<p>I anticipate there will be some clarification of the question but here are the general points that should be covered here in a discussion of PPFs.</p>
<p>First, points further to the upper right in a PPF are preferred to those in the lower left because of the law that <em>more is better</em>. Particularly, point D is <em>strictly superior</em> to point A. Strictly superior means that D has more of at least one good than A, and less of no goods.  The same cannot be said of A and B or A and C. For example, B makes sense for wartime production and C makes sense for peacetime. But D is always better than A - in war or peace.</p>
<p>Second, &quot;best&quot; is arbitrary. However, we can give a good answer to the spirit of your inquiry with utility curves. If the country's central planner has some sort of aggregate utility curve, then the value with the highest utility that is also on the PPF is <em>the one the country's central planner prefers to produce at</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-31T17:51:54.903Z
"*the law that more is better*" mmm, guns are bad, mmmkay?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-31T20:06:55.493Z
mumbles something about *free disposal* and *no externalities*.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-31T17:45:48.230Z
2023-01-31T22:03:15.083Z
2023-01-31T22:03:15.083Z
RegressForward
<p>I think that the sort of efficiency you are describing isn't the sort of efficiency that one describes when speaking about the PPF curve. Any point on the curve is &quot;productively efficient&quot; in that they are the most you can produce given some input constraint.</p>
<p><em>&quot;The best allocation&quot;</em> has nothing to do with productive efficiency. The best allocation could be at the point <span class="math-container">$(0,0)$</span> if some economic agent (e.g., business, government) is best off producing neither of the goods. For example, the government may have the resources to produce hard drugs (e.g., cocaine), but the &quot;best allocation&quot; would be to produce no cocaine since it decreases the welfare of society. In this case any point on the PPF or to the right of the origin would be allocatively inefficient.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-03T15:18:11.160Z
2022-09-03T16:05:56.820Z
2022-09-03T16:05:56.820Z
Eli J
<p>I have this doubt that when we have a concave PPF like the one below is it possible for us to determine the best allocation using just the PPF alone ?</p>
<p>I understand that any point in the ppf curve is efficient and in the below example point a is inefficient. So for us to determine the best allocation for products can we blindly take any possible combination in the PPF curve ? or is there a specific point in the PPF curve which is the best</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/MU2Ll.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/MU2Ll.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-04T06:16:53.553Z
Can you please define "best"?
Giskard
<macroeconomics><microeconomics>
Can we find the best combination of production by just using the PPF curve?
studenthere
# Can we find the best combination of production by just using the PPF curve?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-09-03)

I have this doubt that when we have a concave PPF like the one below is it possible for us to determine the best allocation using just the PPF alone ?

I understand that any point in the ppf curve is efficient and in the below example point a is inefficient. So for us to determine the best allocation for products can we blindly take any possible combination in the PPF curve ? or is there a specific point in the PPF curve which is the best

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/MU2Ll.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/MU2Ll.png)

**Tags:** macroeconomics, microeconomics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you please define "best"?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-01-31. Score: 2

I anticipate there will be some clarification of the question but here are the general points that should be covered here in a discussion of PPFs.

First, points further to the upper right in a PPF are preferred to those in the lower left because of the law that *more is better*. Particularly, point D is *strictly superior* to point A. Strictly superior means that D has more of at least one good than A, and less of no goods. The same cannot be said of A and B or A and C. For example, B makes sense for wartime production and C makes sense for peacetime. But D is always better than A - in war or peace.

Second, "best" is arbitrary. However, we can give a good answer to the spirit of your inquiry with utility curves. If the country's central planner has some sort of aggregate utility curve, then the value with the highest utility that is also on the PPF is *the one the country's central planner prefers to produce at*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "*the law that more is better*" mmm, guns are bad, mmmkay?  
> **username_2**: mumbles something about *free disposal* and *no externalities*.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-09-03. Score: 0

I think that the sort of efficiency you are describing isn't the sort of efficiency that one describes when speaking about the PPF curve. Any point on the curve is "productively efficient" in that they are the most you can produce given some input constraint.

*"The best allocation"* has nothing to do with productive efficiency. The best allocation could be at the point $(0,0)$ if some economic agent (e.g., business, government) is best off producing neither of the goods. For example, the government may have the resources to produce hard drugs (e.g., cocaine), but the "best allocation" would be to produce no cocaine since it decreases the welfare of society. In this case any point on the PPF or to the right of the origin would be allocatively inefficient.


---

