Even this year 2024 the videos are still useful. They have really helped me out of the challenges that i have been facing in this course 🙏🙏

I hope this words will reach you. I always said and always will say that you are the boss. You are the greatest 老师 ever. You are a sensei of young generation. Does your channel accept any donations? It will be a pleasure to support your channel. Thank you Dr. Azevedo, wholeheartedly and endless respect from Kazahstan.

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Just knowing that I'm able help is reward enough for me. Thanks for the kind words!

@kolapo8288

Жыл бұрын

I join you to say this HE IS THE BOSS. He just saved my life.....Advanced Microeconomics had been holding me back from graduating.

@amateurmusic.

9 ай бұрын

I completely agree with what you said. Thank you Dr. Azevedo. In fact, it makes me very happy to see what you do for people who are interested in this science and want to be closely involved with it even though you could have only taught at the university. Thank you sir, thank you very much.

Feels like I can just keep on watching it forever

This is AMAZING.... I have been struggling to understand the concept of SE(Substitution Effect) and IE(Income Effect). Thank you, Prof., for this video. You are a genius. ❤

@DrAzevedoEcon

11 ай бұрын

Thanks for the kind words! I'm happy that the video helped!

sir literally you are one of the best professors/teachers I have seen in my whole life on this platform.❤‍🔥❤💘

@DrAzevedoEcon

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it very much.

I have an exam and your videos are very helpful. Thank you, sending love and respect from Turkey.

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Happy to help! I hope you did well on the exam!

Sir, thank you for these videos. Thanks to you I passed my economics course with AA, only by watching your videos. thank you for your time.

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Great job! I'm glad I could help out.

Wow...u made it easy to understand Thank you very much❤❤❤

You saved me sir! Now I'm completely clear. Microeconomics was a matter of fear to me, and now it has become so easy. You made this happen sir. Sending a lots of respect and love Dr. Azevedo. ---- From Rabindra University, Bangladesh.

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad the videos have been helpful.

Thanks for making microeconomics understandable ans interesting

The video starts getting more and more interesting and informative and engaging. Thank you for your service @DrAze

Thanks for this amazing video , i have an exam tommorow .

This helped me out so much thank you so much for your contribution.

you are an inspiration for us

great to have you back professor! looking forward to future videos

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! It's good to be back.

Sir, thankyou for uploading these videos. They're really helpful to understand the concept. I request you to post the macro series soon as well 🙏

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

You're welcome. Here's a link to the playlist that contains the macro videos that I have recorded so far. kzread.info/head/PLTjEimbqDkpDBeWbWT6kBkK3nxNoHhxYZ

Wonderful, im from Bangladesh.

@momotaakter7589

10 ай бұрын

Me too🤝

You make it clear and simple thank you MR

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching....I'm glad to be able to help.

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

Happy to be able to help!

This is so amazing, i have an exam tomorrow, i am very thankful for this

@DrAzevedoEcon

7 ай бұрын

Good luck with the exam!

where are the other chapters ? like chapter 19 20. Plesea if there are the other chap notify me, your videos are masterpieces

prof, the summation of the amount of coke and pizza exceeds the budget (500) but u said it should be 500

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

I'm not finding a place where the amount exceeds $500. What part of the video are you referring to?

Thank you professor~

@DrAzevedoEcon

Ай бұрын

You're welcome! Thanks for watching.

thank you professor

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

You're welcome! Thanks for watching

I mistakenly had the 2nd IC touch the new budget line at a point B where both pizza and Pepsi were demanded more given that pizza price decreased, as a result of this, my income effect was turning out to be larger than my substitution effect , that is both Pepsi and pizza were bought more due to the increased purchasing power. So ideally in theory whenever price of pizza decreases, there will always be a net decrease in demand for Pepsi? Since the magnitude of substitution effect which increases pizza and decreases Pepsi will always be more than that of income effect which increases both?

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

It's ok if your new point of tangency occurs where more of both Pepsi and pizza are purchased. Where the tangencies actually are would depend on the shape of the utility function. We are only doing things graphically here (rather than mathematically), so you can draw the picture such that the points of tangency are wherever you want them.

You actually made me understand this concept

@DrAzevedoEcon

8 ай бұрын

I'm happy to hear that! Glad to help.

Thank you sir🙏🏻

i just wonder how you can write broad on that side.

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

I’m writing normally, but the image is then reversed so that it appears normal from the camera’s perspective.

During differentiating income and substitution effect how do we know where to draw the indifference curve on the new budget constraint . I have been trying to make it randomly but the diagram doesn't match.

@DrAzevedoEcon

8 ай бұрын

Exactly where the tangency is depends on the preferences of the person. For example, you can draw the tangency so that both goods are normal goods or you can draw the tangency so that one good is an inferior good (the other will be a normal good). If you would like a more thorough discussion of this, watch this video kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znihrc5voavZZrw.html At the beginning of the video, I discuss where the tangencies would need to be for one of the goods to be inferior.

