EBK MICROECONOMICS
2nd Edition
ISBN: 8220103679701
Author: List
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 13, Problem 2P
(a)
To determine
Best response by the USA when Russia does not invade.
(b)
To determine
Best response for the United States in case Russia does choose to invade.
(c)
To determine
Best response by Russia, if the USA selects to stay tough.
(d)
To determine
Russia’s best option when the USA selects concession.
(e)
To determine
Nash equilibrium of the game between USA and Russia.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
The US and Russia have signed a nuclear no-proliferation agreement to limit arms race. Each country can cooperate or defect now. If both cooperate, their payoff is 1000 each but if both defect, it drops to 600. If one cooperates and the other defects, they receive X and 1000-X respectively, where X represents the payoff of a normal country and 1000-X the payoff of the world leader. The only rational solution is cooperation if X is equal to
-200
200
500
700
In 1938, major powers met in Munich to discuss Germany’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Let us think of the issue as the proportion of Czechoslovak territory given to Germany. Possible outcomes can be plotted on a single dimension, where 0 implies that Germany obtains no territory and 1 implies that Germany obtains all of Czechoslovakia:
Most countries at Munich (“Allies” for short) wish to give nothing to Germany: their ideal point is 0, which gives them utility of 1. Their worst possible outcome is for Germany to take all of Czechoslovakia; hence an outcome of 1 gives them utility of 0. In between these extremes, the Allies could propose a compromise, X, which gives them utility of 1 – X.
The question for the Allies is whether to propose a compromise or fight a war with Germany, which they are sure will ensue if they offer nothing. If they propose a compromise and Germany accepts, they get a payoff of 1 – X. If they fight, they win with probability p and lose with…
In 1938, major powers met in Munich to discuss Germany’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Let us think of the issue as the proportion of Czechoslovak territory given to Germany. Possible outcomes can be plotted on a single dimension, where 0 implies that Germany obtains no territory and 1 implies that Germany obtains all of Czechoslovakia:
Most countries at Munich (“Allies” for short) wish to give nothing to Germany: their ideal point is 0, which gives them utility of 1. Their worst possible outcome is for Germany to take all of Czechoslovakia; hence an outcome of 1 gives them utility of 0. In between these extremes, the Allies could propose a compromise, X, which gives them utility of 1 – X.
The question for the Allies is whether to propose a compromise or fight a war with Germany, which they are sure will ensue if they offer nothing. If they propose a compromise and Germany accepts, they get a payoff of 1 – X. If they fight, they win with probability p and lose with…
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- In 1938, major powers met in Munich to discuss Germany’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Let us think of the issue as the proportion of Czechoslovak territory given to Germany. Possible outcomes can be plotted on a single dimension, where 0 implies that Germany obtains no territory and 1 implies that Germany obtains all of Czechoslovakia Most countries at Munich (“Allies” for short) wish to give nothing to Germany: their ideal point is 0, which gives them utility of 1. Their worst possible outcome is for Germany to take all of Czechoslovakia; hence an outcome of 1 gives them utility of 0. In between these extremes, the Allies could propose a compromise, X, which gives them utility of 1 – X. The question for the Allies is whether to propose a compromise or fight a war with Germany, which they are sure will ensue if they offer nothing. If they propose a compromise and Germany accepts, they get a payoff of 1 – X. If they fight, they win with probability p and lose with…arrow_forwardIn 1938, major powers met in Munich to discuss Germany’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Let us think of the issue as the proportion of Czechoslovak territory given to Germany. Possible outcomes can be plotted on a single dimension, where 0 implies that Germany obtains no territory and 1 implies that Germany obtains all of Czechoslovakia: Most countries at Munich (“Allies” for short) wish to give nothing to Germany: their ideal point is 0, which gives them utility of 1. Their worst possible outcome is for Germany to take all of Czechoslovakia; hence an outcome of 1 gives them utility of 0. In between these extremes, the Allies could propose a compromise, X, which gives them utility of 1 – X. The question for the Allies is whether to propose a compromise or fight a war with Germany, which they are sure will ensue if they offer nothing. If they propose a compromise and Germany accepts, they get a payoff of 1 – X. If they fight, they win with probability p and lose with…arrow_forwardThe countries of Oceania and Eurasia are at war.5 As depicted in the figure, Oceania has four cities—Argula, Betra, Carnat, and Dussel—and it is concerned that one of them is to be bombed by Eurasia. The bombers could come from either base Alpha, which can reach the cities of Argula and Betra; or from base Beta, which can reach either Carnat or Dussel. Eurasia decides which one of these four cities to attack. Oceania doesn’t know which one has been selected, but does observe the base from which the bombers are flying. After making that observation, Oceania decides which one (and only one) of its four cities to evacuate. Assign a payoff of 2 to Oceania if it succeeds in evacuating the city that is to be bombed and a payoff of 1 otherwise. Assign Eurasia a payoff of 1 if the city it bombs was not evacuated and a zero payoff otherwise. Write down the extensive form game.arrow_forward
