Talk:Production–possibility frontier

Guns & Butter

Isn't it traditional to use "Guns" and "Butter" for the items on the PPF, not "Food" and "Computers"? 140.180.188.20 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Free disposal

What is free disposal? Samnikal 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Diagram of a PPC Mgubo (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Do you know how to do that? I don't.Larklight (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By definition, the PPF can never have a positive slope, because that would lead to a logical contradiction. One of the fundamental assumptions of the PPF is that, at every point along the curve, the economy is fully employing its fixed supply of resources and using the most efficient production methods (i.e., technology) currently available. But if part of the PPF had a positive slope, that would mean it's possible to produce more of both outputs without any increase in the supply of resources or any improvement in efficiency or technology. That's clearly impossible -- the fundamental assumption stated earlier means that increasing the output of one good can only be achieved by reducing the quantity of resources devoted to producing the other good, which would necessarily reduce output of the other good.

• In addition, by the same reasoning, the PPF must terminate at a definite point on each axis. Each of those endpoints represents the maximum output of the corresponding good than can be produced if all available resources are efficiently employed in its production, so no resources are left over to use in producing the other good. (The PPF can't even be asymptotic to either axis -- when all available resources are efficiently employed in producing either good, the PPF must intersect that good's axis.) --Jackftwist (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This article probably should link somewhere to...

...Production set since that is the generalization of this concept to the n good case. Yes I know that one's a stub but it's also an orphan and maybe someone will get motivated to expand it.radek (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I should probably be more precise: the boundary of the production set is the n-good generalization of the ppf.radek (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Production-possibility frontier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A couple of jobs that need to be done:

a)Citations for the interpretation section. It is good and well explanations the applications of the graph, though there are no sources listed. b) It is mentioned a few times that the 2 good case can be generalised to match the n-good case (i.e. the real world). This is through the conception of the other good as a composite of all other goods vis - a vis x good. This needs to be spelt out somewhere in the article, though I am not sure yet where would be suitable, so as not to disrupt the flow.

4. Neutrality. Pass. No obvious problems.

5. Stability.Pass. No problems here.

6. Images. Pass. Article is well illustrated with diagrams that are freely licensed, and mesh well with the text. Good work here.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, 15 April 2010.

Apologies for my delay in returning, I had an article I was working on on hold also!

The article is very crisp for writing about economics, which although it was improved recently is still difficult to communicate easily. To the article ghosts through criteria 1 a & b. The article is well cited from authorities on the subject, and to my reading at least, seems to be accurate. Pass no. 2. I would say the article is sufficiently broad for the moment, and that at times it does not go into enough detail. Most of the sections are almost facile, sometimes reading more like "economics for dummies", than a scholarly article, though of course it is pitched at a non-specialist. The only comparable GA or FA article is Price elasticity of demand, which includes a (brief) history section and generally more technical content than here. Perhaps later iterations of the article might allude to the origin of the theory and expand on its application. Though I am unsure about the level of detail an article like this should go into. Despite these concerns I am satisfied this article is of a good standard. Well done to all involved in writing the article, Best--Ktlynch (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PPC

The PPC acronym used isn't defined (Production possibility curve?) Also, PPC and PPF are used in the same sentence (first paragraph under Efficiency), but they are defined as synonyms in the first sentence. Perhaps the difference should be defined, or PPF should be used only, in lieu of PPC. Ashgillman (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

the length of the dash

Why does the title have an en dash rather than a hyphen? The en dash is used for ranges (“pages 57–81”, “the Strasbourg–Paris route") and collaborations (“the Arkell–Pressdram phenomenon”), where the two nouns are equal partners and can usually be swapped without changing meaning. Does “production–possibility” mean a trade-off between production and possibility, or does it mean “possibility of production” in which case it ought to have a hyphen? —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

PSU - Definition Required

The PSU represented by the point on the PPF where an efficient economy operates (which is obtained by tangency with the highest individual or social indifference curve, not shown in the graph) presents the priorities or choices of the modeled agent, such as the choice of having more butter produced and fewer guns, or vice versa.

I believe PSU requires defining as it is not mentioned or referred to elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveECrane (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Figures don't match text

1. The text in the section on Efficiency "A PPF typically takes the form of the curve illustrated above..." discusses Figure 1, without naming it. This material should precede the info on Pareto efficiency, because Figure 1 isn't visible at the point it is being discussed. 2. Figure 4 seems incomplete. Its legend includes a triangle symbol to identify points that are not allocatively efficient, but doesn't actually use the symbol. Buyers' MRS and societal preference for Q2/Q1 are not illustrated on the figure. Suggest deletion of Figure 4 unless someone knows how to fix it. 3. The paragraph: "Some productive efficient points are Pareto efficient: impossible to find any trade that will make no consumer worse off. Pareto efficiency is achieved when the marginal rate of transformation (slope of the frontier/opportunity cost of goods) is equal to all consumers' marginal rate of substitution. " uses the "/" symbol which could be interpreted as "divided by", though I believe it is intended to mean "or" or "also known as". 4. The following paragraph: "Similarly, not all Pareto efficient points on the frontier are Allocative efficient. Allocative efficient is only achieved when the economy produces at quantities that match societal preference. " is unclear to me. The phrase "at quantities that match societal preferences" doesn't tell the reader how to identify societal preferences (which I assume are derived from indifference curves). Grammatically, I don't like the term "Allocative efficent" - I don't follow the literature on this, but would "Allocatively efficient" or "efficient in allocation" be acceptable? The sentence that begins "Allocative efficient is only achieved..." should be "Allocative efficiency is only achieved..." I don't know how to fix this problem, but as a reader, the current wording is unclear.Dave.Tamblyn (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)