Dr azevedo i have an assignment where I have ti make a graph with three goods the assignment goes like: A consumer has an income of 6000 gained from his work, and he consumes three goods x,y and z. The prices of these goods are respectively 2,6 and 10 per unit. I am having a really hard time solving may you please help me

@DrAzevedoEcon

5 ай бұрын

Are you sure that you're being asked to make a picture? The functional form of the budget constraint would be: 6000 = 2Qx + 6Qy + 10Qz Graphing this would require you to sketch out a 3-D picture. The easiest way to get started is to consider how much of each good the consumer can consume if they consume only that good. With $6000, the consumer could buy 3000 units of good X, 1000 units of good Y, or 600 units of good Z. These will be the intercepts on the X, Y, and Z axis. The graph of the budget constraint will be a plane rather than a line.

@arjanbaraku6281

5 ай бұрын

Yes positive. Appreciate the response sir!

Sir please post more videosss we really love your content 😭🙏❤️

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

I'm trying...I have a pretty full semester right now, but I'll be putting something together soon. Thank you!

Finally completed Elementary Microeconomics! I really enjoyed your course, Dr. Azevedo! thank you! But speaking honestly about the theory of microeconomics itself, it still lacks beauty at this point. The abstraction in physics gives a sense of essence (not necessarily) or a wonderfully inexplicable feeling, whereas the abstraction and models in economics feel like a rough approximation due to complexity. That's how it seems for now. random thoughts: Regarding the consumer model, perhaps a major issue is whether there exists a single homogeneous variable u? Maybe it's not one-dimensional but, say, infinitely dimensional? Even if it is one-dimensional, it might not have a mathematical order of magnitude, because people's joy towards different objects is qualitatively different. (And also, some things are irreplaceable even when only considering the aspect of utility. For example, an infinite number of beautiful women can't compare to one truly beloved wife, and an infinite amount of gold cannot fully replace food, otherwise one would die.) Moreover, utility is likely not a function, because the level of happiness from the same combination can change for a person, depending on factors like perspective and opinion, resulting in non-unique outcomes. Additionally, the utility function is likely bounded for many things, meaning it does not approach infinity as the quantity of things increases and may even decrease at times. Analogous to physics, the fundamental variables in economics might not be demand, etc. Perhaps more basic variables are needed to reconstruct economic theory. Moreover, economics seems to overlook a psychological force that always accompanies humans, namely the power of good and evil or right and wrong. Many economists seem to belittle or ignore it, and some courses even generalize based on biased examples (like Cowen's first example about transporting slaves). An economist centuries ago even said something similar. Next up, i will enjoy the journey through Macroeconomics!

@DrAzevedoEcon

7 ай бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed the course! You've brought up several interesting points in your comments. I think that if you continued to study economics you would see that nearly all of the issues you bring up are addressed in some manner. We begin with the most simple models at the principles level and increase the complexity (and realism) at the higher levels. However, economics is still the study of human behavior, which is infinitely complex. It is different from physics in that many physics problems can reasonably be reduced to a few variables. In regards to utility, it is definitely not one-dimensional. A person's utility is a function of a tremendous number of things. However, any tractable model has to reduce that to a reasonable number of things. At the most basic level, we start with a model where the consumer gets utility from two goods, good X and good Y. Once you start to understand that, you can increase the complexity of the model. Graphically, we need to keep the number of goods to two. However, mathematically, we can increase the number of goods as much as we desire. Additionally, the utility function can contain other things. You get utility from admiring natural beauty in nature, you get utility from doing things for other people, you get utility from doing good things, etc. Your utility function can change over time...something that gives you utility one day may give you disutility the next. The idea of the utility function is simply that we can represent the amount of utility that you get from all of these things with a number. We don't even care about the number itself...we don't care if the number is big or small, or whether one person gets the same utility from something as another person. We only care about how the utility function ranks bundles. Essentially, we are representing whatever goes on in people's brains with a mathematical model, and this model helps us understand why people do the things they do. We know that people don't really have this mathematical model in their heads....but who cares? We all behave as if we did. I would encourage you to continue studying economics. If you do, I think you will start to see that it is an incredibly elegant discipline. There's a reason that E. O. Wilson called it the 'queen of the social sciences.' Do we perfectly understand human behavior? No....but the models that have been developed do an incredibly good job. Are there things we don't understand? Absolutely...but that's what makes life exciting.

@bbeeyangli

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for your encouragement. Indeed, while I was in the middle of your microeconomics course, I suddenly realized that human systems or human management should be the most or second most important thing in the universe. Humanity is more complex than the universe. Your course really sparked my interest in economics and other social sciences, where the mysteries should be greater than those in physics@@DrAzevedoEcon

Can we draw a graph where both goods are inferior goods

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

No....you need one normal good.

