Talk:Production-possibility frontier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the importance scale |
[edit] Free disposal
What is free disposal? Samnikal 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Section 1
3rd paragraph from bottom,the following sentence deleted:
- The concavity reflects the higher marginal costs that become inevitable due to diminishing marginal returns in the production of each good as output of the other good approaches zero (that is, at either extreme of the curve).
Diminishing returns in the link and as usually presented is relative to a fixed input relative to one good, not a transformation curve between goods. -- Thomasmeeks 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Diseconomies of scale
Does the gradiet ever become positive when it nears the axis? The diagram seems to hint at this, as if there existed a point where increasing food production aided their silicone cousins. Maybe all the techies were starving?
Anyway, I think this should be explained/removed (depending on if it's true or false) Larklight (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rather, for the NW portion of the quadrant, the PPF has a + slope, such that presumably fewer computers also decrease food production. You're right: it makes no economic sense except on the odd assumption that further shifts of resources to food production would continue, despite decreasing productioon. The figures should be fixed to remove that unlikely implication. Of course, a sufficiently well-fed labor force might prefer more lesiure with fewer computers and less food, but but that is changing the subject & point of the PPF. To repeat, the first 2 figures ought to be fixed to eliminate the positive slope. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
