EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 1.3, Problem 1TTA
To determine
Whether the assumption that animals consciously choose an optimal strategy for dealing with the scarcity of resources make sense or not.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow’s election. Would such an agreement improve utility? Would such an agreement be an equilibrium?
There are two firms, whose production activity consumes some of the clean air that surrounds our planet. The total amount of clean air is K > 0, and any consumption of clean air comes out of this common resource. If firm i ∈ {1, 2} uses ki of clean air for its production, the remaining amount of clean air is K − k1 − k2. Each player derives utility from using ki for production and from the remainder of clean air. The payoff of firm i is given by
ui(ki , kj ) = ln(ki) + ln(K − ki − kj ) j ≠ i ∈ {1, 2}.
(a) Assuming that each firm chooses ki ∈ (0, K), to maximize its payoff function, derive the players’ best response functions and find a Nash equilibrium.
(b) Is the equilibrium you found in (a) unique or not? What are equilibrium payoffs?
Rachel, Monica, and Phoebe are roommates; each has 10 hours of free time you could spend cleaning your apartment. You all dislike cleaning, but you all like having a clean apartment: each person’s payoff is the total hours spent (by everyone) cleaning, minus a number 1/2 times the hours spent (individually) cleaning.That is, ui(s1, s2, s3) = s1 + s2 + s3 -1/2si Assume everyone chooses simultaneously how much time to spend cleaning. a. Find the Nash equilibrium. b. Find the Nash if the payoff for each player is: ui(s1, s2, s3) = s1 + s2 + s3 − 3si Is the Nash equilibrium Pareto efficient? If not, can you find an outcome in which everyone is better off than in the Nash equilibrium outcome?
Chapter 1 Solutions
EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
Ch. 1.2 - Prob. 1MQCh. 1.2 - Prob. 2MQCh. 1.3 - Prob. 1TTACh. 1.3 - Prob. 2TTACh. 1.4 - Prob. 1TTACh. 1.4 - Prob. 2TTACh. 1.4 - Prob. 1MQCh. 1.4 - Prob. 2MQCh. 1.4 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 1.4 - Prob. 1.2MQ
Ch. 1.5 - Prob. 1TTACh. 1.5 - Prob. 2TTACh. 1 - Prob. 1RQCh. 1 - Prob. 2RQCh. 1 - Prob. 3RQCh. 1 - Prob. 4RQCh. 1 - Prob. 5RQCh. 1 - Prob. 6RQCh. 1 - Prob. 7RQCh. 1 - Prob. 8RQCh. 1 - Prob. 9RQCh. 1 - Prob. 10RQCh. 1 - Prob. 1.1PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.2PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.3PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.4PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.5PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.6PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.7PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.8PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.9PCh. 1 - Prob. 1.10P
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Two players play the Ultimatum Game, in which they are to split $20. A purely rational agent would only reject an offer of … Group of answer choices... -$20 -$19 -$1 -$0 -$10arrow_forwardSuppose Justine and Sarah are playing the ultimatum game. Justine is the proposer, has $140 to allocate, and Sarah can accept or reject the offer. Based on repeated experiments of the ultimatum game, what combination of payouts to Justine and Sarah is most likely to occur?.arrow_forwardTwo friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answerarrow_forward
- A husband and wife would produce incomes Yh and Yw in their fallback situations. The utility each derives in any circumstance is just equal to his or her consumption expenditure in that circumstance. In their fallback situations, their consumption expenditure levels are just equal to their incomes. Thus their fallback levels of utility are Yh and Yw. If they cooperate, they produce Z>Yh + Yw. They engage in Nash cooperative bargaining to determine how to allocate Z across the consumption of the husband, Ch, and consumption of the wife, Cw, subject to the budget constraint that Ch + Cw = Z. Under any bargained allocation, the two would derive utilities of Ch and Cw. a) The surplus associated with cooperation is S = Z − Yh − Yw. Show that each spouse consumes his or her fallback income plus half the surplus in the Nash cooperative bargaining solution. Please do fast ASAP fast please.arrow_forwardA husband and wife would produce incomes Yh and Yw in their fallback situations. The utility each derives in any circumstance is just equal to his or her consumption expenditure in that circumstance. In their fallback situations, their consumption expenditure levels are just equal to their incomes. Thus their fallback levels of utility are Yh and Yw. If they cooperate, they produce Z>Yh + Yw. They engage in Nash cooperative bargaining to determine how to allocate Z across the consumption of the husband, Ch, and consumption of the wife, Cw, subject to the budget constraint that Ch + Cw = Z. Under any bargained allocation, the two would derive utilities of Ch and Cw. What do Ch and Cw equal if Yh = Yw (but this quantity is not equal to zero)? Please do fast ASAP fastarrow_forwardOur classroom needs a better webcam. A webcam benefits everyone and I am soliciting donations from the class. There are N students, and each student possesses a token. A webcam costs K tokens. K is greater than 2, but less than N. Now, the action of each student is to either donate a token or avoid me. Find the Nash equilibrium/equilibria. Give an answer with reasoning.arrow_forward
- Sophia is a contestant on a game show and has selected the prize that lies behind door number 3.The show’s host tells her that there is a 50% chance that there is a $15,000 diamond ring behindthe door and a 50% chance that there is a goat behind the door (which is worth nothing to Sophia,who is allergic to goats). Before the door is opened, someone in the audience shouts, “I will giveyou the option of selling me what is behind the door for $8,000 if you will pay me $4,500 for thisoption.” [Assume that the game show allows this offer.]a. If Sophia cares only about the expected dollar values of various outcomes, will she buythis option?b. Explain why Sophia’s degree of risk aversion might affect her willingness to buy thisoptionarrow_forwardIn Problem 25, under what conditions is a pooling equilibrium possible? Problem 25 Education is a continuous variable, where is the years of schooling of a high-ability worker and is the years of schooling of a lower-ability worker. The cost per period of education for these types of workers is respectively, where The wages they receive if employers can tell them apart are And Under what conditions is a separating equilibrium possible? How much education will each type of worker get?arrow_forwardBluth’s preferences for paper and houses can be expressed as Ub(p, h) = 2pb + hb, while Scott’s preferences can be expressed as Us(p, h) = ps + 2bs. Bluth begins with no paper and 10 houses, whereas Scott begins with 10 units of paper and no houses. 1. Is the starting endowment Pareto efficient? Justify your answer using an Edgeworth box? Determine whether each of the following price pairs is consistent with a competitive equilibrium. If yes, determine the resulting allocation of goods, sketching that equi- librium in your Edgeworth box. If not, explain why not (for what good is there a shortage, for what good is there a surplus?) pp =$3 and ph =$1 along with pp =$1 and ph =$1 Assume that the price of houses is $1. Given that price, determine the highest price pp that is consistent with a competitive equilibrium.arrow_forward
- 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…arrow_forwardIn a sealed-bid, second-price auction with complete information, the winner is the bidder who submits the second-highest price, but pays the price submitted by the highest bidder. Do you agree? Explain.arrow_forwardTwo neighboring homeowners, i = 1,2, simultaneously choose how many hours to spend maintaining a lawn. The AVERAGE benefit per hour for i is (e.g., it is for homeowner 1) And the (opportunity) cost per hour for each homeowner is 4. (a) Give each homeowner’s (net) payoff as a function of and . (b) Compute the Nash equilibrium.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781337617383Author:Roger A. ArnoldPublisher:Cengage Learning
Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781337617383
Author:Roger A. Arnold
Publisher:Cengage Learning