Suppose individuals require a certain level of food (X) to remain alive. Let this amount be given by \(\mathrm{X}_{0} .\) Once \(\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{o}}\) is purchased, individuals obtain utility from food and other goods $$U(X, Y)=\left(X-X_{0}\right) < < Y_{i}^{\prime}$$ where \(a+(3-1\) a. Show that if \(\rangle P_{x} X_{o}\) the individual will maximize utility by spending \(a\left(I-P_{x} X_{o}\right)+P_{x} X_{o}\) on good Xand \(/ 3\left(/-P_{X} X_{o}\right)\) on good \(Y\) b. How do the ratios \(P_{x} X / I\) and \(P_{Y} Y / I\) change as income increases in this problem? (See also Extension E4.2.)

Short Answer

Expert verified
Question: Determine the optimal consumption of goods X and Y that maximizes the utility function given by \(U(X, Y) = (X - X_{0})^{\alpha}Y^{\beta}\), subject to the budget constraint \(P_{X}X + P_{Y}Y = I\). Then, analyze how the ratios \(P_{x}X/I\) and \(P_{Y}Y/I\) change as income increases. Answer: The optimal consumption of goods X and Y are given by \(X=\alpha(I-P_{X}X_{0})+P_{X}X_{0}\) and \(Y=\beta(I-P_{X}X_{0})\), respectively. As income increases, the ratios \(P_{x}X/I\) and \(P_{Y}Y/I\) approach \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), respectively.

Step by step solution

01

Write down the utility function and budget constraint

The utility function is given by $$U(X, Y) = (X - X_{0})^{\alpha}Y^{\beta}$$ and the budget constraint is $$P_{X}X + P_{Y}Y = I$$
02

Find the Lagrangian for the maximization problem

Setting up the Lagrangian, we have $$\mathcal{L}(X, Y, \lambda) = (X - X_{0})^{\alpha}Y^{\beta} + \lambda(I - P_{X}X - P_{Y}Y)$$
03

Calculate the first-order conditions

Differentiate the Lagrangian with respect to \(X\), \(Y\) and \(\lambda\) and set the results equal to zero. $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial X} = \alpha(X - X_{0})^{\alpha-1}Y^{\beta} - \lambda P_{X} = 0 \quad (1)$$ $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial Y} = \beta(X - X_{0})^{\alpha}Y^{\beta-1} - \lambda P_{Y} = 0 \quad (2)$$ $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda} = I - P_{X}X - P_{Y}Y = 0 \quad (3)$$
04

Solve the system of equations

Divide equation (1) by equation (2): $$\frac{\alpha(X-X_{0})^{\alpha-1}Y^{\beta}}{\beta(X-X_{0})^{\alpha}Y^{\beta-1}} = \frac{P_{X}}{P_{Y}}$$ Simplifying, we get $$\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\frac{Y}{X-X_{0}} = \frac{P_{X}}{P_{Y}}$$ Now using the budget constraint (3), substitute \(Y=\frac{I-P_{X}X}{P_{Y}}\) into this equation to solve for \(X\): $$\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\frac{I-P_{X}X}{P_{Y}(X-X_{0})}= \frac{P_{X}}{P_{Y}}$$ Solving for \(X\), we find: $$X=\alpha(I-P_{X}X_{0})+P_{X}X_{0}$$ Now, substitute this result back into the budget constraint (3) to get the optimal consumption of good \(Y\): $$Y=\beta(I-P_{X}X_{0})$$ For part b:
05

Calculate the ratios PxX/I and PyY/I

Using the results from part a, calculate the ratios: $$\frac{P_{x}X}{I}=\frac{P_{x}(\alpha(I-P_{X}X_{0})+P_{X}X_{0})}{I}=\alpha(1-\frac{P_{X}X_{0}}{I})+\frac{P_{X}X_{0}}{I}$$ $$\frac{P_{Y}Y}{I}=\frac{P_{Y}(\beta(I-P_{X}X_{0}))}{I}=\beta(1-\frac{P_{X}X_{0}}{I})$$
06

