Professional Documents
Culture Documents
64
might like only working a 60 hour week, or like not having to oversee any
employees. He could also like the money that comes with planting 200 acres
and realize he would lose money if he planted more land. When it comes to most
business, we feel comfortable assuming that the primary motivator is pro…t.
Alchian (1950) in his article "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory"
makes the argument that we should employ the pro…t maximization hypothesis
not because it is what …rms actually do, but rather because …rms that do not
approximate pro…t maximization will not survive. Thus as a description of …rm
behavior in the long run the assumption of pro…t maximization will be correct.
65
6.4 How Do Firms Seek To Do What They Want To Do
(Make Money)
Just like individuals do, they do an activity until MB (marginal bene…t) = MC
(marginal cost).
MR, MC
MC
Loss
MR
Profit
MC
MR
Q* Q^ Q
66
Π
Π*
Π2
Π1
Q1 Q* Q2 Q
Mathematically, what can we use to …nd Q*, the point where the pro…t
function is maximized? First of all, let us think about why we want to …nd this
out. What we really want to know is what is the …rm’s pro…t-maximizing level
of output (i.e., the output consistent with MB=MC). So we will want to keep
producing as long as the is increasing when Q is positive.That is, when:
>0 (289)
Q
Conversely, we want to scale back production when increasing production
causes pro…ts to fall
<0 (290)
Q
Logically then, the pro…t maximizing level of output is when
=0 (291)
Q
Well, all the total derivative tells us is the rate of change along the function
when there are only two variables for very small changes in q. In fact derivates
are just the change in one variable as an other variable changes by as the amount
by which it changes (which we can denote by h) approaches zero.
d df lim f (q + h) f (q)
= = (292)
dQ dQ h!0 h
67
With respect to pro…t maximization, Here we can think of the pro…t function
as being pro…t as being a function only of how many units are sold. Mathemat-
ically, we can write this as
= f (q) (293)
So looking at a particular point, Q1 for example, we can see whether the pro…t
function is increasing or decreasing at that point by looking at the derivative of
the function at that point.
d
>0 (294)
dQj Q=Q1
Which is obvious from the picture since pro…ts are increasing at point Q1 if we
increase Q. What about at Q2? Well, as output increases pro…ts fall, so
d
<0 (295)
dQj Q=Q1
d
=0 (296)
dQj Q=Q
So …nding the point where the pro…t function is maximized is found by taking
the total derivative of the pro…t function and setting it equal to zero.
d dR dc
= =0 (299)
dq dq dq
d
Rearranging terms on the RHS, we see that dq = 0 (is optimized) when
dR dc
= (300)
dq dq
Which is our MR=MC condition, since
dR
= MR (301)
dq
68
and
dc
= MC (302)
dq
Here is an example of a more realistic pro…t function with …xed costs (and thus
losses).
Profits
q* q
Losses
y = f (L; K) (303)
The production function de…nes our isoquant curves. Each isoquant gives you
all the combinations of K and KL that give you the same quantity of Y. (Note:
"iso" means "the same", hence "the same quantity"). So thinking of y = 1 we
can …gure out what combinations of K and L achieve that level out output given
the nature of the production function.
69
L K Y
1 1 1
1
2 2 1
1
2 2 1
1/2
Y=1
1/2 1 2 L
We can do the same thing with y = 2, y = 3, and so on. Just as there are
an in…nite number of indi¤erence curves radiating out from the origin, there are
in…nite number of isoquants, limited only by the "lumpiness" of the production
process.
70
6.6 ISOCOST Curves
Just as individuals are constrained by their budget, we can think of …rms being
constrained by costs. So let’s say that the …rm has $100 to spend on K and L.
If the price of K is r and the price of L is w, then
wL + rK = c (305)
Let c = $100. then solving for K
100 w
K= L (306)
r r
What is the slope of the isocost curve? Taking the derivative of K with respect
to L yields
dK w
= (307)
dL r
thus the isocost curve is a straight line with a slope of wr and a vertical intercept
of 100
r . This is our isocost line for total costs equal $100. Isocost lines are all
the combinations of K and L that cost the same.
