DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
Thanks guys!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
Q10 and 56, anyone?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

Granpa Simpson
Q56) the answer will be c this is because it is the only bundle allocation in which transfer can be made in a way such that the utility of A is unchanged while that of B increases..consider the allocation (0.5,1) for A and (3,1) for B in this case A's utility remains same as the initial level i.e. 0.5, however B's utility increases to 1 from 0.5...in other option you can make such an allocation..so c is not Pareto efficient.
 "I don't ride side-saddle. I'm as straight as a submarine"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
In reply to this post by rongmon
Question 31. I have option d) as a solution using Descartes. The correct answer is b)., how so?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
In reply to this post by Granpa Simpson
I don't quite understand.

There are 4 units of good 1 and 2 units of good 2 in total right. Aren't we supposed to look at Pareto optimal allocations using all of these units?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

Granpa Simpson
See the definition of Pareto Efficient allocation states that it is such an allocation from where no agent can be be made better off without making the other worse off...or in other words you can look at it as an allocation, a deviation from which makes atleast one agent worse off..so if you are able to show that a deviation from a said allocation makes one of the agents better without hampering the utility of the other, your purpose of proving that the allocation not Pareto optimal is done..the same concept is used here..!!!
 "I don't ride side-saddle. I'm as straight as a submarine"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
Thanks Subhayu.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

Granpa Simpson
Ur welcome comrade...
 "I don't ride side-saddle. I'm as straight as a submarine"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

neha:)
In reply to this post by kangkan
Please explain how to go about Q.9? I know it's a problem of Hoteling Beach... but have no idea how to solve such questions.
http://econdse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2010-Option-A.pdf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

neha:)
Guys pls help!
Pls explain how to go about Q.9? I know it's a problem of Hoteling Beach... but have no idea how to solve such questions.
http://econdse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2010-Option-A.pdf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

rongmon
In reply to this post by kangkan
Q 38. Series 04.


Could someone share workings?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

neha:)
In reply to this post by jack
Pls explain Q. 50 , series 04..
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

Dreyfus
@neha......u can check the independence of events A and B by using P(A intersection B) = P(A).P(B)
Where P(A intersection B) = p(5<=X<=8)
P(A) = p(X>=5)
P(B) = p(3<=X<=8)
U ll see equality will not hold, these two aren't independent.
Or alternatively this can be seen by the definition of Events A and B. But for 100% surety above method always works!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DSE 2010 Disucssion-Please joim

xyz123
In reply to this post by kangkan
Can somebody explain question 2 (series 2)
Thanks
12