07.09.2017 Views

David K.H. Begg, Gianluigi Vernasca-Economics-McGraw Hill Higher Education (2011)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CHAPTER 5 Consumer choice and demand decisions<br />

U'<br />

If indifference curves intersected, the consumer<br />

would be indifferent between X and Yon the<br />

indifference curve UU, and between Y and Z<br />

on U'U', and hence indifferent between X and<br />

Z. Since Z ofters more of both goods than X, this<br />

violates the assumption that consumers prefer<br />

more to less. Indifference curves cannot intersect.<br />

Meals<br />

Figure 5.4<br />

Indifference curves cannot intersect<br />

Furthermore it should be noticed that, if indifference curves cross, the assumption regarding the transitivity<br />

of tastes will not hold. If X is indifferent to Y and Y is indifferent to Z, then by the logical consistency of<br />

tastes we should have that Xis indifferent to Z. However, we know that Z should be preferred to X because<br />

of the assumption that consumers prefer more to less.<br />

Our assumptions about consumer tastes rule out intersecting indifference curves.<br />

Other contour maps<br />

II<br />

When you look at a good map, you will see concentric rings or contours, each showing points of<br />

equal height. They are like indifference curves but do not have to obey the law of diminishing<br />

marginal rate of substitution and hence have stranger shapes. But they never intersect. Different contours are<br />

different heights.<br />

As you rise through successive contours, you reach<br />

a dot marking the top of the mountain. In economics,<br />

we hardly ever reach the top. People are rarely<br />

satiated. But an indifference map for champagne and<br />

lobster might look like a mountain. Too much of<br />

either, and you are sick. The dot for the absolute<br />

best, or bliss, point, equivalent to the top of the<br />

mountain, then shows the finite combination of<br />

champagne and lobster preferred above all others,<br />

however much is available. We are now violating our<br />

assumption that the consumer always prefers more<br />

to less. The part of the contour sloping up corresponds<br />

to the range in which more is no longer better.<br />

For broad categories of commodities, we are never<br />

satiated. It is as if we are confined to the shaded area<br />

of the diagram.<br />

><br />

"'D<br />

0<br />

m<br />

-<br />

0<br />

?:-<br />

·.;::::<br />

c:<br />

a<br />

:::»<br />

a<br />

Quantity of good H<br />

Bliss<br />

96

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!