consumer
There is one consumer who owns both firms and their profits and they go :
u = ln(x) + gamma*ln(b), where b = leisure
$$ u = \ln x + \gamma \ln b $$ where $b$ is leisure, and $\gamma$ is their relative want of leisure
M = w*L + profits[0] + profits[1], where w is wage, L = time endowment (n + b = L)
$$ M = wL + \pi_0+ \pi_1 $$ where $w$ is wage, $L$ is their time endowment ($n + b = L$), and $\pi_0$ and $\pi_1$ are each firm's profits.
Solving that gives x
$x$ and b
$b$, so labor supply is n = L - b
$n = L - b$.
firms[0]
The first firm, firms[0]
, uses just labor to make an intermediate good :
profits[0] = p[0]*z[0]**alpha - w*z[0], where 0 < alpha < 1
Where$$\pi_0 = p_0 \cdot z_0^{\alpha} - w z_0$$ where y[0] = z[0]**alpha
$0 < \alpha < 1$, $z_0$ is their labor demand, and $y_0 = z_0^{\alpha}$ is their output.
firms[1]
The other firm, firms[1]
, uses labor and firms[0]
's output, y[0]
$y_0$.
profits[1] = p[1]*z[1]**beta*(k[1]+1)**(1-beta) - w*z[1] - p[0]*k[1], where 0 < beta < 1
$$\pi_1 = p_1 \cdot z_1^{\beta} \cdot (k_1+1)^{1-\beta} - w \cdot z_1 - p_0 \cdot k_1$$
Here, $z_1$ is their labor demand, $k_1$ is their intermediate goods demand, and $0 < \beta < 1$. Their output is $y_1=f_1(z_1,k_1)=z_1^{\beta} \cdot (k_1+1)^{1-\beta}$
This firm is almost constant returns to scale. That is, if it can make profit at some level $(z_1,k_1)$, then it will make more profit at $(az_1,ak_1)$ where $a>1$. That means that this firm won't settle on some profit maximizing allocation of $(z_1,k_1)$ since it will choose to keep buying more, at a given price level. So this firm uses $y_0$ as its limiting factor. And from there it decides how much labor to use.
Also, I made it so that k[1]
$k_1$ could be 0. So like, depending on [alpha, beta, gamma, L]
$[\alpha, \beta, \gamma, L]$ it could be that firm[0] doesn't even produce.
Also since firms[1]
is CRS, it uses all of y[0]
as its limiting factor, so really, it ends up using ALL the y[0]
, so then it decides what level of labor z[1]firms[0]
yields the highest profitdoesn't even produce.
u = beta*ln(n[1]) + (1-beta)*ln(n[0]**alpha + 1) + gamma*ln(L - n[0] - n[1])
$$u= \ln x + \gamma \cdot \ln b$$
But $x=y_1=z_1^{\beta} \cdot (k_1+1)^{1-\beta}$ and $k_1=y_0=z_0^{\alpha}$ so that gives the following :
$$u = \beta \cdot \ln n_1 + (1-\beta) \cdot \ln (n_0^{\alpha} + 1) + \gamma \cdot \ln (L - n_0 - n_1)$$
Take du/d(n[0])
$\frac{du}{dn_0}$ and du/d(n[1])
$\frac{du}{dn_1}$ and that gives you something like :
0 = A(n[0])**(1-alpha) + B*(n[0]) + C
$$0 = C_0 \cdot n_0^{1-\alpha} + C_1 \cdot n_0 + C_2$$
A
and Where B
$[C_0, C_1, C_2]$ are constants withmade from the the exogenous variables $[\alpha, \beta, \gamma, L]$
Which is an equation I don't know how to solve but I do it numerically and I can verify that it is the utility-maximizing allocation.
I guess for me the important thing is the solution this gives is on that line I get when I graph $exx$ against $p_0$ and $p_1$. Important insofar as the algorithmic approach I used isn't too wrong, that is.
Anyhow, the reason I want the algorithmic approach to work is because I can easily add lots of consumers, firms, products, firm ownerships etc, and in order to do that, which is fun, I need to make sure my approach, in a technical sense, is sound and actually works.