Long-Run Cost Minimization with Cobb-Douglas

We pin down TC, MC, and AC for a Cobb-Douglas production function and find they all collapse to the same constant α — constant returns to scale is why.

Last time we cracked open TC, AC, and MC.

That was kind of the big-picture sweep — a general look at how these things show up in the wild as social/economic phenomena, right???

OK, now let’s actually pin them down with something concrete. Cobb-Douglas, undergrad flavor — that’s our production function for today.

Specifically:

Q = 50L^{\frac{1}{2}}K^{\frac{1}{2}}

First thing we want: as $Q$ goes up, what’s the minimum TC at each $Q$?

Total cost is just

TC = wL + rK

Yeah, that’s nothing — that’s just the total cost equation. What we actually want is the (minimum) TC as a function of $Q$. heh.

So let’s start with the tangency condition.

Equation from the original notes

The two gradient vectors have to be parallel, so

Equation from the original notes

And what falls out of this is

RK = wL

Now — this condition, where does it actually live???

It has to live on the isoquant. So plug it back into the isoquant:

Equation from the original notes

Which means TC is

TC = wL + rK

Equation from the original notes

So the TC function for the Cobb-Douglas model is

Equation from the original notes

And once TC looks like that, MC and AC fall out in the exact same shape.

The slope of the tangent line at every single point: all α. The slope from the origin at every single point: also all α.

Equation from the original notes

Wait — that’s pretty different from what we had before?!?!?1!!!

Why does it come out like this?

My hunch: it’s because the Cobb-Douglas we’re using here is constant returns to scale. That’s gotta be it.

Comments

Discussion happens via GitHub Discussions. You'll need a GitHub account to comment.