Yes and then the follow up question Piers: to what extent is it assumed or
proven when MC = MR that MC is itself at an optimum level and that MR is
also at an optimum level.
If that is a non sequitur, I'd be grateful for an explanation but if not,
I'd be grateful for an explanation!
I really hope that makes sense!
Duncan Williamson
-----Original Message-----
From: Economics, business, and related subjects
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Piers Coutts
Sent: 19 September 2005 17:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MC = MR
MC is increasing, i.e. cuts MR from below (textbooks tend to ignore the
confusing case of the earlier MR=MC intersection)
Is that what you wanted, Duncan?
Piers Coutts
-----Original Message-----
From: Economics, business, and related subjects
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duncan
Williamson
Sent: 19 September 2005 16:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: MC = MR
Dear All,
After years and years of just accepting that profit maximisation occurs
when MC = MR I suddenly thought of a question that many of you will be
able to resolve for me.
Under what conditions and assumptions is MC = MR the profit maximisation
level of output?
For fear of putting my clumsy size 11s in it, just a question to start
you off. I might then have a follow up question depending on the
responses you give.
Best wishes
Duncan Williamson
|