QUESTION 8Player 1 chooses between Up and Down. Player 2 observes this, then chooses between Up and Down herself. If both players choose thesame action, they both get a payoff of 1. If they choose different actions, the player with Up gets 1 and the player with Down gets -1. Hovmany (pure strategy) Nash equilibria are there in this game?134QUESTION 9In the Bertrand model, suppose that each firm has a marginal cost of £10 and that firm 1 sets a price of £9.99, which of the following abest-response for firm 2? Click all the correct answers.£10.01£9.98£10.00£11.01O £9.99QUESTION 10In a Lindahl equilibrium, which of the following is true:O The quantity of public goods provided satisfies the Samuelson rule.The quantity of public goods consumed is more than the quantity of private goods.individuals pay the same tax shares.Individuals who have a higher demand for public goods consume more public goods.O O O O O

Since you have asked a question with multiple sub-parts, we will solve the first three sub-parts for…

Player 1 chooses between Up and Down. Player 2 observes this, then chooses between Up and Down herself. If both players choose same action, they both get a payoff of 1. If they choose different actions, the player with Up gets 1 and the player with Down gets -1. H many (pure strategy) Nash equilibria are there in this game? 1 O 2 4

Player 1 chooses between Up and Down. Player 2 observes this, then chooses between Up and Down herself. If both players choose same action, they both get a payoff of 1. If they choose different actions, the player with Up gets 1 and the player with Down gets -1. H many (pure strategy) Nash equilibria are there in this game? 1 O 2 4

Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)

8th Edition

ISBN:9781305585126

Author:N. Gregory Mankiw

Publisher:N. Gregory Mankiw

Chapter17: Oligopoly

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 5CQQ

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Suppose we’ve modelled a firm’s entry decision with a one-shot, simultaneous move game, determined payoffs and found the Nash equilibrium. Suppose with the payoffs we came up with, both firms have a clear dominant strategy such that there is a Nash equilibrium in which both firms play their dominant strategy. However, when we observe the actual actions of the firms, we see that they don’t choose the strategy wepredicted and the outcome of the game doesn’t match the Nash equilibrium. What are 4 reasons this might be? (Hint: The firms are rational.)
1) Put together an example of a 2x2 game (two players with each having two options) that has NO pure-strategyNash equilibria. (Hint: just try some values and then change them as you need to; as an example think aboutthe Rock, Scissors paper which has no pure strategy NE).2) Using your own words, explain how the concept of elimination of dominated strategies differs from theconcept of Nash equilibrium.3) Indicate whether the following statement is TRUE or FALSE and explain your answer: If one player is theleader in a game it means that s/he has the first move in the game. The key thing is that this move can beobserved by the follower before making his/her own decision, otherwise it would be a simultaneous movegame that cannot be solved by backwards induction.4) MULTIPLE CHOICE (identify the one best answer below and explain your reasoning for each option): Recallthe Game of chicken from the previous problem set. If James is the leader in the game then: (hint: you candraw the game tree…
Suppose we’ve modelled a firm’s entry decision with a one-shot, simultaneous move game, determined payoffs and found the Nash equilibrium. Suppose with the payoffs we came up with, both firms have a clear dominant strategy such that there is a Nash equilibrium in which both firms play their dominant strategy. However, when we observe the actual actions of the firms, we see that they don’t choose the strategy we predicted and the outcome of the game doesn’t match the Nash equilibrium. Why might this be? Give at least 4 reasons. (Hint: The firms are rational.)
on 8.1 Consider the following game: Player 1 A C D 7,6 5,8 0,0 Player 2 E 5,8 7,6 1, 1 F 0,0 1,1 4,4 a. Find the pure-strategy Nash equilibria (if any). b. Find the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium in which each player randomizes over just the first two actions. c. Compute players' expected payoffs in the equilibria found in parts (a) and (b). d. Draw the extensive form for this game.
Please no written by hand Two players bargain over how to split $10. Each player i ∈ {1, 2} choose a number si ∈ [0, 10] (which does not need to be an integer). Each player’s payoff is the money he receives. We consider two allocation rules. In each case, if s1 + s2 ≤ 10, each player gets his chosen amount si and the rest is destroyed. 1. In the first case, if s1 + s2 > 10, both players get zero. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 2. In the second case, if s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 6= s2, the player who chose the smallest amount receives this amount and the other gets the rest. If s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 = s2, they both get $5. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 3. Now suppose that s1 and s2 must be integers. Does this change the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in either case?
Micro Nash game theory Show that if in a game G, the sets of actions (A i) i in N are compact, and the payment functions (u i) i in N are continuous, then for all i in N, the application of Best response has a closed graph. Conclude that the application of best response has a closed graph.
Consider a modified Traveler’s Dilemma. In terms of strategy options that the players have and the dollars they earn, it is like the standard Traveler’s Dilemma, but the players do not have endless appetite for money. Up to 100 dollars, each dollar feels like a dollar. But any moneybeyond 100 is psychologically like 100 dollars. Assuming that players are maximizers of ‘psychological’ dollars instead of real dollars, describe all the Nash equilibria of this modified Traveler’s Dilemma.
parameter z= 1 In the unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, what is the sum of the payoffs tothe two players?
. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was founded in 1969. Their original objective was to form a cartel to increase the price that they receive for their oil exports. Create a prisoner’s dilemma type game for two large members of OPEC (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Indonesia). Create numbers, where payoffs are total annual oil export revenues for each of these two countries. Verbally explain how you got your numbers. Find the Nash equilibrium. Based on this model, what strategy is in the oil exporters’ best interest (Nash or otherwise)? How do they make it happen? Create another prisoner’s dilemmamodel for all of OPEC on one side, and all non OPEC oil exporting nations on the other side. Create numbers, where payoffs are total annual oil export revenues for each of the two sides. Verbally explain how you created your numbers. Also create your numbers applying the fact that OPEC’s total production capacity is greater than total non OPEC exports…
Solve for the Nash equilibrium (or equilibria) in each of the following games. (a) The following two-by-two game is a little harder to solve since firm 2’spreferred strategy depends of what firm 1 does. But firm 1 has a dominantstrategy so this game has one Nash equilibrium. Firm 2 Launch Don’tFirm 1 Launch 60, -10 100, 0 Don’t 80, 30 120, 0 What is the Nash equilibrium of this simultaneous-move game? (b) What would the outcome of this game be if instead firm 1 moved first and then, after seeing what firm 1 chose, firm 2 chose it strategy? In this case firm 1 doesn’t necessarily need to choose a best response, but firm 2 must choose a best response since it moves second.
H7. Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria and for each one, state whether or not it is subgame perfect.
Prove that in the variation on the centipede game given in figure 14.5(b) the unique sequential equilibrium described is, in fact, the unique Nash equilibrium. (Hint: Take some presumed Nash equilibrium and suppose information set 2n+ 1 [for player 2] is the first unreached information set. Derive an immediate contradiction. Then suppose that node (2n) t is the first unreached information set and derive a contradiction that is one degree removed from immediate.)