Monday, November 28, 2016
186. PPF
The formal definition of the Production Possibilities Frontier is:
The boundary between what (goods and services) is possible to produce with the limited available resource and that combination of goods which is not able to be produced with those resources (factors of production - capital, land, labour and entrepreneurship) at the current time with the current state of technology.
These inputs to the production process (capital, land, labour and entrepreneurship) are the traditional (and not so traditional in the form of entrepreneurship that encompass ALL things used in the production process - they are scarce in the sense that some effort/value needs to be expended in order to transform and combine them in such a way that they are more valuable in meeting the more or less unlimited needs that people have to sustain life and in the pursuit of their happiness.
In order to illustrate this scarcity we imagine the production of only two products by a production unit (this could be a person, a farm or factory or even a country). For illustration purposes we choose barrels of BEER and baskets of BREAD.
We plot this representation of the possible combinations of the two goods with constant resources and technology on a graph like this:
If all of the country's resources were applied to the production of bread 100 baskets of bread could be produced, nothing more (ceteris paribus). However if all of the same resources were allocated to the production of beer, 80 barrels of beer could be produced.
This indicates the effect of scarcity - nothing more could be produced of each product because of the limitations placed by the scarcity of resources.
Also, if the country would want to choose to produce a combination of these products, the production of the one product will have to be sacrificed in order to produce the other product. For example, if 40 baskets of bread is produced, at least 10 barrels of beer would have to be sacrificed (given up). This amount that is not produced is called the opportunity cost - the cost that needs to be incurred (that which is given up) to allow the production of bread. (This reality led to the acronym TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
The point 90 barrels of beer and 40 baskets of bread is again a production possibilities frontier. More of either can be produced without sacrificing some of the other. What is interesting to note is that if even bread is required an even larger sacrifice of beer is required - which means that the bread is becoming more "expensive" - towards the bottom right hand side of the graph an enormous sacrifice of bread is required to achieve a relatively small increase in the production of bread. The opportunity cost has escalated.
This is illustrated in the following figure:
The reason for this phenomenon will be discussed elsewhere - more advanced learners may want to explore the concept of the marginal rate of transformation (start with the Wikipedia article on the subject) Also look at article 145 in this section.
In short - The shape of the PPF (concave to the origin) is also an explanation of the law of diminishing returns and it occurs because not all factor inputs are equally suited to producing all items
. A barrel is more suited to the brewing of beer than the production of bread. Therefore applying it for that function will not affect bread production a lot but greatly contribute to the production of bread - the PPF will therefore be almost vertical if bread is depicted on the x-axis and beer on the y-axis and this production factor is moved from producing bread to beer. What is important to note is that the reverse argument follows the same pattern. For every increase in the beer production one would have to sacrifice bread. In the beginning what you give up in bread for relatively large quantities of beer is small, but the opportunity increases as one moves up along the PPF. All points on the PPF indicates full productive efficiency. There is however one point where the there is not a maximal use of resources, but an optimal use of resources in relation to cost - that is where the marginal cost of the bread is equal the marginal cost of the beer (where the cost of producing the next unit of beer equals the cost of producing the next unit of bread - this point is called the point of allocative efficiency - also called Pareto efficiency (this excludes the value of the produced units - this concept too will be explored elsewhere). An outward shift of the PPF results from growth of the availability of inputs, such as physical capital or labour or technological progress in knowledge of how to transform inputs into outputs. Such a shift reflects economic growth of an economy already operating at its full productivity (on the PPF), which means that more of both outputs can be produced during the specified period of time without sacrificing the output of either good. Conversely, the PPF will shift inward if the labor force shrinks, the supply of raw materials is depleted, or a natural disaster decreases the stock of physical capital. So to summarise: Scarcity is illustrated by the fact that there is an are outside the PPF that is unattainable and e efficiency level - on the PPF the productively efficient level means that to produce more of one product one has to sacrifice the production of the other product. Below that level - the points beneath the curve indicates inefficiency. So points on the frontier indicates efficient use of the available inputs; and there choice needs to be exercised when deciding the quantities to be produced. Items need to be forgone of one product in the production of the other product can be viewed as the opportunity cost and the relationship of these change along the PPF - the one product becomes more expensive in relation to the other - this leads to one point on the PPF where the use of resources are optimised. In its microeconomic applications, the PPF graph shows the various combinations of amounts of two commodities that a production unit can produce in a give time period (such as number of guns vs. kilograms of butter) using a fixed amount of the factors of production, given the available technology. (to be continued...)
If all of the country's resources were applied to the production of bread 100 baskets of bread could be produced, nothing more (ceteris paribus). However if all of the same resources were allocated to the production of beer, 80 barrels of beer could be produced.
This indicates the effect of scarcity - nothing more could be produced of each product because of the limitations placed by the scarcity of resources.
Also, if the country would want to choose to produce a combination of these products, the production of the one product will have to be sacrificed in order to produce the other product. For example, if 40 baskets of bread is produced, at least 10 barrels of beer would have to be sacrificed (given up). This amount that is not produced is called the opportunity cost - the cost that needs to be incurred (that which is given up) to allow the production of bread. (This reality led to the acronym TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
The point 90 barrels of beer and 40 baskets of bread is again a production possibilities frontier. More of either can be produced without sacrificing some of the other. What is interesting to note is that if even bread is required an even larger sacrifice of beer is required - which means that the bread is becoming more "expensive" - towards the bottom right hand side of the graph an enormous sacrifice of bread is required to achieve a relatively small increase in the production of bread. The opportunity cost has escalated.
