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

Show that if there are only two goods (Xand \(F\) ) to choose from, both cannot be inferior goods. If Xis inferior, how do changes in income affect the demand for \(\mathrm{F}\) ?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Explain the effect on the demand for good F when good X is an inferior good. Answer: No, both goods X and F cannot be inferior goods in a two-good economy. When good X is an inferior good, good F must be a normal good. In this scenario, as the consumer's income increases, demand for good X decreases, and they will substitute it with good F. As a result, the demand for good F increases when the income increases.

Step by step solution

01

Define an inferior good

An inferior good is a good for which the demand decreases as the consumer's income increases. This is due to the fact that when income increases, consumers tend to replace inferior goods with more desired (normal) goods. Formally, an inferior good can be defined as one where the income elasticity of demand is negative.
02

Introduce the income-consumption curve

The income-consumption curve represents the relationship between a consumer's income and their optimal consumption bundle given their budget constraint and preferences. In a two-good economy consisting of goods X and F, as the consumer's income increases, they will adjust their consumption of X and F to maximize their utility.
03

Show that not both goods can be inferior

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that both goods X and F are inferior goods. In this case, as the consumer's income increases, they will buy less of both goods. However, this creates a contradiction, since the consumer's income must be spent on the two goods. As their income increases, they cannot decrease their consumption of both goods indefinitely because they have to spend their entire budget, and there are only two goods available. Therefore, we conclude that both goods X and F cannot be inferior goods.
04

Understand the scenario where good X is inferior

Now we consider the case where good X is an inferior good. In this scenario, as the consumer's income increases, they will decrease their consumption of good X and substitute it with another good, in this case, good F.
05

Determine the effect of changes in income on the demand for good F

As established in step 3, if good X is inferior, good F must be a normal good. Since F is a normal good, the income elasticity of demand for good F will be positive. Therefore, when income increases, consumers will substitute away from the inferior good X and increase their consumption of the normal good F. As a result, changes in income will have a positive effect on the demand for good F. In conclusion, it has been shown that in a two-good economy with goods X and F, both goods cannot be inferior. If good X is inferior, good F must be a normal good, and demand for good F will increase with an increase in income.

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

Thirsty Ed drinks only pure spring water, but he can purchase it in two different-sized containers -75 liter and 2 liter. Because the water itself is identical, he regards these two "goods" as perfect substitutes. a. Assuming Ed's utility depends only on the quantity of water consumed and that the con tainers themselves yield no utility, express this utility function in terms of quantities of 75L containers \((X)\) and \(2 \mathrm{L}\) containers (F) b. State Ed's demand function for \(X\) in terms of \(P_{x}, P_{Y}\), and 1 c. Graph the demand curve for \(X\), holding /and \(P_{v}\) constant. How do changes in /and \(P\) shift the demand curve for \(X ?\) e. What would the compensated demand curve for Xlook like in this situation?

As defined in Chapter \(3,\) an indifference map is homothetic if any straight line through the origin cuts all indifference curves at points of equal slope: The \(M R S\) depends on the ratio \(Y / X\) a. Prove that in this case \(d X / d\)lis constant. b. Prove that if an individual's tastes can be represented by a homothetic indifference map, price and quantity must move in opposite directions; that is, prove that Giffen's paradox cannot occur

As in Example \(5.1,\) assume that utility is given by \\[ \text { utility }=U(X, Y)=X^{3} Y^{\prime} \\] a. Use the uncompensated demand functions given in Example 5.1 to compute the indi rect utility function and the expenditure function for this case. b. Use the expenditure function calculated in part (a) together with Shephard's lemma (footnote 5 ) to compute the compensated demand function for good \(X\) c. Use the results from part (b) together with the uncompensated demand function for good Xto show that the Slutsky equation holds for this case.

Suppose the individual's utility function for three goods, \(X_{1}, X_{2},\) and \(X_{1},\) is "separable"; that is, assume that \\[ U\left(X_{1}, X_{2}, X_{3}\right)=U_{1}\left(X_{1}\right)+U_{z}\left(X_{2}\right)+U_{3}\left(X_{3}\right) \\] and $\boldsymbol{U}_{i}^{\prime}>0 \quad \boldsymbol{U}_{i}^{m}<\mathbf{0} \quad\( for \)i=\mathbf{1}, 2,$ or 3 Show that a. None of the goods can be inferior; b. \(\quad \partial X_{i} / \partial P_{i}\) must be \(<0\) In the Chapter 6 extensions we examine this separable utility case in more detail.

David N. gets \(\$ 3\) per week as an allowance to spend any way he pleases. Because he likes only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, he spends the entire amount on peanut butter (at \(\$ .05\) per ounce and jelly (at \(\$ .10\) per ounce). Bread is provided free of charge by a concerned neighbor. David is a particular eater and makes his sandwiches with exactly 1 ounce of jelly and 2 ounces of peanut butter. He is set in his ways and will never change these proportions. a How much peanut butter and jelly will David buy with his \(\$ 3\) allowance in a week? b. Suppose the price of jelly were to rise to \(\$ .15\) an ounce. How much of each commodity would be bought? c. By how much should David's allowance be increased to compensate for the rise in the price of jelly in part (b)? d Graph your results in parts (a) to (c). e. In what sense does this problem involve only a single commodity, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Graph the demand curve for this single commodity. f. Discuss the results of this problem in terms of the income and substitution effects in volved in the demand for jelly.

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