Analyzing the change in these ratios as income increases

As income increases, the term \(\frac{P_{X}X_{0}}{I}\) becomes smaller since \(I\) is in the denominator. Thus, the ratios will approach: $$\lim_{I \to \infty}\frac{P_{x}X}{I} = \alpha$$ $$\lim_{I \to \infty}\frac{P_{Y}Y}{I} = \beta$$ So, as income increases, the ratios \(\frac{P_{x}X}{I}\) and \(\frac{P_{Y}Y}{I}\) approach \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), respectively.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

a. Suppose that a fast-food junkie derives utility from three goods: soft drinks (X), hamburgers \((Y),\) and ice cream sundaes \((Z)\) according to the Cobb-Douglas utility function $$U(X, Y, Z)=X^{5} F-^{5}(1+Z)^{-5}$$ Suppose also that the prices for these goods are given by \(P_{x}=.25, P_{y}=1,\) and \(P_{x}=2\) and that this consumer's income is given by \(/=2\) a. Show that for \(Z=0\), maximization of utility results in the same optimal choices as in Ex ample \(4.1 .\) Show also that any choice that results in \(Z>0\) (even for a fractional \(Z\) ) re duces utility from this optimum. b. How do you explain the fact that \(Z=0\) is optimal here? (Hint: Think about the ratio \(M U J P_{z}\) c. How high would this individual's income have to be in order for any \(Z\) to be purchased?

Each day Paul, who is in third grade, eats lunch at school. He likes only Twinkies \(\left(7^{\prime \prime}\right)\) and Orange Slice \((5),\) and these provide him a utility of $$\text { utility }=U\\{T, S)=\mathbf{V} 7 \mathbf{X}$$ a. If Twinkies cost \(\$ .10\) each and Slice costs \(\$ .25\) per cup, how should Paul spend the \(\$ 1\) his mother gives him in order to maximize his utility? b. If the school tries to discourage Twinkie consumption by raising the price to \(\$ .40,\) by how much will Paul's mother have to increase his lunch allowance to provide him with the same level of utility he received in part (a) \(?\) How many Twinkies and cups of Slice will he buy now (assuming that it is possible to purchase fractional amounts of both of these goods)?

In Example 4.3 we used a specific indirect utility function to illustrate the lump sum principle that an income tax reduces utility to a lesser extent than a sales tax that garners the same revenue. Here you are asked to: a. Show this result graphically for a two-good case by showing the budget constraints that must prevail under each tax. (Hint: First draw the sales tax case. Then show that the budget constraint for an income tax that collects the same revenue must pass through the point chosen under the sales tax but will offer options preferable to the individual.) b. Show that if an individual consumes the two goods in fixed proportions, the lump sum principle does not hold because both taxes reduce utility by the same amount. c. Discuss whether the lump sum principle holds for the many-good case too.

a. Mr. Odde Ball enjoys commodities Xand \(Y\) according to the utility function $$U(X, Y)=\mathrm{V} \mathrm{X}^{2}+\mathrm{P}$$ Maximize Mr. Ball's utility if \(P_{x}=\$ 3, P_{Y}=\$ 4,\) and he has \(\$ 50\) to spend. Hint: It may be easier here to maximize \(U^{2}\) rather than \(U .\) Why won't this alter your results? b. Graph Mr. Ball's indifference curve and its point of tangency with his budget constraint. What does the graph say about Mr. Ball's behavior? Have you found a true maximum?

a. A young connoisseur has \(\$ 300\) to spend to build a small wine cellar. She enjoys two vintages in particular: an expensive 1987 French Bordeaux \(\left(W_{F}\right)\) at \(\$ 20\) per bottle and a less expensive 1993 California varietal wine \(\left(W_{c}\right)\) priced at \(\$ 4 .\) How much of each wine should she purchase if her utility is characterized by the following function? $$u\left(w_{F}, w_{c}\right)-w$$ b. When she arrived at the wine store, our young oenologist discovered that the price of the 1987 French Bordeaux had fallen to \(\$ 10\) a bottle because of a decline in the value of the franc. If the price of the California wine remains stable at \(\$ 4\) per bottle, how much of each wine should our friend purchase to maximize utility under these altered conditions?

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free