The way he says ' i don't know' 😂

More love from kenya

@DrAzevedoEcon

10 ай бұрын

Thanks!!

When will you upload new videos?

Hi dr. Love your vids. Wanna ask you do you have videos about econometrics. Thanks again for helpfull vids

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, I don't have any econometrics videos. Glad the other videos have helped.

How do I find the demand function when I have the product function? I've tried a lot, but in vain, Thank you, golden professor

@DrAzevedoEcon

9 ай бұрын

The production function has to do with the supply side....that's part of where the supply curve comes from. The demand curve comes from consumer preferences. I may be misunderstanding the question.

@miroird-esprit557

9 ай бұрын

They gave me this (product function: x = 50NK^0.5) How to calculate factor demand functions.I appreciate your help with my question. @@DrAzevedoEcon

Sir could you make the trade-off between Inflation and Unemployment chapter video?

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

I'm hoping to have time to make some more videos as soon as this semester ends.

Thank you for your video. I have a question, hope you can help me. Does the assumption “more is better than less” violate the principle of diminishing marginal benefits? If they violate each other, how is the analysis of consumer choice affected? Thank you!

@DrAzevedoEcon

10 ай бұрын

They do not conflict with each other. "More is better than less" simply means that additional units provide more utility (or at least do not take utility away). Diminishing marginal utility has to do with how much more. It says that additional units provide additional utility, but in smaller and smaller increments.

@user-fd1pg2vl6t

9 ай бұрын

Thank you for your answer. I'm concerned because the assumption "more better than less" means that as more goods are consumed, consumer benefits always increase (or at least do not decrease). However, marginal benefit tends to decrease and can have a negative value, then the more goods are consumed, the total benefit will not always increase but will decrease after a certain threshold.

@DrAzevedoEcon

9 ай бұрын

@@user-fd1pg2vl6t The assumption that more is better than less rules out the possibility of marginal utility being negative. That's why we make that assumption....because things don't work if marginal utility is negative.

@user-fd1pg2vl6t

9 ай бұрын

​@@DrAzevedoEcon Thanks for your comprehensive response; this really helps!

Hi, sir. Are all your videos free and all in youtube ? Why do some chapters lack in playlists ?

@DrAzevedoEcon

8 ай бұрын

I have free videos for three economics classes available in KZread: principles of microeconomics, principles of macroeconomics, and intermediate microeconomics. I have organized them into playlists, but those playlists are based on the topics that are typically covered in a class. Some classes may cover topics that I do not yet have a video for. I will be making videos available for more classes in the future.

@halily.2626

8 ай бұрын

I see. Tnx for your effort.

Great videos You have here Professor, I'd love to use it among students if you don't mind 🙏

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! You are welcome to use them.

Is here any lecture videos for managerial economic. If yes than please share the link.

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

I don’t have any managerial Econ videos ready to go right now, but many topics are covered in some of my other videos. What topics are you looking for help on?

Thanks 🙏

@DrAzevedoEcon

8 ай бұрын

You're welcome!

Hi! Man when will you upload new videos?

Awesome

Dolboyob hardasan niye atmisan bizi? Please return back I will get F

I don't understand the marginal utility value theory at all. If the value of goods is determined by marginal utility, then the smaller the national output, the much larger the GDP of the country should be. If the output of goods is small, their supply is naturally limited. Then, according to the value theory of marginal utility, the value of the good would increase and, in extreme case, get to be almost as infinite as a glass of water in the desert. In reality, however, the opposite is true. The GDP of a country with a small national output is usually small as it is. Why does this happen?

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

There are a couple of things that are potentially confusing. First, don't confuse the idea of utility with GDP. We think of utility as a measure of the well-being a person gets from a good or service, while GDP is a measure of the economic activity that takes place in an economy. They aren't related like you're thinking. Second, for individual preferences, there's a difference between marginal utility and total utility. An example of this is the difference between diamonds and water. The price of diamonds is relatively high while they provide relatively little total utility compared to something like water. The price of water is relatively low but it provides us with a lot of total utility. The difference is that we have a high quantity of water (unless you're in the desert). At the margin, we are willing to pay relatively little for water because we have so much. With diamonds, we have relatively little and are therefore willing to pay a lot at the margin. It's the same idea as why the first bite of food when you're hungry is very satisfying. Then, as you take more bites, it becomes less satisfying (the marginal utility is declining)....until that last bite that you take....the one right before you think to yourself, "I'm stuffed," provides you with very little satisfaction at the margin. The more of something you have, the less you're willing to pay to get even more.

