Relier Pairs 3. PreferencesVersion en ligne Intermediate Microeconomics 8th Edition: A Modern Approach par Shaner Adams 1 What is your marginal rate of substitution of $1 bills for $5 bills? 2 A college football coach says that given any two linemen A and B, he always prefers the one who is bigger and faster. Is this preference relation transitive? Is it complete? 3 Take the same group of people and consider the relation “strictly taller than.” Is this relation transitive? Is it reflexive? Is it complete? 4 If both pepperoni and anchovies are bads, will the indifference curve have a positive or a negative slope? 5 If we observe a consumer choosing (x1, x2) when (y1, y2) is available one time, are we justified in concluding that (x1, x2) (y1, y2)? 6 If good 1 is a “neutral,” what is its marginal rate of substitution for good 2? 7 Could Figure 3.2 be a single indifference curve if preferences are monotonic? 8 Think of some other goods for which your preferences might be concave. 9 Consider a group of people A, B, C and the relation “at least as tall as,” as in “A is at least as tall as B.” Is this relation transitive? Is it complete? 10 Explain why convex preferences means that “averages are preferred to extremes.” 11 Can an indifference curve cross itself? For example, could Figure 3.2 depict a single indifference curve? Because the consumer weakly prefers the weighted average of two bundles to either bundle. If you give up one $5 bill, how many $1 bills do you need to compensate you? Five $1 bills will do nicely. Hence the answer is −5 or −1/5, depending on which good you put on the horizontal axis. Yes to both. It is transitive, but it is not complete—two people might be the same height. It is not reflexive since it is false that a person is strictly taller than himself. It is transitive, but not complete. What if A were bigger but slower than B? Which one would he prefer? Anchovies and peanut butter, scotch and Kool Aid, and other similar repulsive combinations. No. It might be that the consumer was indifferent between the two bundles. All we are justified in concluding is that (x1, x2) (y1, y2). Zero—if you take away some of good 1, the consumer needs zero units of good 2 to compensate him for his loss. A negative slope. If you give the consumer more anchovies, you’ve made him worse off, so you have to take away some pepperoni to get him back on his indifference curve. In this case the direction of increasing utility is toward the origin. Yes. An indifference curve can cross itself, it just can’t cross another distinct indifference curve. No, because there are bundles on the indifference curve that have strictly more of both goods than other bundles on the (alleged) indifference curve.
Créer jeu