<p>I chose not to vote to close this question, because I think it is a good opportunity to showcase how important it is for the OPs to offer <em>comprehensive input</em> related to their question.  </p>

<p>What goes wrong here? </p>

<p>As is and with the input given by OP, the pictured Production Possibility Frontier is <em>totally wrong</em>. Why? Because it appears to represent a substitution effect between resources/goods, where the one (factories to make mobile phones) is <em>necessary</em> for the production of the other (mobile phones). So for example the point where the blue line cuts the horizontal axis appears to be saying:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"If we eliminate factories for mobile phones, we can produce 5 million
  mobile phones".</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I find hard to believe that the textbook authors are that incompetent, so there must be more to the story -and the OP should provide this additional input, otherwise the question should rightfully be closed.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-18T18:54:06.717Z
Okay then. As a further input, I found that the line "why is the curve asymmetric?" indicated that the OP did not spend enough time on the question and does not really know *what* he is asking. I could be wrong, but it is the OP's burden to make his question clear.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-18T18:59:15.007Z
@denesp Indeed, it would appear so. Let's see if we will get any reaction from the OP.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-18T18:50:51.897Z
2017-03-18T18:50:51.897Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>Can someone please tell me how or why the curve shifts outward.</p>

<p>In the textbook, I was given that:</p>

<p>"But if we cut production of mobile phones to 3 million this year, we can produce 2 mobile phone factories at point K."</p>

<p>"Then next year, our PPF shifts outward because we have more capital"</p>

<p>I might be wrong here, but is it saying that because we reduced production of mobile phones, we can use the spare $$$, to invest in capital resources to speed up/increase the production of mobile phones next year?</p>

<p>If so, then why is it talking about 2 mobile phones at point K if we reduce production cost to 3 million. Is this related to the outward shift?</p>

<p>Also, why is the curve asymmetric?</p>

<p>Any help would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/fpmRf.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/fpmRf.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-16T15:27:35.110Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because we requested clarification from the OP 2 years ago.
Giskard
<supply-and-demand><preferences><production-function><demographics>
Quick Question on Production Possibilities Frontier Curve
user12364
# Quick Question on Production Possibilities Frontier Curve

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-08)

Can someone please tell me how or why the curve shifts outward.

In the textbook, I was given that:

"But if we cut production of mobile phones to 3 million this year, we can produce 2 mobile phone factories at point K."

"Then next year, our PPF shifts outward because we have more capital"

I might be wrong here, but is it saying that because we reduced production of mobile phones, we can use the spare $$$, to invest in capital resources to speed up/increase the production of mobile phones next year?

If so, then why is it talking about 2 mobile phones at point K if we reduce production cost to 3 million. Is this related to the outward shift?

Also, why is the curve asymmetric?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

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

**Tags:** supply-and-demand, preferences, production-function, demographics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because we requested clarification from the OP 2 years ago.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-18. Score: 0

I chose not to vote to close this question, because I think it is a good opportunity to showcase how important it is for the OPs to offer *comprehensive input* related to their question.

What goes wrong here?

As is and with the input given by OP, the pictured Production Possibility Frontier is *totally wrong*. Why? Because it appears to represent a substitution effect between resources/goods, where the one (factories to make mobile phones) is *necessary* for the production of the other (mobile phones). So for example the point where the blue line cuts the horizontal axis appears to be saying:

> *"If we eliminate factories for mobile phones, we can produce 5 million
> mobile phones".*

I find hard to believe that the textbook authors are that incompetent, so there must be more to the story -and the OP should provide this additional input, otherwise the question should rightfully be closed.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Okay then. As a further input, I found that the line "why is the curve asymmetric?" indicated that the OP did not spend enough time on the question and does not really know *what* he is asking. I could be wrong, but it is the OP's burden to make his question clear.  
> **username_2**: @denesp Indeed, it would appear so. Let's see if we will get any reaction from the OP.  

---

