trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Constant elasticity of substitution utility functions yield a constant price elasticity of demand
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against

Economic literature confirms that generalized constant elasticity of substitution utility functions result in constant own-price and income elasticities of demand.

Evidence for · 1
1972 · cited by 0
Frisch (1959) proposed the adoption of direct additive utility functions to facilitate empirical demand analysis. Double-log demand functions resulting therefrom are composed of the real income effect and the relative price effect. I show that the income elasticities and the own-price elasticities of demand are (approximately) constant (an assumption almost invariably made in applications) when the utility function is a generalized CES type. The income elasticity of marginal utility is the overall elasticity of substitution with no cardinal implications that Frisch stressed upon. The paper examines how approximate the constancy assumption is. A comparison is made with the linear expenditure system that is a special case. I suggest that the implied similarity of utility functions among countries provides the missing basis for international comparisons of purchasing power parities.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Additive Utility Functions with Double-Log Consumer Demand Functionspeer-reviewedno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
held for human review07 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt