Bargaining Questions 1. Discuss the Nash bargaining solution. 2. Provide a solution to he Alternating Offers Bargaining Problem. 3. Show that the Nash bargaining solution is Pareto efficient. 4. Use a diagram to show that the Nash bargaining solution satisfies the independence of irrelevant alternatives assumption. 5. Use the generalized Nash bargaining solution to show that an individual's share increase with his power, but deceases with the power of his rival. 6. Use the generalized Nash bargaining solution to show that an individual's share increases with his threat point and decreases with his rival's threat point. 7. Use the alternating offers bargaining game to show that an individual's shares increase with his discount factor. 8. Use the alternating offers bargaining game to demonstrate the first mover advantage. 9. Show that, at the limit, when the time between of- fers goes to zero, the solution in the alternating offers model converges to the solution in the generalized Nash bargaining model, with zero threat points and with the two parties' powers being given by the re- spective discount rates.

Bargaining Questions 1. Discuss the Nash bargaining solution. 2. Provide a solution to he Alternating Offers Bargaining Problem. 3. Show that the Nash bargaining solution is Pareto efficient. 4. Use a diagram to show that the Nash bargaining solution satisfies the independence of irrelevant alternatives assumption. 5. Use the generalized Nash bargaining solution to show that an individual's share increase with his power, but deceases with the power of his rival. 6. Use the generalized Nash bargaining solution to show that an individual's share increases with his threat point and decreases with his rival's threat point. 7. Use the alternating offers bargaining game to show that an individual's shares increase with his discount factor. 8. Use the alternating offers bargaining game to demonstrate the first mover advantage. 9. Show that, at the limit, when the time between of- fers goes to zero, the solution in the alternating offers model converges to the solution in the generalized Nash bargaining model, with zero threat points and with the two parties' powers being given by the re- spective discount rates.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.9P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

1) What are the Nash equilibria? Which one is unreasonable/non-credible threat? 2) What are the subgame perfect Nash equilibria? Does SPNE concept eliminate the unreasonable Nash equilibrium?
Describe the Nash equilibrium/a and the mutually-preferred outcome. Finally, consider how people are sometimes able to resolve this social dilemma in the real world. Clearly explain how this method is successful in moving the players to a socially optimal outcome.
QUESTION: What is the Nash equilibrium usineg the payoff matrix below? Profit Payoff Matrix Frontier High Price Frontier Low Price United High Price United 50 Frontier 12 United 40 Frontier 15 United Low Price United 30 Frontier 0 United 25 Frontier 10 A. UNITED: HIGH FRONTIER: HIGH B. UNITED: HIGH FRONTIER: LOW C. UNITED: LOW FRONTIER: HIGH D. UNITED: LOW FRONTIER: LOW E. THERE IS NO NASH EQUILIBRIUM.
Consider trade relations between the United States and Mexico. Assume that the leaders of the two countries believe the payoffs to alternative trade policies are shown in the image attached. a) What is the dominant strategy for the United States? For Mexico? Explain. b) Define Nash equilibrium. What is the Nash equilibrium for trade policy? c) In 1993, the U.S. Congress ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement, in which the United States and Mexico agreed to reduce trade barriers simultaneously. Do the perceived payoffs shown here justify this approach to trade policy? Explain.
Question 1 Consider a first-price sealed bid auction of a single object with two biddersj = 1,2 and no reservation price. Bidder 1′s valuation is v1 = 2, and bidder 2′s valuation isv1 = 5. Both v1 and v2 are known to both bidders. Bids must be in whole dollar amounts.In the event of a tie, the object is awarded by a flip of a fair coin.(a) Find an equilibrium of this game.(b) Is the allocation of your answer to (a) efficient?
