation thus equals 120 – 103.8 = $16.2. d)The equivalent variation is the amount of income that Lou would need to be given
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/18/2008 for the course PAM 200 taught by Professor Unur during the Spring '08 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 10

PAM200_Section5 - PAM200 Section 5 Problem 5.3 a) Q,I = %Q...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online