Johnny owns a house that would cost $100,000 to replace should it ever be destroyed by fire. There is a 0.1% chance that the house could be destroyed during the course of a year. Johnny's utility function is U = W0.5
How much would fair insurance cost that completely replaces the house if destroyed by fire? Assuming that Johnny has no other wealth, how much would Johnny be willing to pay for such an insurance policy? Why the difference?
Fair insurance would cost (0.001 ∗ $100,000 ) = $100. Johnny's expected utility without insurance equals (.001 ∗ 00.5 ) + (.999 ∗ 100,0000.5 ) = 315.91. He can receive this level of utility with certainty if he had risk-free wealth of $99,800.10. Thus, he is willing to pay $199.90 for insurance. He is willing to pay more than the fair price because he is risk averse.
You might also like to view...
In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, what assumption is made about opportunity costs?
What will be an ideal response?
Why do most economists favor emissions taxes and transferable pollution rights over compliance standards as pollution deterrents?
Economics is
a. a discipline in the physical sciences b. a field that deals exclusively with normative issues c. a field that deals exclusively with positive issues d. only useful for examining behavior in capitalist economies e. a discipline that focuses on how choices are made in society
If the marginal utilities of the first 4 candy bars consumed are 10, 12, 9, and 7, respectively, the total utility derived from consuming 3 candy bars is
a. 3 b. 9 c. 25 d. 31 e. Total utility cannot be derived from marginal utility. On the other hand, marginal utility can be derived from total utility.