Ch07-AK
1) Monopolists charge P>MC. The price doesn’t
give you any information about the cost of production since consumers are
willing to pay a price greater than the marginal cost of production for more
output, monopolies lead to market inefficiency. Monopolists restrict output and
maximize profit at the expense of society. Note: Assuming no external costs or
benefits (a topic for next chapter), profit maximizing perfect competitors also
maximize social welfare, even though they do not explicitly intend to do so.
(Revisit the “Invisible Hand” discussion).
2) AT&T once had a monopoly on telephone
service. If you wanted service, you had to go to AT&T. If their service was
terrible, you had no alternative company to provide it. Knowing this, AT&T
had little incentive to innovate within the telephone industry. The
In the time since AT&T’s breakup, we
have seen massive innovation from rotary dial to dial tone to cordless phones,
to cell phones. In the 1980s, regulators could not envision a time when
10-digit dialing would be necessary for all calls. But the increase in
competition increased the incentive to innovate, and technology has advanced
rapidly since the breakup.
Note: Some students noted that monopolies
with patent protection certainly reduce further innovation. If you somehow
discover a way to make Blu-Ray disks work better, for
example, Sony will prohibit you from bringing your product to the market
(unless you pay Sony a large licensing fee).
Also, in the AT&T example, the
government may have been imposing average cost pricing before the breakup. If
so, AT&T would not even have an incentive to lower costs (another form of
innovation), since they would still earn zero economic profits after implementing
the improvements.
3) Free Response. Possibilities: i – The Hamilton Movie Theater charges less money to
students than to faculty; ii – airline flights are cheaper for people who plan
to take trips far in advance (as opposed to business travelers who often fly on
a moment’s notice); iii – Tuition is more expensive for students from wealthy
families than for low income students. Note that in each of these cases, the
supplier can easily identify the group of consumers to which each individual person
belongs (i.e., student vs. non-student; plan-ahead traveler vs. spur-of-moment
traveler; high vs. low income family).
4A) MR from women: MRW = 1000 – 2Q
MR from men: MRM = 500 – 2Q
4B) Women: MR = MC → 1000 – 2Q = 250 →
Q = 375
Use Demand Curve: P = 1000 –
375 → P = 625
Men: MR = MC → 500 – 2Q = 250 →
Q = 125
Use Demand Curve: P = 500 –
125 → P = 375
4C) Draw sketches (if it helps)

Consumer Surplus is the yellow
triangle. Use the formula for a triangle to find: CS = 0.5*(Intercept – P*)Q*
Producer Surplus is the blue
rectangle. PS = (P* – MC)Q*
CSW = 0.5*(1000 – 625)*375
= 70,312.5
PSW = (625 – 250)*375 =
140,625
CSM = 0.5*(500 – 375)*125 =
7812.5
PSM = (375 – 250)*125 =
15,625
Social Welfare = 234,375
4D) Remember that market demand is simply the
sum of individual demands at any given price level. Graphically, this will look
the Women’s demand curve as long as prices exceed $500. Once the drop below
this level, however, demand comes from both men and women, so the market demand
curve has a kink.

You really weren’t expected to find
the equation for demand after this kink algebraically, but you could. First,
rearrange the demand curves for men and women for Q… That is,
QW = 1000 – P
QM = 500 – P
Then you can find total demand by
adding these two curves:
Q = 1500 – 2P
Finally, rearrange this and set it
equal to P…
P = 750 – 0.5Q
What you should notice is that MR and
MC intersect each other at a quantity before men enter the market (the MR curve
beyond Q=500 is beyond the scope of this course…
Imagine a kink to the MR curve at Q=500, and a slope equaling -1 instead of
-2). Thus, the monopolist only sells products to women. We saw in part 4B and
4C that the equilibrium price, quantity, and social welfare generated by
selling to women are: P = 625, Q = 375; Welfare = 210,937.5
4E) Price discrimination increased social
welfare! (Note that this will not always be true, but is in this case). From an
economist point of view, we would encourage this discrimination. Welfare among
women would not change, but welfare among men rises, so the populace is likely
to support price discrimination (unless women are ethically opposed to it).
As you can probably imagine, there are
several scenarios in which price discrimination increases welfare by a large
margin for a minority group, but decreases it slightly for the majority. Even
if the net welfare effect on society as a whole is positive, the majority will
vote against these types of policies in a democratic system. Conversely, there
are also price discrimination policies that democratic societies support even
though they reduce efficiency.