Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The key is that anything in the convex combination budget can be afforded
with one or the other of the original budgets. Therefore at least one of these
two budgets is at least a good as the convex combination budget. So the convex
combination is worse than the better one.
How do we show this?
Where 0 < < 1, let p = p + (1 )p0 and m = m + (1 )m0 .
Let x = x(p , m ). Then p x m (since x = x(p , m ) is something
you can afford with income m .) But this means that px + (1 )p0 x
m + (1 )m0 . This implies that (m px) + (1 )(m0 p0 x) 0, which
implies that either m px or m0 p0 x , (or possibly both) which implies
that at least one of the following two things are true: px m and hence
v(p , m ) v(p, m) or p0 x m0 and hence v(p , m ) v(p0 , m0 ). So it must
be that v(p , m ) max{v(p, m), v(p0 , m0 )}.
By definition, v(p, m) = u (x(p, m)). Where ui (x) denotes the partial deriva-
tive of u with respect to its ith argument, the first order conditions for maxi-
mization tell us that for some (p, m) > 0 and all i = 1, . . . n,
1
It follows that
v(p, m) X dxi (p, m)
= pi = . (5)
m i
dm
Now let us differentiate with respect to pj .
Differentiate both sides of the budget equation with respect to pj to see that
X dxi (p, m)
pi + xj (p, m) = 0.
i
dpj
Therefore
X dxi (p, m)
pi = xj (p, m). (7)
i
dpj
Substitute Equation 7 into Equation 6 to find that
v(p, m)
= xj (p, m).
pj