|
Post by Guest on May 11, 2016 15:49:30 GMT
I was just wondering is the formula for Ct, (1/1+B)(Yt + Yt+1/1+r), that we get after maximizing utility using logs subject to the budget constraint and rearranging, represent the optimal level of consumption that we put on the Ct+1 and Ct graph as C*t?
Also for the fisher equation, I realise it's an approximation but can we just use it as equals in equations or do we need to state that its an approximation, and we'd use the other equation before taking a log approximation as equals, which it obviously is?
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on May 11, 2016 23:21:31 GMT
Hi,
Consumption: Yes, the C_t that corresponds to the tangency point (i.e. the optimal C_t) in the graph is exactly the C_t in the consumption function we derived (assuming we have log preferences).
Fischer equation: Yes, it would be nice if, when using the Fischer equation, you wrote something like: "The log-approximation of the Fischer equation is i=r+pi^e" or write it with the squiggly equals sign. But, being informal in this one regard is not going to drop you a mark in an exam. However, its like making a spelling mistake. No one is going to mark someone down for a spelling mistake. But, an exam script is littered with spelling mistakes, at some point somewhere, that script is going to loose marks. Conclusion: Where you can, be as formal as you can - don't be sloppy due to laziness. But, there are also more important things to get right in an exam first!
Best Oliver
|
|