FOC for King–Plosser–Rebelo preferences - Economics Stack Exchange I found the same FOC in a paper from Ferede (Dynamic Scoring in the Ramsey Growth Model, here) and he says, that it is obtained by combining the first order conditions of the utility maximization with respect to capital and consumption (page 5)
Jordi Gali Euler Equation Beta - Economics Stack Exchange Jordi Gali book, page 42 There is no explanation gali book the notes which are prepared by Drago Bergholt (Page 6) explain FOC for "Ct" (2 13) and (2 18) explain Euler equation Writer uses FOC for "Ct" and FOC for "Ct+1" to form euler and I expect to different " β " for "Ct" and for "Ct+1" in (2 18) But there is only one " β " in (2 18)
FOCs for profit maximization using a transformation function You'll need to complete a few actions and gain 15 reputation points before being able to upvote Upvoting indicates when questions and answers are useful What's reputation and how do I get it? Instead, you can save this post to reference later
From Cobb-Douglas Production Function to Profit Function Hi @Giskard I am looking into investment theory The key choice variable is (physical) investment while labor doesn't feature in the models The models often start with $\Pi=ZK^\gamma$ (where $\gamma$ is calibrated to values around 0 9) and go on to impose capital investment frictions and study firm dynamics Some papers state that $\Pi=ZK^\gamma$ can actually be derived from a Cobb Douglas
Equilibrium with Externalities: Solving without FOC I'm a little rusty on solving general equilibria, but it sounds to me like you want to find a pareto optimal solution, where the externality makes participants more active in the pareto optimal state than the general equilibrium? If so, don't you just solve for ideal values of C and N, rather than solving for either parties FoC?
Differentiating over multiple time horizons to get FOCs I tried using the rationale of shifting every time dependent variable one time period ahead and then calculating the FOC, but my calculation still doesn't match this result in $ (5) $