Coursenotes_ECON301

This implies that society cares exclusively about a

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: int S on the diagram below). Both points S and N are Pareto efficient because they are both on the Grand UPF. However, point S is more socially desirable because it corresponds to a higher SWF contour than point N. Point S provides both economic efficiency (on the Grand UPF) and social equity (on the highest attainable SWF contour). UB N S SWF1 SWF2 Grand UPF UA HOMEWORK Construct the individual UPFs for the following additional points on the PPF of the square root economy example we did in today's lecture: Point D Point E Point F X = 0.4 X = 0.2 X = 0.1 196 Y = 1 0.4 = 0.6 Y = 1 0.2 = 0.8 Y = 1 0.1 = 0.9 ECON 301 LECTURE #12 WELFARE THEOREMS STATEMENT: "A competitive equilibrium is Pareto Optimal". PROOF: (by contradiction) Suppose that an allocation bundle x (i.e. x = (x1 A, x2A, x1B, x2 B)) is a competitive equilibrium that is not Pareto Optimal. Thus, there exists an allocation bundle y (i.e. y = (y1 A, y2A, y1B, y2 B)) such that y is feasible... y1 A + y1 B = 1 A + 1 B y2 A + y2 B = 2 A + 2 B (1) (2) and UA (y) UA (x) but UB (y) > UB (x) However, since x was the allocation bundle chosen for utility maximization at the equilibrium price vector, we have... P1x1 A + P2x2A = P11A + P22A P1x1 + P2x2 = P11 + P22 B B B B Budget Constraints are satisfied. meaning that for allocation bundle y to be "better" than allocation bundle x the following must be true... P1y1 A + P2y2A P11A + P22A P1y1B + P2y2 B > P11B + P22 B which implies, P1 (y1 A + y1B ) + P2 (y2A + y2B) > P1 (1 A + 1B ) + P2 (2A + 2B) (3) but the allocation bundle y must be feasible...subbing (1) and (2) into (3), we get P1 (1 A + 1B) + P2 (2A + 2B) > P1 (1 A + 1B ) + P2 (2A + 2B) the above says that, at allocation bundle y, the value of the individual endowments for good 1 and good 2 exceeds the value of the individual endowments of goods 1 and 2 in the economy. So at this equilibrium price vector the allocation bundle y is not feasible...we have our contradiction! 197 We derived this contradiction by assuming that the competitive equilibrium solution (allocation bundle x) was n...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online