Which of the following statements is NOT true about game theory? O a. The pay-offs in Nash equilibrium are always worse-off to both players. O b. The equilibrium outcome in a Prisoner's dilemma case is worse-off to both prisoners. * O c. When both players have a dominant strategy, the equilibrium outcome is Nash equilibrium. Od. The equilibrium outcome in a Prisoner's dilemma case is Nash equilibrium.

Which of the following statements is NOT true about game theory? O a. The pay-offs in Nash equilibrium are always worse-off to both players. O b. The equilibrium outcome in a Prisoner's dilemma case is worse-off to both prisoners. * O c. When both players have a dominant strategy, the equilibrium outcome is Nash equilibrium. Od. The equilibrium outcome in a Prisoner's dilemma case is Nash equilibrium.

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

Does each individual in a prisoners dilemma benefit more from cooperation or from pursuing self-interest? Explain briefly.
Sometimes oligopolies in the same industry are very different in size. Suppose we have a duopoly where one firm (Film A) is large and the other film (Film B) is small, as the prisoners dilemma box in Table 10.4 shows. Assuming that both films know the payoffs, what is the likely outcome in this case?
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.
1. Consider the pricing game between firm 1 (row) and firm 2 (column) belowwhere each number represents the profits made by each firm.:Table 1: Pricing gameLow HighLow 288,288 360,216High 216,360 324,324 a) Point out the Nash equilibrium. Is this a unique Nash equilibrium?c) What type of commitment can firm 1 make to improve its pay-off?Can it be classified as a threat or promise? (Assume that the commitmentis credible.)d) How would you represent the game as a game tree with the option tocommit?2. Consider the signalling / production game with the order of play given below.Assuming that the signal is informative (i.e. education is sufficiently costly),how would you change the order of the game to make sure that poolingequilibriums are ruled out? Verbally motivate your answer.• Nature chooses ability of the workers a ∈ (H, L), ability is observed byworkers but not employers.• The worker choose an education level s ∈ (0, 1).• The employer offer contracts w(s).• The worker accepts or…
Hello, In a) I get qi=2, price=3 and profiti= 4. I had a question on (b), I attached my answer in handwritten, is it correct to do it by showing Lemma 1 result? It is so confusing. So, based on this with q(bar) as capacity constrained, and they are not gigantic capacity, I assumed it is played under pure strategy equilibrium of pricing game. Hence, the "optimal price = market-clearing" price is a Nash Equilibria as in Lemma 1. Pls, can you help me with (b)? Thanks
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 as follows 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. d. Based on your understanding of the gains from trade (discussed in Chapters 3 and 9), do you think that these payoffs actually reflect a nation's welfare under the four possible outcomes?
Please no written by hand and no image (Bertrand's duopoly game with discrete prices) Consider the variant of the example of Bertrand's duopoly game in this section in which each firm is restricted to choose a price that is an integral number of cents. Take the monetary unit to be a cent, and assume that c is an integer and a>c+!. Is (c,c) a nash equilibrium of this game? Is there any other nash equilibrium?
The extensive form of a game is drawn when O a) the players move sequentially. Ob) the players move simultaneously. O c) there is no Nash equilibrium. O d) there are multiple Nash equilibria. O e) the game is often repeated.
The prisoners' dilemma is a two-person game illus·trating thata. t he cooperative outcome could be worse for bothpeople than t he Nash equilibrium.b . even if the cooperative outcome is better than theNash equilibrium for one person, it might be worsefor the other.c. even if cooperation is better than the Nash equilibrium,each person might have an incentive not tocooperate.d . rational, seff·interested individuals will naturallyavoid the Nash equilibrium because it is worse forboth of them.
A) Focus on the strategic game at the lower-right side of the gametree. Find all the Nash equilibria for this subgame, including the mixed-strategyones. (b) Find all the subgame perfect equilibria for the entire game, allowingfor both pure and mixed strategies
Consider the extensive form game portrayed below. The top number at aterminal node is player 1’s payoff, the middle number is player 2’s payoff,and the bottom number is player 3’s payoff.a. Derive the strategy set for each player. (Note: If you do not want to listall of the strategies, you can provide a general description of a player’sstrategy, give an example, and state how many strategies are in thestrategy set.)b. Derive all subgame perfect Nash equilibria. c. Derive a Nash equilibrium that is not a SPNE, and explain why it isnot a SPNE.
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.