This is illustrated in the following figure:
The reason for this phenomenon will be discussed elsewhere - more advanced learners may want to explore the concept of the marginal rate of transformation (start with the Wikipedia article on the subject) Also look at article 145 in this section.
In short - The shape of the PPF (concave to the origin) is also an explanation of the law of diminishing returns and it occurs because not all factor inputs are equally suited to producing all items. A barrel is more suited to the brewing of beer than the production of bread. Therefore applying it for that function will not affect bread production a lot but greatly contribute to the production of bread - the PPF will therefore be almost vertical if bread is depicted on the x-axis and beer on the y-axis and this production factor is moved from producing bread to beer. What is important to note is that the reverse argument follows the same pattern. For every increase in the beer production one would have to sacrifice bread. In the beginning what you give up in bread for relatively large quantities of beer is small, but the opportunity increases as one moves up along the PPF. All points on the PPF indicates full productive efficiency. There is however one point where the there is not a maximal use of resources, but an optimal use of resources in relation to cost - that is where the marginal cost of the bread is equal the marginal cost of the beer (where the cost of producing the next unit of beer equals the cost of producing the next unit of bread - this point is called the point of allocative efficiency - also called Pareto efficiency (this excludes the value of the produced units - this concept too will be explored elsewhere). An outward shift of the PPF results from growth of the availability of inputs, such as physical capital or labour or technological progress in knowledge of how to transform inputs into outputs. Such a shift reflects economic growth of an economy already operating at its full productivity (on the PPF), which means that more of both outputs can be produced during the specified period of time without sacrificing the output of either good. Conversely, the PPF will shift inward if the labor force shrinks, the supply of raw materials is depleted, or a natural disaster decreases the stock of physical capital. So to summarise: Scarcity is illustrated by the fact that there is an are outside the PPF that is unattainable and e efficiency level - on the PPF the productively efficient level means that to produce more of one product one has to sacrifice the production of the other product. Below that level - the points beneath the curve indicates inefficiency. So points on the frontier indicates efficient use of the available inputs; and there choice needs to be exercised when deciding the quantities to be produced. Items need to be forgone of one product in the production of the other product can be viewed as the opportunity cost and the relationship of these change along the PPF - the one product becomes more expensive in relation to the other - this leads to one point on the PPF where the use of resources are optimised. In its microeconomic applications, the PPF graph shows the various combinations of amounts of two commodities that a production unit can produce in a give time period (such as number of guns vs. kilograms of butter) using a fixed amount of the factors of production, given the available technology. (to be continued...)
Sunday, November 27, 2016
185. Economics textbook
Thursday, November 3, 2016
183. "Rules" of profit maximisation
The “rules” referred to in the question “The goal of any firm is to maximise profit, discus the two rules of profit maximisation for a firm (15 marks)”
Are:
Where MR intersects MC (MR-=MC) in the supply curve of the firm.
And the “shut down” (or close down point) – where MC intersects the AVC (average variable cost).
If you need further explanation – talk to me.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
182. Economic profit and normal profit
4.Economic profit and normal profit
The four (classic) factors of production are:
Land
Labour
Capital
Entrepreneurship.
The remuneration for each are
Rent
Wages
Interest
Profit
These also form the costs to a firm.
When income equals cost it INCLUDES the remuneration to the entrepreneur = profit. This profit is called “normal” profit. It would be equivalent to what the entrepreneur would have earned had he spent his/her time and effort on the next best activity.
It is however not the goal of the entrepreneur to just earn normal profit – he wants to maximize profit – and that is where ones understanding of the “supply curve of the firm” is useful. It shows you how a firm can make “economic profit” in the short term under prefect market conditions – and maximum profit is attained not where the profit per unit is the greatest, but where MC (marginal cost) = MR (marginal revenue).
See if you understand the “supply curve of the firm”.
Let me know if you need help here.
181. Views that economists hold.
There are many divergent views that economist hold.
Economics is a social science.
Economists assist us in explaining and predicting as well as informing economic policy.
If one takes a phenomenon such as “Unemployment” one will find economists with differing viewpoints having different views and make different predictions regarding the impact of a policy such as the imposition of a minimum wage. As a science it cannot follow the scientific method in the sense that one cannot conduct controlled experiments. There are however numerous “natural” experiments from which one can make certain deductions.
By following a logical reasoning process many deductions can however be made – many of these have become “laws”, such as the law of demand that states that the quantity demanded will reduce as the price of a good increases (ceteris paribus).
Mohr and Fourie (2004, p11) state in their textbook “Economics for South African students” why economists tend to disagree on certain important issues. This is what they say:
• They might make different value judgements
• They may not agree on the facts
• They may be biased
• The may hold different views on how the economy operates
• They may have different time perspectives.
I would suggest that you have a look at these and perhaps explore some of the differing viewpoints of say the “Austrian” and “Keynesian” approaches.
I hope this helps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)