Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Hard Times Burt buys only rotgut whiskey and jelly donuts to sustain him. For Burt, rotgut whiskey is an inferior good that exhibits Giffen's paradox, although rotgut whiskey and jelly donuts are Hicksian substitutes in the customary sense. Develop an intuitive explanation to suggest why an increase in the price of rotgut whiskey must cause fewer jelly donuts to be bought. That is, the goods must also be gross complements.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Question: Provide an intuitive explanation for why an increase in the price of rotgut whiskey, which Burt experiences Giffen's Paradox with, must lead to a decrease in the quantity of jelly donuts bought, indicating that the goods are also gross complements, even though they are Hicksian substitutes in the usual sense. Answer: When the price of rotgut whiskey increases, Burt buys more whiskey due to Giffen's Paradox, which results in a higher share of his income being spent on whiskey. This effectively "decreases" his spending power, causing him to buy less jelly donuts. Although whiskey and jelly donuts are Hicksian substitutes, the Giffen's Paradox and the strong income effect it creates override the substitution effect, leading to a decrease in the consumption of both goods when the price of whiskey increases. This behavior indicates that the goods are also gross complements.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding Key Concepts

First, let's understand what these key concepts mean: a. Inferior good - A good is called inferior if the demand for the good decreases as the consumers' income increases. b. Giffen's Paradox - It is a phenomenon that occurs when the demand for an inferior good increases as its price increases, contrary to the Law of Demand. c. Hicksian substitutes - Two goods are Hicksian substitutes if the demand for one good increases as the price of the other good increases, holding the utility constant. d. Gross complements - Two goods are gross complements if an increase in the price of one good leads to a decrease in the quantity demanded for both goods.
02

Analyzing the Increase in Rotgut Whiskey Price

Now, let's analyze what happens when the price of rotgut whiskey increases: 1. Due to Giffen's Paradox, Burt will buy more rotgut whiskey even if its price increases. 2. As Burt's spending on whiskey increases, the relative share of his income spent on whiskey also increases. 3. Since rotgut whiskey is an inferior good, this means that Burt's income has effectively "decreased" (at least in terms of spending power), which might lead to a reduction in the consumption of jelly donuts.
03

Impact on Jelly Donuts Consumption

Given that rotgut whiskey and jelly donuts are Hicksian substitutes, an increase in the price of whiskey should have led to an increase in the consumption of jelly donuts. However, due to the Giffen's Paradox and the resulting income effect, the consumption of jelly donuts decreases.
04

Goods as Gross Complements

Since an increase in the price of rotgut whiskey leads to a decrease in the consumption of jelly donuts, we can conclude that these goods are also gross complements. The intuitive explanation for this behavior is that the Giffen's Paradox leads to an income effect that is strong enough to override the substitution effect, causing the demand for both goods to decrease as the price of one increases.

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

In general, uncompensated cross-price effects are not equal. That is, \\[\frac{\partial x_{i}}{\partial p_{j}} \neq \frac{\partial x_{j}}{\partial p_{i}}.\\] regardless of relative prices. (This is a generalization of Problem \(6.1 .)\)

Suppose that an individual consumes three goods, \(x_{1}, x_{2},\) and \(x_{3},\) and that \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are similar commodities (i.e., cheap and expensive restaurant meals) with \(p_{2}=k p_{3},\) where \(k < 1-\) that is, the goods' prices have a constant relationship to one another. a. Show that \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) can be treated as a composite commodity. b. Suppose both \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are subject to a transaction cost of \(t\) per unit (for some examples, see Problem 6.6 ). How will this transaction cost affect the price of \(x_{2}\) relative to that of \(x_{3}\) ? How will this effect vary with the value of \(t\) ? c. Can you predict how an income-compensated increase in \(t\) will affect expenditures on the composite commodity \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3} ?\) Does the composite commodity theorem strictly apply to this case? d. How will an income-compensated increase in \(t\) affect how total spending on the composite commodity is allocated between \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3} ?\)

Donald, a frugal graduate student, consumes only coffee ( \(c\) ) and buttered toast (bt). He buys these items at the university cafeteria and always uses two pats of butter for each piece of toast. Donald spends exactly half of his meager stipend on coffee and the other half on buttered toast. a. In this problem, buttered toast can be treated as a composite commodity. What is its price in terms of the prices of butter \(\left(p_{b}\right)\) and toast \(\left(p_{t}\right) ?\) b. Explain why \(\partial c / \partial p_{b t}=0\). c. Is it also true here that \(\partial c / \partial p_{b}\) and \(\partial c / \partial p_{t}\) are equal to \(0 ?\)

In Chapter \(5,\) we showed how the welfare costs of changes in a single price can be measured using expenditure functions and compensated demand curves. This problem asks you to generalize this to price changes in two (or many) goods. a. Suppose that an individual consumes \(n\) goods and that the prices of two of those goods (say, \(p_{1}\) and \(p_{2}\) ) increase. How would you use the expenditure function to measure the compensating variation (CV) for this person of such a price increase? b. A way to show these welfare costs graphically would be to use the compensated demand curves for goods \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) by assuming that one price increased before the other. Illustrate this approach. c. In your answer to part (b), would it matter in which order you considered the price changes? Explain. d. In general, would you think that the CV for a price increase of these two goods would be greater if the goods were net substitutes or net complements? Or would the relationship between the goods have no bearing on the welfare costs?

Heidi receives utility from two goods, goat's milk ( \(m\) ) and strudel (s), according to the utility function \\[U(m, s)=m \cdot s.\\] a. Show that increases in the price of goat's milk will not affect the quantity of strudel Heidi buys; that is, show that \(\partial s / \partial p_{m}=0\). b. Show also that \(\partial m / \partial p_{s}=0\). c. Use the Slutsky equation and the symmetry of net substitution effects to prove that the income effects involved with the derivatives in parts (a) and (b) are identical. d. Prove part (c) explicitly using the Marshallian demand functions for \(m\) and \(s\).

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

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