Skip to ContentGo to accessibility pageKeyboard shortcuts menu
OpenStax Logo
Principles of Economics 2e

Chapter 6

Principles of Economics 2eChapter 6

1.

The rows of the table in the problem do not represent the actual choices available on the budget set; that is, the combinations of round trips and phone minutes that Jeremy can afford with his budget. One of the choices listed in the problem, the six round trips, is not even available on the budget set. If Jeremy has only $10 to spend and a round trip costs $2 and phone calls cost $0.05 per minute, he could spend his entire budget on five round trips but no phone calls or 200 minutes of phone calls, but no round trips or any combination of the two in between. It is easy to see all of his budget options with a little algebra. The equation for a budget line is:

Budget = P RT ×   Q RT   +   P PC   ×   Q PC Budget = P RT ×   Q RT   +   P PC   ×   Q PC

where P and Q are price and quantity of round trips (RT) and phone calls (PC) (per minute). In Jeremy’s case the equation for the budget line is:

$10 = $2  ×  Q RT   +  $.05  ×  Q PC $10 $.05 = $2Q RT   +   $.05Q PC   $.05 200 = 40Q RT   +  Q PC Q PC = 200  -  40Q RT $10 = $2  ×  Q RT   +  $.05  ×  Q PC $10 $.05 = $2Q RT   +   $.05Q PC   $.05 200 = 40Q RT   +  Q PC Q PC = 200  -  40Q RT

If we choose zero through five round trips (column 1), the table below shows how many phone minutes can be afforded with the budget (column 3). The total utility figures are given in the table below.

Round Trips Total Utility for Trips Phone Minutes Total Utility for Minutes Total Utility
0     0 200 1100 1100
1   80 160 1040 1120
2 150 120   900 1050
3 210   80   680   890
4 260   40   380   640
5 300     0       0   300

Adding up total utility for round trips and phone minutes at different points on the budget line gives total utility at each point on the budget line. The highest possible utility is at the combination of one trip and 160 minutes of phone time, with a total utility of 1120.

2.

The first step is to use the total utility figures, shown in the table below, to calculate marginal utility, remembering that marginal utility is equal to the change in total utility divided by the change in trips or minutes.

Round Trips Total Utility Marginal Utility (per trip) Phone Minutes Total Utility Marginal Utility (per minute)
0     0 - 200 1100 -
1   80 80 160 1040   60/40 = 1.5
2 150 70 120 900 140/40 = 3.5
3 210 60   80 680 220/40 = 5.5
4 260 50   40 380 300/40 = 7.5
5 300 40     0     0 380/40 = 9.5

Note that we cannot directly compare marginal utilities, since the units are trips versus phone minutes. We need a common denominator for comparison, which is price. Dividing MU by the price, yields columns 4 and 8 in the table below.

Round Trips Total Utility Marginal Utility (per trip) MU/P Phone Minutes Total Utility Marginal utility (per minute) MU/P
0 0 - - 200 1100 60/40 = 1.5 1.5/$0.05 = 30
1   80 80 80/$2 = 40 160 1040 140/40 = 3.5 3.5/$0.05 = 70
2 150 70 70/$2 = 35 120   900 220/40 = 5.5 5.5/$0.05 = 110
3 210 60 60/$2 = 30   80   680 300/40 =7.5 7.5/$0.05 = 150
4 260 50 50/$2 = 25   40   380 380/40 = 9.5 9.5/$0.05 = 190
5 300 40 40/$2 = 20    0      0 - -

Start at the bottom of the table where the combination of round trips and phone minutes is (5, 0). This starting point is arbitrary, but the numbers in this example work best starting from the bottom. Suppose we consider moving to the next point up. At (4, 40), the marginal utility per dollar spent on a round trip is 25. The marginal utility per dollar spent on phone minutes is 190.

Since 25 < 190, we are getting much more utility per dollar spent on phone minutes, so let’s choose more of those. At (3, 80), MU/PRT is 30 < 150 (the MU/PM), but notice that the difference is narrowing. We keep trading round trips for phone minutes until we get to (1, 160), which is the best we can do. The MU/P comparison is as close as it is going to get (40 vs. 70). Often in the real world, it is not possible to get MU/P exactly equal for both products, so you get as close as you can.

3.

This is the opposite of the example explained in the text. A decrease in price has a substitution effect and an income effect. The substitution effect says that because the product is cheaper relative to other things the consumer purchases, he or she will tend to buy more of the product (and less of the other things). The income effect says that after the price decline, the consumer could purchase the same goods as before, and still have money left over to purchase more. For both reasons, a decrease in price causes an increase in quantity demanded.

4.

This is a negative income effect. Because your parents’ check failed to arrive, your monthly income is less than normal and your budget constraint shifts in toward the origin. If you only buy normal goods, the decrease in your income means you will buy less of every product.

Order a print copy

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Citation/Attribution

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Attribution information
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:
    Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-2e/pages/1-introduction
  • If you are redistributing all or part of this book in a digital format, then you must include on every digital page view the following attribution:
    Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-2e/pages/1-introduction
Citation information

© Jun 15, 2022 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.