@doromamire

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your kind and detailed reply so quickly. But the question remains still as it is. I know that GDP is different in meaning and purpose from the concept of utility. The problem is output, and I just mentioned GDP as its common measure for easy and simple convenience. The level of marginal utility is depending on whether the output is high or low, determining the scarcity of goods. In an economy where output is scarce, the marginal utility of goods can reach extraordinary levels. This is analogous to the marginal utility of a glass of water in a desert-immense due to its rarity. When we consider items such as cars, bread, and watches, if produced in minimal quantities, their marginal utility not only escalates but could potentially become infinite. When the value assigned to each good is directly proportional to its scarcity through the level of its marginal utility, as youe second point, the aggregate value of goods can be substantial with a low output. This is because the worth of each item is magnified by its limited availability, which in turn inflates the overall valuation, despite a quantitatively smaller output on the other hand, according to the marginal utility value theory. In essence, while the overall output may be limited in volume, the cumulative price is exceedingly substantial, resulting in an immense GDP. Should value be predicated on marginal utility, such a strange circumstance could manifest.

@DrAzevedoEcon

3 ай бұрын

@@doromamire I may be missing the point of what you're arguing. Nothing that you are saying runs contrary to the theory of marginal value. One thing I would point out is that when you say, "The level of marginal utility is depending on whether the output is high or low," this is incorrect. A person's marginal utility depends on that person's consumption....not the output produced in total. To somehow link up an individual person's utility with the total amount produced in an economy simply clouds the issue in my opinion. Keep in mind that prices are determined in markets, and GDP would be determined using those prices, not an individual's maximum willingness to pay. Also, this sentence, "When the value assigned to each good is directly proportional to its scarcity through the level of its marginal utility, as your second point, the aggregate value of goods can be substantial with a low output," is incorrect. You are confusing marginal value and total value. Just because the marginal value is high, does not imply that the aggregate value would be substantial. That is exactly the point....when you have almost none of something, the marginal value is high and the aggregate value is very low. If you have no water, you would be willing to pay a lot to have the first drink, but because you have no water, you are getting no value out of water....marginal value would be high and total value would be zero. Finally, this, "while the overall output may be limited in volume, the cumulative price is exceedingly substantial, resulting in an immense GDP" is incorrect. If output is limited in volume, driving prices up, then GDP would be small..... precisely because output is limited.

@doromamire

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your kind reply again. There still seems to be a gap in our thinking. However, I may not have said enough in some of my sentences. I would like to make them clear. (1) First point. You stopped quoting my statement halfway through. Here is the whole sentence. >> The level of marginal utility is depending on whether the output is high or low, determining the scarcity of goods. The key is presented in the participle construction. In the context of my argument, the reason why I'm making the quantity of output an issue is because it determines the scarcity of goods. As a simple example, consider that only one car, one loaf of bread, and one watch are produced. (Each kind of goods is produced in one piece only.) All of these goods would be as scarce as a glass of water in the desert. Then the marginal utility of each kind of goods would be extremely high, and the value of each kind of goods would also be very high. (2) and (3) Second and Third points. I should have added some words to the sentence you have mentioned: >> When the value assigned to each good is directly proportional to its scarcity through the level of its marginal utility, as youe second point, the aggregate value of goods can be substantial with a low output. as follows: >> When the value assigned to each KIND OF GOODS is directly proportional to its scarcity through the level of its marginal utility, as your (just misspelled) second point, the aggregate value of ALL KINDS OF GOODS can be substantial with a low output. Let me use the same example as above. If only one car, one loaf of bread, and one watch are produced, the value of each kind of goods is extremely high. The aggregate value of the national output for all these kinds of goods is also extremely high, because it simply adds up the values of these kinds of goods (one car, one loaf of bread and one watch). This is my point. At the same time, this is the last point which you have pointed out as incorrect in the previous email. The argument is thus led to: >> In essence, while the overall output may be limited in volume, the cumulative price is exceedingly substantial, resulting in an immense GDP. Should value be predicated on marginal utility, such a strange circumstance could manifest.

I wonder why my lecturer teach this chapter before cost

@AdilAkylov22

Жыл бұрын

where do you study?

Sir please post the full macro series 🥺

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Here's a link to my playlist that contains all of the macro videos that I have made so far. kzread.info/head/PLTjEimbqDkpDBeWbWT6kBkK3nxNoHhxYZ

@prachi2371

Жыл бұрын

@@DrAzevedoEcon Sir it's a humble request to please complete the macro series as we are going to have our economics exam soon because you're videos are really really helpful and easy to understand. 💐

1:20:45 "I am always prepared to be wrong" I respect you Sir🙏 Thank you for these video you uploaded it really helped me a lot!!🥲👊

@DrAzevedoEcon

Жыл бұрын

Very happy to have helped out! Thank you for the kind comments!