程序代写代做代考 1. Sets and Sequences

1. Sets and Sequences

Microeconomic Theory -1- Walrasian equilibrium

Walrasian Equilibrium in an exchange economy

1. Homothetic preferences 2

2. Walrasian Equilibrium in an exchange economy 11

3. The market value of attributes 19

Remark: If you prefer you may call a Walrasian Equilibrium a Price-taking Equilibrium

Microeconomic Theory -2- Walrasian equilibrium

1. Homothetic preferences

Analysis of markets is greatly simplified if we are willing to make two strong assumptions

1. Identical strictly increasing utility functions

2. Utility is homothetic

Definition: Homothetic preferences

Homothetic preferences

Preferences are homothetic if for any consumption bundle 1x and 2x preferred to 1x , 2x is

preferred to 1x , for all 0  .

(Scaling up the consumption bundles does not change the preference ranking).

Microeconomic Theory -3- Walrasian equilibrium

A. Homothetic preferences

Analysis of markets is greatly simplified if we are willing to make two strong assumptions

1. Identical strictly increasing utility functions

2. Utility is homothetic

Definition: Homothetic preferences

Preferences are homothetic if for any consumption bundle 1x and 2x preferred to 1x , 2x is

preferred to 1x , for all 0  .

(Scaling up the consumption bundles does not change the preference ranking).

Homothetic utility function

A utility function is homothetic if for any pair of consumption bundles 1x and 2x ,

2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

Remark: The second and third statements follow from the first so you only have to check the first.

Microeconomic Theory -4- Walrasian equilibrium

Slide only for those interested (not covered in the lecture)

Lemma 1: If (1) 2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

then (2) 2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

Proof: 2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x . Appealing to (1), 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 1 2( ) ( )U x U x . Appealing to (1), 1 2( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0  .

Combining these conclusions,

1 2 1( ) ( ) ( )U x U x U x    for all 0  .

Therefore

1 2( ) ( )U x U x  .

Lemma 2: If (1) 2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

then (3) 2 1( ) ( )U x U x implies that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

Sketch of proof: Suppose that 2 1( ) ( )U x U x then 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  for all 0 

Suppose that for some  , 2 1( ) ( )U x U x  . Then show that this contradicts Lemma 1.

Microeconomic Theory -5- Walrasian equilibrium

Proposition: With identical homothetic preferences, market demand is the same as the demand of a

single representative consumer with all of the income.

Proof by contradiction:

Let x be optimal for a consumer with income 1. i.e.

x solves
0

{ ( ) | 1}
x

Max U x p x


  .

Since I x costs I it is a feasible consumption bundle

for a consumer with income I .

Suppose that the bundle is not optimal. Then

x̂ solves
0

{ ( ) | }
x

Max U x p x I


  and ˆ( ) ( )U x U Ix

Microeconomic Theory -6- Walrasian equilibrium

Proposition: With identical homothetic preferences, market demand is the same as the demand of a

single representative consumer with all of the income.

Proof by contradiction:

Let x be optimal for a consumer with income 1. i.e.

x solves
0

{ ( ) | 1}
x

Max U x p x


  . (*)

Ix is a feasible consumption bundle for a consumer with income I .

Suppose that the bundle is not optimal. Then

x̂ solves
0

{ ( ) | }
x

Max U x p x I


  and ˆ( ) ( )U x U Ix

By homotheticity, it follows that

ˆ( ) ( )U x U Ix  for all  .

Setting
1

I
  ,

1
ˆ( ) ( )U x U x



Microeconomic Theory -7- Walrasian equilibrium

Proposition: With identical homothetic preferences, market demand is the same as the demand of a

single representative consumer with all of the income.

Proof by contradiction:

Let x be optimal for a consumer with income 1. i.e.

x solves
0

{ ( ) | 1}
x

Max U x p x


  . (*)

Ix costs I so is a feasible consumption bundle with income I .

Suppose that the bundle is not optimal. Then

x̂ solves
0

{ ( ) | }
x

Max U x p x I


  and ˆ( ) ( )U x U Ix

By homotheticity, it follows that

ˆ( ) ( )U x U Ix  for all  .

