Extra Review Session on Perfect Complements

Christopher Makler

Stanford University Department of Economics

Econ 50Q

Today's Agenda

  • Preferences
  • Utility Maximization
  • Cost Minimization

Preferences

Preferences over Tea and Biscuits

Charlotte always has 2 biscuits with every cup of tea;
if she has a plate of biscuits and one cup of tea, she'll only eat two. (And if she has a whole pot of tea and 6 biscuits, she'll stop pouring after 3 cups of tea.)

Each (cup + 2 biscuits) gives her 10 utils of joy.

Which other bundles give her the same utility as
3 cups of tea and 4 biscuits (A)?

Which other bundles give her the same utility as
1 cup of tea and 4 biscuits (B)?

3

6

Any combination that has 4 biscuits
and 2 or more cups of tea

Any combination that has 1 cup of tea and
at 2 or more biscuits

4

5

1

2

3

6

4

5

1

2

A

B

Perfect Complements

Goods that you like to consume
in a constant ratio.

  • Left shoes and right shoes

  • Sugar and tea

u(x_1,x_2) = \min \left\{\frac{x_1}{a},\frac{x_2}{b}\right\}

Utility Maximization

IF...

THEN...

The consumer's preferences are "well behaved"
-- smooth, strictly convex, and strictly monotonic

\(MRS=0\) along the horizontal axis (\(x_2 = 0\))

The budget line is a simple straight line

The optimal consumption bundle will be characterized by two equations:

MRS = \frac{p_1}{p_2}
p_1x_1 + p_2x_2 = m

More generally: the optimal bundle may be found using the Lagrange method

\(MRS \rightarrow \infty\) along the vertical axis (\(x_1 \rightarrow 0\))

p_1 = 4
p_2 = 2
u(x_1,x_2) = 3 \ln x_1 + \ln x_2
m = 48
{p_1 \over p_2} = 2
MRS(x_1,x_2) = {3x_2 \over x_1}

Tangency condition: set MRS = price ratio

Constraint:

{3x_2 \over x_1} = 2
4x_1 + 2x_2 = 48
x_2 = {2 \over 3}x_1

Two equations, two unknowns;
solve like you always have!

What do we do for perfect complements?

u(x_1,x_2)=\min\left\{{x_1 \over a},{x_2 \over b}\right\}

Intuition: utility-maximizing point will always be at the "base of the L" - otherwise you're paying for things that bring you no utility

"Ridge condition"

{x_1 \over a}={x_2 \over b}

(just like a tangency condition)

Plug into the budget constraint:

p_1x_1 + p_2x_2 = m
p_1x_1 + p_2\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ = m
\Rightarrow x_2 = {b \over a}x_1
\left({b \over a}x_1\right)
(ap_1 + bp_2)x_1 = am
x_1^*(p_1,p_2,m)=a \times {m \over ap_1 + bp_2}
x_2^*(p_1,p_2,m)=b \times {m \over ap_1 + bp_2}

What do we do for perfect complements?

u(x_1,x_2)=\min\left\{{x_1 \over a},{x_2 \over b}\right\}

Intuition: utility-maximizing point will always be at the "base of the L" - otherwise you're paying for things that bring you no utility

x_1^*(p_1,p_2,m)=a \times {m \over ap_1 + bp_2}
x_2^*(p_1,p_2,m)=b \times {m \over ap_1 + bp_2}

Q: What is this?

Intuitively: "buy as many bundles of \((a,b)\) as you can."

A: The cost of buying \(a\) units of good 1
         and \(b\) units of good 2

Q: What is this?

A: The maximum amount of
       (\(a\) units of 1, \(b\) units of 2)
       you can buy with income \(m\)

Cost Minimization

Econ 50Q | Review of Perfect Complements

By Chris Makler

Econ 50Q | Review of Perfect Complements

Characteristics of Utility Functions

  • 21