Suppose that household resource constrain equation is as follows: $$P_tC_t + Q_tB_t+ P_tI_t \leq W_tL_t+R_tK_t+B_{t-1}+D_t$$ where $P_t$ is price at time $t$, $Q_t$ is the price of one bond quantity, $B_t$ is bond quantity, $I_t$ is investment, $W_t$ is wage, $L_t$ is labor amount, $R_t$ is nominal capital rental rate, $K_t$ is capital at tie $t$, $D_t$ is dividends.

Taking it into Lagrangian at $t=0$: $E_0 \sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\beta^t U(C_t,L_t) - \lambda_t[P_tC_t + Q_tB_t+ P_tI_t - (W_tL_t+R_tK_t+B_{t-1}+D_t)]$

Taking partial derivative of lagrangian respect to $K_{t+1}$ where $K_{t+1} = (1-\delta)K_t + I_t$ seems to produce: $$\frac{\lambda_t}{\lambda_{t+1}} = \frac{R_{t+1}}{P_{t+1}}$$ (Dropped expectation sign, but should be there)

And taking partial derivative of the lagrangian respect to $B_t$:

$$\frac{\lambda_t}{\lambda_{t+1}} = \frac{P_t}{P_{t+1}}\frac{1}{Q_t}$$

Equating these two,

$$R_{t+1} = \frac{P_t}{Q_t}$$

Taking $-\log Q_t = i_t$

$$\hat{R_{t+1}} = \hat{P_t} - \hat{Q_t} = \hat{P_t}+i_t$$ where $\hat{X} = \log X$.

This does not seem to be a right formula to me, and I must have made some mistake. What did I do wrong here?


Ignoring the expectations operator, your lagrangean has two mistakes: first the constraint is per-period so it is also multiplied by the discount factor. Second, the way you have wrote the time indexes is inconsistent, as regards their interpretation for capital and bonds. If $K_t$ denotes "capital at the beginning of period $t$" (as it does), you should also write $B_{t}$ instead of $B_{t-1}$, to denote bonds held at the beginning of period $t$. This takes with it also the time index on $Q$.

Also I would advise to write your constraint in "normal form" (as they say in micro), namely with the constraint as "higher than or equal to zero".

Let's try this, up to a point.

$$\Lambda = \sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\beta^t \Big[U(C_t,L_t) + \lambda_t\big(W_tL_t+R_tK_t+B_{t}+D_t - (P_tC_t + Q_{t+1}B_{t+1}+ P_tI_t)\big)\Big]$$

$$ = \sum_{t=0}^{\infty}\beta^t \Big[U(C_t,L_t)\\ + \lambda_t\big(W_tL_t+R_tK_t+B_{t}+D_t - P_tC_t - Q_{t+1}B_{t+1}- P_t\big[K_{t+1} - (1-\delta)K_t\big]\big)\Big]$$


$$\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial K_{t+1}} = 0 \implies -\beta^{t}\lambda_t P_t + \beta^{t+1}\lambda_{t+1}[(1-\delta)P_{t+1} +R_{t+1}] =0$$


$$\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial B_{t+1}} = 0 \implies -\beta^{t}\lambda_t Q_{t+1} + \beta^{t+1}\lambda_{t+1} =0$$

Equating we get

$$\frac {[(1-\delta)P_{t+1} +R_{t+1}]}{P_t} = \frac 1{Q_{t+1}}$$

Now, $R_{t+1}$ is the nominal gross return to capital, so a $P_{t+1}$ is implicitly in there. If we set $r_{t+1}\equiv R_{t+1}/P_{t+1}$ the relation becomes

$$\frac {[(1+(r_{t+1} -\delta)]P_{t+1}}{P_t} = \frac 1{Q_{t+1}}$$

Taking logs, we get the Fisher equation written for period $t+1$.

  • $\begingroup$ Just a minor comment: In equilibrium the return on the two assets $B_{t+1}$ and $K_{t+1}$ are identical as a result of the need for rate of change of marginal utilities $\lambda_{t}/\lambda_{t+1}$ to be equal across the two assets. $\endgroup$ – EndLoop Feb 17 at 2:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.