100
r
Slope = - w
r
100 L
w
71
There are generally two types of marginal physical products employed, they
are:
We’ll use both of the shortened terms for these. How do we measure the
marginal change of one variable on another holding all other variables constant?
That’s right, using partial derivatives. We’ll …nd the following:
@f (L; K)
M PK = (308)
@K
@f (L; K)
M PK = (309)
@K
An Example: Bob Tollision is currently using 5 units of labor and 10 units
of capital. Given the following production function
Taking the partial derivative with respect to L and setting equal to zero yields
@f (L; K)
= 120; 000L 3000L2 = 0 (312)
@L
Thus, moving from L=5 to L=6 we can expect output to increase by
72
worker would actually lower output (think about people getting in each other’s
way, etc.)
What about K?
Setting L=5
f (L; K) = 15; 000K 2 125K 3 (317)
@f (L; K)
= 30; 000K 375K 2 = 0 (318)
@K
So moving from K=10 to K=11 yields:
Thus adding one more unit of capital from (5,10) increases output by 284,625
units (whatever they are). Note that this doesn’t tell us whether this is a good
idea or not, because we haven’t factored in what a unit of labor or a unit of
capital costs. This just tells us what the value of adding an additional unit of
homogenous capital will give us.
Solving the MPK equation for K gives us the point where output reaches its
maximum value.
375K 2 = 30; 000K (320)
30000
K= (321)
375
K = 80 (322)
Thus K=80 is the point where output reaches its maximum value.
The marginal product of labor is just the slope of the production function
holding other other factors (K) constant.
73
Y
Slope = MPL
L (# of workers)
74
Note that this is not telling us that we should not hire the 21st worker. What it
is telling us is that the contribution to output of the 21st worker is 6000 fewer
than the 20th worker. Note that if we took the second order condition and set
it equal to zero we could get the point where diminishing marginal returns set
in
@ 2 f (L; K)
= 120000 6000L = 0 (327)
@L2
120000 = 6000L (328)
L = 20 (329)
So at K=10, any workers beyond 20 add less to output than the preceding
workers.
What about capital?
@f (L; K)
= 30000K 375K 2 (330)
@K
@ 2 f (L; K)
= 30000 750K (331)
@K 2
@ 2 f (L; K)
= 30000 750(10) = 22500 (332)
@K 2 K=10
So diminshing marginal productivity of capital has not set in yet either. At
what point will it decline? Let’s try K=41
@ 2 f (L; K)
= 30000 750 41 = 750 (333)
@K 2 K=41
It would appear at K=40 diminishing marginal returns begin to set in. Note
that this does not mean that additional units of capital do not increase ouput.
That point is K=80.
Diminishing marginal productivity is why the production function ‡attens
out as more and more variable inputs are added (holding all others constant).
75
7.1 Technical Rate of Substitution (TRS)
De…nition 2 The Technical Rate of Substitution shows the rate at which
labor can be substituted for capital while holding output constant along an iso-
quant.
Mathematically,
dK
T RSLK = (334)
dL y=y
dK M PL @f (L; K)=@L
T RSLK = = = (335)
dL y=y M PK @f (L; K)=@K
f (L; K) = y (336)
@f (L; K) @f (L; K)
dL + dK = dy (337)
@L @K
However, note that dy = 0 since we are treating it like a constant. Thus
@f (L; K) @f (L; K)
dL + dK = 0 (338)
@L @K
Rearranging:
@f (L; K) @f (L; K)
dL = dK (339)
@L @K
Rearranging some more:
@f (L;K)
dK @K
= @f (L;K)
(340)
dL
@L
Which proves that
M PL
T RSLK = (341)
M PK
76
Recall that the prduction function is
y = f (L; K) (343)
So total revenues equal
T R = pf (L; K) (344)
Then recall that a typical cost function looks like
T C = wL + rK (345)
Just as in the consumer theory, we can set up the producer’s optimization
problem using the Lagrangian.