Refer to the Ultimatum Game in Figure 17.7. Recall that the payoffs are monetary payoffs. a. Suppose that players only care about monetary payoffs, with $1 = 1 util. Find the subgame– perfect equilibrium. b. Suppose that players are imperfectly altruistic. They receive 1 util for each dollar they earn but = util for each dollar the other player earns.Write down the extensive form reflecting the new payoffs. Find the subgame–perfect equilibrium. c. Suppose that players are perfectly altruistic, receiving 1 util for each dollar in the sum of their earnings. Write down the extensive form reflecting the new payoffs. Find the subgame– perfect equilibrium. d. Suppose that players are perfectly selfless, getting 1 util for each dollar the other player earns but no utility for their own earnings. Write down the extensive form reflecting the newpayoffs. Find the subgame–perfect equilibrium. Does player 1 end up choosing the outcome that player 2 prefers?…
3. Suppose that the various Balls of basketball or internet fame Lavar, Lamelo, Liangelo, Lonzo,and Spalding are considering playing in a 1-on-1 tournament. They get a payoff of 0 if theydecide not to participate. The following table illustrates their payoffs across the variousscenarios. 1 Player 2 Players 3 Players 4 Players 5 Players Lavar 10 4 2 -2 -5 Lamelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Liangelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Lonzo 10 8 7 6 5 Spalding 10 9 8 7 6 a. Find and describe all pure strategy Nash Equilibria.b. Suppose now Spalding, since it is in fact a literal basketball, gets a payoff of 0 in anycircumstance, being an inanimate object. The table is now as follows: 1 Player 2 Players 3 Players 4Players 5 Players Lavar 10 4 2 -2 -5 Lamelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Liangelo 10 7 5 2 -1 Lonzo 10 8 7 6 5 Spalding 0 0 0 0 0 Find and describe all pure strategy Nash Equilibria.
Suppose two bidders compete for a single indivisible item (e.g., a used car, a piece of art, etc.). We assume that bidder 1 values the item at $v1, and bidder 2 values the item at $v2. We assume that v1 > v2. In this problem we study a second price auction, which proceeds as follows. Each player i = 1, 2 simultaneously chooses a bid bi ≥ 0. The higher of the two bidders wins, and pays the second highest bid (in this case, the other player’s bid). In case of a tie, suppose the item goes to bidder 1. If a bidder does not win, their payoff is zero; if the bidder wins, their payoff is their value minus the second highest bid. a) Now suppose that player 1 bids b1 = v2 and player 2 bids b2 = v1, i.e., they both bid the value of the other player. (Note that in this case, player 2 is bidding above their value!) Show that this is a pure NE of the second price auction. (Note that in this pure NE the player with the lower value wins, while in the weak dominant strategy equilibrium where both…
1. Assume this game is played 2 times and there is no discounting. The whole payoff for two periods is the sum of payoffs of each period. Draw a tree of the game and solve it with subgame prefect Nash equilibrium. Explain clearly, handwritten is preferable.
a)Find the Nash equilibrium b)Find subgame Nash equilibrium c) Explain why all Nash equilibrium are not subgame perfect. Please see the image The term in image are A,B b,c and w,a and 1,2,7,9 and 7,3,4,8
Kayla and Kevin are friends who go together to a used textbook seller who has two copies ofthe biology book that they both need for their class this semester. The cost to the seller ofacquiring the books was $25 each and no other students will need this book. Kayla states thatshe is willing to pay $40 for the book, while Kevin says he is willing to pay $80. Which ofthe following describes the most likely conclusion to this scenario? Group of answer choices The seller will sell the books to both Kayla and Kevin for $40 each because if they tried tocharge Kevin a higher price, Kayla would engage in arbitrage. The seller will sell one book to Kayla for $40 and one book to Kevin for $80 because thismarket meets all three requirements for price discrimination. The seller will sell the books to both Kayla and Kevin for $80 each because Kevin's highervalue exceeds Kayla's willingness to pay. The seller will sell the books to both Kayla and Kevin for $25 each because that is howmuch the…
5) Three legislators are set to vote on a bill to raise the salary of legislators. The majority wins, so all three will receive the raise if at least two of them vote in favor of the bill. The raise is valued at R by each legislator. Voting in favor of the bill comes with political backlash from constituents, though, even if the bill fails. Let C be the cost of backlash for anyone voting in favor of the bill. Finally, suppose that 0 < C < R. There are four possible payoffs for each legislator: 0: if they vote against the bill and at least one other legislator votes against it (so the bill fails) R: if they vote against the bill and the others vote for the bill (so the bill passes) -C: if they vote for the bill and no one else votes for the bill (so the bill fails) R-C: if they vote for the bill and at least one other legislator votes for it (so the bill passes). The three legislators are named X, Y, and Z, and voting happens sequentially and orally. So X announces their vote (to…