Setting
1

I
  ,

1
ˆ( ) ( )U x U x



Since
1

x̂
I

costs 1, it is a feasible consumption bundle for a consumer with income 1.

But then x is not optimal for the consumer with income 1, contradicting (*)

Microeconomic Theory -8- Walrasian equilibrium

Homothetic preferences

For any 0x  and any 0  ( ) ( )MRS x MRS x 

Why?

Microeconomic Theory -9- Walrasian equilibrium

Examples of homothetic utility functions

(i) 1 1 2 2( )U x a x a x a x    , 0a

(ii) 31 21 2 3( ) , 0U x x x x
   

(iii)
1/2 1/2 2

1 2( ) ( )U x x x 

(iv)
1 2 3

1 2 3
( )U x

x x x
  

(v)
2 2

1 2( )U x x x 

Microeconomic Theory -10- Walrasian equilibrium

Definition: Market demand

If ( , ), 1,…,
h hx p I h H uniquely solves

0
{ ( ) | }h h

x
Max U x p x I


  , then the market demand for H

consumers with incomes 1,…, HI I is

( ) ( , )
H

h h

x p x p I




Microeconomic Theory -11- Walrasian equilibrium

Definition: Market demand

If ( , ), 1,…,
h hx p I h H uniquely solves

0
{ ( ) | }h h

x
Max U x p x I


  , the market demand for H

consumers with incomes 1,…, HI I is

( ) ( , )
H

h h

x p x p I




Consider a 2 consumer economy with incomes 1I and 2I .

Proposition: Market demand in a 2 person economy with identical homothetic preferences.

1 2 1 2( , ) ( , ) ( , )x p I x p I x p I I  

Proof:

If ( , )x p I is the demand for a consumer with income I then ( , ) ( ,1)
h hx p I I x p and so

1 2 1 2 1 2( , ) ( , ) ( ,1) ( ( ,1) ( ) ( ,1)x p I x p I I x p I x p I I x p    

Also

1 2 1 2( , ) ( ) ( ,1)x p I I I I x p   .

Microeconomic Theory -12- Walrasian equilibrium

Corollary: Representative consumer

Suppose that consumers have identical strictly increasing homothetic preferences and that

x solves
0

{ ( ) | }
H

x
h

Max U x p x I I




  

Then x is a market demand.

Proof: Follows almost immediately from the proposition

Microeconomic Theory -13- Walrasian equilibrium

B. Walrasian equilibrium (WE) in an exchange economy

In a WE consumer h knows his own endowment and preferences but knows nothing about the

economy except the vector of prices. Consumer h then solves for the set of Walrasian (utility

maximizing) demands ( , )
h hx p  .

The price vector is a WE price vector if there is some WE demand ( , )
h h hx x p  , 1,…,h H such

that the sum of these demands (the market demand) is equal to the total endowment.

Microeconomic Theory -14- Walrasian equilibrium

Walrasian equilibrium (WE) in an exchange economy with identical homothetic preferences

Consider the representative consumer with endowment
1

H
h

 


 . We assume 0 .

Let x be a demand of the representative consumer. Then solves { ( ) | }
x

x Max U x p x p I   

***

Microeconomic Theory -15- Walrasian equilibrium

Walrasian equilibrium (WE) in an exchange economy with identical homothetic preferences

Consider the representative consumer with endowment
1

H
h

 


 . We assume 0 .

Let x be a demand of the representative consumer. Then solves { ( ) | }
x

x Max U x p x p I   

FOC for a maximum.

1 1

1 1
( ) … ( )

n n

U U
x x

p x p x

 
 

 

For p to be a WE price vector markets must clear. With only one consumer, x  .

Therefore the WE prices satisfy

1 1

1 1
( ) … ( )

n n

U U

p x p x
 

 
 

 
.

Note that this only determines relative prices (i.e. price ratios.)

Microeconomic Theory -16- Walrasian equilibrium

Walrasian equilibrium (WE) in an exchange economy with identical homothetic preferences

Consider the representative consumer with endowment
1

H
h

 


 . We assume 0 .

Let x be a demand of the representative consumer. Then solves { ( ) | }
x

x Max U x p x p I   

FOC for a maximum.