L = pf (L; K) + [T C wL + rK] (346)
Taking the partial derivatives of the pro…t function with respect to L and K
and ;we get our …rst order conditions (FOCs).
@ @f (L; K)
=p w=0 (347)
@L @L
@ @f (L; K)
=p r=0 (348)
@K @K
@
= T C wL + rK = 0 (349)
@
Here I want to focus attention just on the …rst two FOCs. Let’s isolate w and
r and then divide one by the other, yielding
w p @f (L;K)
@L
= @f (L;K) (350)
r p @K
Prices cancel out and we are left with
@f (L;K)
w @L
= @f (L;K)
(351)
r
@K
Which is equal to
w M PL
= (352)
r M PK
This equation tells us that in order to maximize output, we must use inputs in a
combination so that the ratio of their marginal products equals the ratio of their
relative prices. Note the similarity to the fact that consumers must equalize the
marginal utility of their consumption of a good relative to it’s price level across
all goods consumed. Perhaps the relationship is clearer if we rewrite the above
equation this way:
M PK M PL
= (353)
r w
The economic intuition behind this is if you are using one good that has a low
M PK
r ratio relative to the MwPL ratio, you would be dumb not to shift your
production to utilize more of the product the input that gives you higher ouput
per cost.
77
7.3 Cost Minimization (Generic example)
Most often in the real world entrepreneurs has a certain level of output to
produce and wants to …nd the least costly way of doing so. For example, a
developer might have space to build 10 homes and wants to miminize the costs
of producting those 10 homes. So again we have a production function
y = f (L; K) (354)
and the …rms has to pay w in wages per worker and r to rent machinery so the
total cost function is:
T C = wL + rK (355)
If the developer wants to minimize costs subject to a …xed level of output (y),
then we can set this up as an cost minimization problem using the Lagrangian.
FOCs:
@L @f (L; K)
=w =0 (357)
@L @L
@L @f (L; K)
=r =0 (358)
@K @K
@L
= y f (L; K) = 0 (359)
@
Since both of the …rst 2 FOCS are equal to 0, we can set them equal to each
other
@f (L; K) @f (L; K)
w =r (360)
@L @K
Simplifying
@f (L;K)
w @L
= @f (L;K) (361)
r
@K
Note that this is the same optimality condition that we found from the pro…t-
maximizing approach. Thus the optimality conditions to maximize output sub-
ject to a cost constraint are exactly the same as the optimality conditions
when we minimize cost subject to an output constraint. Again, this is know
as the principle of duality. We encountered this previously with the con-
sumer optimization problem, but the principle of duality basically says that
any constrained maximization problem has associated with it a dual problem in
constrained minimization. Both approaches should yield the same answer, but
which approach to use will depend on the circumstances at hand.
78
7.4 Pro…t Maximization (Numerical Example)
y = f (L; K) = L0:5 K 0:4 (362)
108; 000 = 4000L + 3000K (363)
79
7.5 Cost Minimization (Numerical Example)
Let’s approach this problem from the cost minimization side to illustrate the
principle of duality.
y = f (L; K) = (15)0:5 (16)0:4 (385)
Gives us y = 11:741.So we can say what levels of K and L minimizes cost for
that level of production. Setting up the Lagrangian:
@L
= 4000 0:5 L 0:5 K 0:4 (387)
@L
@L
= 3000 0:4 L0:5 K 0:6 (388)
@K
@L
= 11:741 L0:5 K 0:4 (389)
@
From the …rst two FOCs:
4000 0:5 L 0:5 K 0:4
= (390)
3000 0:4 L0:5 K 0:6
K
1:3333 = 1:25 (391)
L
K = 1:064L (392)
Plugging into the 3rd FOC:
0:4
11:741 L0:5 (1:064L) =0 (393)
80