Talk:Production–possibility frontier

message: Isn't it traditional to use "Guns" and "Butter" for the items on the PPF, not "Food" and "Computers"? 140.180.188.20 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns & Butter 

message: What is free disposal? Samnikal 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free disposal 

message: 3rd paragraph from bottom,the following sentence deleted:
:The concavity reflects the higher marginal costs that become inevitable due to diminishing marginal returns in the production of each good as output of the other good approaches zero (that is, at either extreme of the curve). 
Diminishing returns in the link and as usually presented is relative to a fixed input relative to one good, not a transformation curve between goods. -- Thomasmeeks 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1

message: ...Production set since that is the generalization of this concept to the n good case. Yes I know that one's a stub but it's also an orphan and maybe someone will get motivated to expand it.radek (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article probably should link somewhere to... 

message: The PPC acronym used isn't defined (Production possibility curve?) Also, PPC and PPF are used in the same sentence (first paragraph under Efficiency), but they are defined as synonyms in the first sentence. Perhaps the difference should be defined, or PPF should be used only, in lieu of PPC.
Ashgillman (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPC 

message: Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer_review|Peer review]] 

message: Why does the title have an en dash rather than a hyphen?  The en dash is used for ranges (“pages 57–81”, “the Strasbourg–Paris route") and collaborations (“the Arkell–Pressdram phenomenon”), where the two nouns are equal partners and can usually be swapped without changing meaning.  Does “production–possibility” mean a trade-off between production and possibility, or does it mean “possibility of production” in which case it ought to have a hyphen? —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  the length of the dash 

message: The PSU represented by the point on the PPF where an efficient economy operates (which is obtained by tangency with the highest individual or social indifference curve, not shown in the graph) presents the priorities or choices of the modeled agent, such as the choice of having more butter produced and fewer guns, or vice versa.
I believe PSU requires defining as it is not mentioned or referred to elsewhere in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveECrane (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSU - Definition Required 

message: 1. The text in the section on Efficiency "A PPF typically takes the form of the curve illustrated above..." discusses Figure 1, without naming it.  This material should precede the info on Pareto efficiency, because Figure 1 isn't visible at the point it is being discussed. 
2. Figure 4 seems incomplete.  Its legend includes a triangle symbol to identify points that are not allocatively efficient, but doesn't actually use the symbol. Buyers' MRS and societal preference for Q2/Q1 are not illustrated on the figure.  Suggest deletion of Figure 4 unless someone knows how to fix it.
3. The paragraph:
"Some productive efficient points are Pareto efficient: impossible to find any trade that will make no consumer worse off. Pareto efficiency is achieved when the marginal rate of transformation (slope of the frontier/opportunity cost of goods) is equal to all consumers' marginal rate of substitution. " 
uses the "/" symbol which could be interpreted as "divided by", though I believe it is intended to mean "or" or "also known as".
4. The following paragraph:
"Similarly, not all Pareto efficient points on the frontier are Allocative efficient. Allocative efficient is only achieved when the economy produces at quantities that match societal preference. " 
is unclear to me. The phrase "at quantities that match societal preferences" doesn't tell the reader how to identify societal preferences (which I assume are derived from indifference curves).  Grammatically, I don't like the term "Allocative efficent" - I don't follow the literature on this, but would "Allocatively efficient" or "efficient in allocation" be acceptable?  The sentence that begins "Allocative efficient is only achieved..." should be "Allocative efficiency is only achieved..." I don't know how to fix this problem, but as a reader, the current wording is unclear.Dave.Tamblyn (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures don't match text