1 1

1 1
( ) … ( )

n n

U U
x x

p x p x

 
 

 

For p to be a WE price vector markets must clear. With only one consumer, x  .

Therefore the WE prices satisfy

1 1

1 1
( ) … ( )

n n

U U

p x p x
 

 
 

 
.

Note that this only determines relative prices (i.e. price ratios.)

Above we argued that if consumer h has an endowment of value
h hp I  then

h h

h I Ix x
I I

  , where I is the sum of all the incomes 1 … HI I I  

is a WE demand.

Microeconomic Theory -17- Walrasian equilibrium

Therefore in the WE of the homothetic economy, consumer h consumes a fraction
hI

I
of the

aggregate endowment.

Example: 1 2( ) ln 2ln
h h h hU x x x 

1 (36,6)  2 (12,42) 

Exercise: Use the representative consumer to show that 1 2
3 3

( , )p  is the unique WE price vector

normalized so that the sum of the prices is 1.

Microeconomic Theory -18- Walrasian equilibrium

We know that if income

Goes up by a factor of 

Then so does consumption.

The value of consumer 1’s

endowment is 48 and the

value of consumer 2’s

endowment is 96 so they

consume respectively

1/3 and 2/3 of the aggregate

Endowment.

The trade triangles are depicted in the figure.

Microeconomic Theory -19- Walrasian equilibrium

C. The market value of attributes

In studying industries like the airline industry economist often try to determine the implicit value of

different attributes (for example, air travel: leg-room, percentage on-time arrival etc.)

We now consider a simple example to illustrate.

Each unit of commodity 1 and commodity 2 (flights on different airlines) have different amounts of

two attributes

(attribute A and B)

commodity 1 commodity 2

Attribute A 2 1

Attribute B 1 3

Total endowment 40 20

Microeconomic Theory -20- Walrasian equilibrium

C. The market value of attributes

In studying industries like the airline industry economist often try to determine the implicit value of

different attributes (for example, air travel: leg-room, percentage on-time arrival etc.)

We now consider a simple example to illustrate.

Each unit of commodity 1 and commodity 2 (flights on different airlines) have different amounts of

two attributes

(attribute A and B)

commodity 1 commodity 2

Attribute A 2 1

Attribute B 1 3

Total endowment 40 20

A consumer cares about the quantity of each attribute consumed. Let 1 2 3( , , ,…)x x x be the

consumption choice

1 22 1a x x  , 1 21 3b x x 

3 3 3( , , ,…, ) ln ln ln …..
h h

nU U a b x x a b x   

1 2 1 2 3 3ln(2 ) ln( 3 ) ln …x x x x x     

Microeconomic Theory -21- Walrasian equilibrium

To keep the model simple we assume that every consumer has the same log utility function.

Exercise: Is the log utility function homothetic?

Exercise: Show that the WE price ratio for the first two commodities must be 2

p
 .

An alternative approach

Imagine a market for attributes. What would be the market clearing prices of each attribute?

commodity 1 commodity 2 Total endowment of each attribute

Attribute A 2 1 2 40 1 20 100   
Attribute B 1 3 1 40 3 20 100   

Total commodity endowment 40 20

Let ( , )a b   be the shadow (implicit) price vector for the two attributes.

Exercise: (a) Show that 1b




 .

(b) Using these attribute prices, what is the value of each commodity?

Microeconomic Theory -22- Walrasian equilibrium

Group Exercise

Each unit of commodity 1, 2 and 3 (flights on different airlines) have different amounts of two

attributes

(attribute A and B)

commodity 1 commodity 2 commodity 3

Attribute A 2 1 5

Attribute B 1 3 5

Total endowment 40 20 10

A consumer cares about the quantity of each attribute consumed.

1 2 32 1 5a x x x   , 1 2 31 3 5b x x x  

3( , , ,…, ) ln ln …..
h h

nU U a b x x a b   

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4ln(2 5 ) ln( 3 5 ) ln …x x x x x x x       

Left-hand groups: Solve for the equilibrium prices directly

Right-hand groups: Solve for the shadow prices of each attribute, ( , )a b 

Published by admin

Leave a Reply Cancel reply