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?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Short Answer: When the price of French Bordeaux decreases, it will affect the budget constraint and change the optimal quantities of wine to be purchased. Using the method of Lagrangian multipliers, we can find the first-order conditions for the new budget constraint and solve for the optimal wine quantities under the altered conditions. Comparing the optimal wine quantities before and after the price change will provide insights into how the optimal combination of wines to maximize utility has been affected by the change in the price of the French Bordeaux.

Step by step solution

01

Part A: Setting up the utility function and budget constraint

: The utility function is given as: $$u\left(w_{F}, w_{c}\right)-w$$ The budget constraint is given as: \(20w_F + 4w_C = 300\)
02

Part A: Utility maximization using the Lagrangian multiplier method

: We will maximize the utility function subject to the budget constraint using the Lagrangian multiplier method. First, set up the Lagrangian function: $$\mathcal{L}\left(w_{F}, w_{c}, \lambda\right) = u\left(w_{F}, w_{c}\right) - w - \lambda \left(20w_{F} + 4w_{C} - 300\right)$$ Now, we need to find the first-order conditions by taking partial derivatives of the Lagrangian with respect to \(w_F\), \(w_C\), and \(\lambda\). This will give us three equations: 1) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_F} = 0\) 2) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_C} = 0\) 3) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda} = 0\)
03

Part A: Solving for the optimal wine quantities

: Solve the system of equations generated in the previous step to find the optimal values of \(w_F\) and \(w_C\) that maximize the utility under the budget constraint. After solving the equations and checking the non-negativity constraints, we will get the optimal wine quantities for part A. #tabpanel#
04

Part B: Changing the price of the French Bordeaux

: Now, the price of the French Bordeaux has fallen to \(10 per bottle. The budget constraint will now be: \)10w_F + 4w_C = 300$
05

Part B: Utility maximization using Lagrangian multiplier method in altered conditions

: Similar to part A, we will maximize the utility function subject to the new budget constraint using the Lagrangian multiplier method: $$\mathcal{L}\left(w_{F}, w_{c}, \lambda\right) = u\left(w_{F}, w_{c}\right) - w - \lambda \left(10w_{F} + 4w_{C} - 300\right)$$ We will find the first-order conditions by taking partial derivatives of the Lagrangian for the new budget constraint: 1) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_F} = 0\) 2) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w_C} = 0\) 3) \(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda} = 0\)
06

Part B: Solving for the optimal wine quantities under the altered conditions

: Solve the system of equations generated in the previous step to find the optimal values of \(w_F\) and \(w_C\) that maximize the utility under the new budget constraint. After solving the equations and checking the non-negativity constraints, we will get the optimal wine quantities for part B. The student will be able to compare how the change in the price of the French Bordeaux affected the optimal wine quantities to maximize the utility. Please note that since the utility function is not provided in a specific format, it is not possible to derive explicit expressions for the optimal wine quantities. However, the solution process is still valid, and with a specific format of the utility function, the optimal quantities can be calculated.

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. 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?

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.)

Mr. A derives utility from martinis (M) in proportion to the number he drinks: $$U(M)=\mathbf{M}$$ Mr. A is very particular about his martinis, however: He only enjoys them made in the exact proportion of two parts gin (G) to one part vermouth \((V) .\) Hence, we can rewrite Mr. A's utility function as $$U(M)=U(G, V)=\min I j, v |$$ a. Graph Mr. A's indifference curve in terms of \(G\) and \(V\) for various levels of utility. Show that regardless of the prices of the two ingredients, Mr. A will never alter the way he mixes martinis. b. Calculate the demand functions for \(G\) and \(V\) c. Using the results from part (b), what is Mr. A's indirect utility function? d. Calculate Mr. A's expenditure function; for each level of utility, show spending as a function of \(P_{G}\) and \(P_{v}\) Hint: Because this problem involves a fixed proportions utility function you cannot solve for utility- maximizing decisions by using calculus.

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?

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.

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