Economists classify production functions as possessing constant, decreasing or increasing returns to scale. Yet, from a cause-and-effect point of view, it is not readily apparent why decreasing returns to scale should ever exist. That is, if we duplicate an activity we ought to get duplicate results. Hence, if we truly duplicate all of the inputs, we ought to get double the output. Can you reconcile the apparent contradiction between this logic and the expectation of the economist that beyond certain output ranges firms will confront decreasing returns to scale?
Answer to relevant QuestionsDefine isoquant. What is measured on the axes of a diagram with isoquants? What is the relationship between the isoquant map and the production function?In the early days of People Express‚ the top management team at the airline was personally involved in the training and selection of employees. This participation was key to instilling spirit and dedication among the ...If the cubic total cost function described in the text applies to the production of output by a firm, and a = 0, b = 400, c = – 50, and d = 5, what are the equations for the firm’s TFC, TVC, MC, AFC, AVC, and ATC?In Table 9.1, suppose that variable input prices increase by 50 percent. Will the firm’s profit-maximizing output level change? Illustrate your answer with a graph.The American Red Cross is a supplier to the perfectly competitive domestic blood market. Unlike the other suppliers, however, the Red Cross is strictly nonprofit—its goal is to sell as much blood as possible without making ...
Post your question