Skip to main content

Marginal Thinking (part III)- Comments on utility maximization

 §1. I begin with few properties of Indifference curve (IC). one is higher the indifference curve higher utility of any particular consumer it gives. Second, it follows diminishing marginal rate of substitution when compared two goods in single IC. Let us assume two goods X and Y are being assessed for maximizing utility by Consumer Ram parsad. IC under consideration increased in such a fashion it is increased by 10 units of utility as it goes away from the origin or every increasing budget lines of Ram parsad can achieve such ICs. IC1 is supposed to give 10 units of utility and hence IC2 and so on 20 units of utilities and 30 and so on. (this blog will work even if such increase in utility is on diminishing rate in way to give {10,10+9,29+8,...})


§2. I think Budget constraint is only relevant when making decision about actual exchange for payment. for deciding individual's utility on the given quantity of goods, it is irrelevant to judge with ability to pay rather it should be on the basis of willingness to pay. willingness to pay also work for budget constraint decision. however, utility that any consumer wants to derive based on past experience or just on the basis of imagination is totally consumer's choice irrespective of budget constraints. Eg. How many hours Ram parsad wants to watch movie is independent whether or not he has ability to pay for Netflix. Ram parsad will decide whether or not to watch movie on Netflix, though depends upon his ability to pay. 

Hence, budget constraint helps to determine how much can be consumed. i.e. in which IC one consumer will land. but numbers of ICs are independent of budget constraint. 

§3. Suppose initially Ram parsad by tangency of Budget constraint and IC1 derive 10 units of utility by having 10 units of good X and 20 units of good Y. In IC1, if ram parsad wants to increase consumption of X then he will sacrifice consumption of good Y but in diminishing rate, i.e. if 15 units of X to be consumed by sacrificing 5 more units of Y then increasing further 5 units of X's consumption he will sacrifice less than 5 units of Y. 

it shows that for gaining 10 units of utility for different units of X (when quantity of X to be increased) should be exchanged in diminishing rate of exchange with that of Y's consumption.

§4. No suppose, due to increase in income and by fulfilling all conditions, budget constraints of Ram parsad shift parallels to original budget constraint have ability to reach IC2 where he can get 20 units of utility. In this condition if Ram parsad decides to keep consumption of X constant to 15 units (which he derive by sacrificing 5 units of Y to be in {X,Y}={15,15} situation from original {10,20} situation), he will be getting more than 15 units of good Y too. Simply, higher utility can be achieved even if quantity of X made constant or increasing with simultaneous increase in consumption of Y. 

§5. in section 3 we have seen that to make utility constant one good is sacrificed for another at decreasing rate. however, in section 5, it is possible that utility of higher level can be achieved by increasing one good or taking constant with increasing use of another good too. 

§6. then marginal decision to get tangency of budget constraint with IC to get utility maximizing quantities of goods is rather a budget uses maximizing criteria rather than to maximize Pleasure of human over pain (original idea of Utility). 

§7. As higher ICs gives higher utility and by increasing budget constraints men achieve or try to reach near satisfaction of his/her being. Maximizing utility by proving tangency on given budget constraint is mere intellectual pleasure and not the actual pleasure of the consumer. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sustainable development of Life

 XYZ whatever be the technicalities of a life process, the origin is, as I am convinced at this point of time, nothing but wish of Nature or who create the nature. The sole purpose of life is to consume itself. Consume is really the worst word in this context. Let me say to observe the beauty of itself by itself. Hence, we are designed in such a way with such and such purposes by the ultimate guiding truth which is ever full of knowledge of all kind. It can do anything (proof: various form of lives), it is evolved or it is ordained by truth can be a debate. Base of life is nature or life (especially human) struggle with nature to evolve itself. First one provide possibilities of re-creation of more sophisticated or more adaptable life suitable to the nature at that point of time, second is more egoist approach to life and claim nature as nothing but inert objects which are subject to enjoyment or preservation for enjoyment in future (as now discussed in the name of sustainable deve...

Ethics : Dharma of Individual (Yoga Sutra)

 Ethics as virtue-  it is collection of desirable action for sustaining society. [dying for group's belief ] Ethics as utility- it is collection of desirable action for sustaining society and more rudely exchanged in name of utility, often society can buy desirable action for society and tag it with ethics. [dying in poverty is ethical but to save life by robbery is not] Ethics of universal rationality- whatever action that can be universalized is ethical and others are not. collectively it again universalize social needs over individual {I am deficient here....} Ethics of social contract- here even an attempt to hide the social behavior and labeling it as ethics has been withdrawn [collective interest labeled as ethics] In my limited understanding these alternatives, individuality is easily coerced by society. But these definitions are not capable to define anything at all. Many things now called Ethics are borrowed from religion. Mainly non-violence and etc. can be traced di...

Dharma Ra Nyaya-1

 In no way I am writing with any certainty about these words or realities or whatever phenomena they are. But with quite a discussion with a learned friend of mine, clarity of thoughts seems to built within. However, from very surface reading and my own biases, Dharma and Nyaya have been same thing for me. Naya here is not a branch of philosophy rather justice in its strict sense.  What is Nyaya? In its day-to-day life, a decision by court of justice is itself justice. One can try to cry over and over yet in short run whatever a reason of court is will be justice. However, in truth, justice is related with what a pure human consciousness guide the human being as a justice is justice. Qualifying consciousness with purity may be a false attempt to define something undefined. Here, purity of reason can do good work. With hope , purity of reason coincide with one true reason by all human being. With a good wish, many have found to place great trust in universal reason or something...