- There are two oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Iran (these are countries which we are treating as players in this example). The market price will be $60/barrel if the total volume of sales is 9 million barrels daily, $50 if the total volume of sales is 11 million barrels daily, and $35 if the total volume of sales is 13 million barrels daily. Saudi Arabia has two strategies; either produce 8 million barrels daily or 6 million. Iran has two strategies; either produce 3 million barrels daily or 5 million. Assume for simplicity that marginal cost of production is zero for both countries. Here is the normal form representation of this game (where Saudi Arabia and Iran are players, they can choose strategies over what quantity to produce and they face payoffs in terms of profits). Note that the following paragraph is simply an explanation of this representation of the game. If you are already comfortable with the structure, feel free to skip to the questions below the horizontal line…arrow_forwardThere are two oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Iran (these are countries which we are treating as players in this example). The market price will be $60/barrel if the total volume of sales is 9 million barrels daily, $50 if the total volume of sales is 11 million barrels daily, and $35 if the total volume of sales is 13 million barrels daily. Saudi Arabia has two strategies; either produce 8 million barrels daily or 6 million. Iran has two strategies; either produce 3 million barrels daily or 5 million. Assume for simplicity that marginal cost of production is zero for both countries. Here is the normal form representation of this game (where Saudi Arabia and Iran are players, they can choose strategies over what quantity to produce and they face payoffs in terms of profits). Note that the following paragraph is simply an explanation of this representation of the game. If you are already comfortable with the structure, feel free to skip to the questions below the horizontal line…arrow_forwardThere are two oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Iran (these are countries which we are treating as players in this example). The market price will be $60/barrel if the total volume of sales is 9 million barrels daily, $50 if the total volume of sales is 11 million barrels daily, and $35 if the total volume of sales is 13 million barrels daily. Saudi Arabia has two strategies; either produce 8 million barrels daily or 6 million. Iran has two strategies; either produce 3 million barrels daily or 5 million. Assume for simplicity that marginal cost of production is zero for both countries. Here is the normal form representation of this game (where Saudi Arabia and Iran are players, they can choose strategies over what quantity to produce and they face payoffs in terms of profits). Note that the following paragraph is simply an explanation of this representation of the game. If you are already comfortable with the structure, feel free to skip to the questions below the horizontal line…arrow_forward
- There are two oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Iran (these are countries which we are treating as players in this example). The market price will be $60/barrel if the total volume of sales is 9 million barrels daily, $50 if the total volume of sales is 11 million barrels daily, and $35 if the total volume of sales is 13 million barrels daily. Saudi Arabia has two strategies; either produce 8 million barrels daily or 6 million. Iran has two strategies; either produce 3 million barrels daily or 5 million. Assume for simplicity that marginal cost of production is zero for both countries. Here is the normal form representation of this game (where Saudi Arabia and Iran are players, they can choose strategies over what quantity to produce and they face payoffs in terms of profits). Note that the following paragraph is simply an explanation of this representation of the game. If you are already comfortable with the structure, feel free to skip to the questions below the horizontal line…arrow_forwardAssume two countries (US and Germany) are facing the decision of whether to participate in the Paris Agreement or not. The following payoff matrix contains the estimated payoffs for both countries for all possible strategies. Germany US Join Not join Join A: (500, 360) B: (100, 200) Not join C: (450, 300) D: (450, 350) What is the dominant strategy for Germany? Joining Not joining Germany does not have a dominant strategyarrow_forwardConfronted by the threat of a terrorist attack, both the US and the EU have two options: either attack the terrorist stronghold or do nothing. An attack will yield a benefit of 4 each to the US and the EU, but will cost the attacker 6. Explain the likely behaviors of the US and the EU, using game theoryarrow_forward
- What is the type of game that is involved between OPEC and Russia. Explain .arrow_forwardAssume two countries (US and Germany) are facing the decision of whether to participate in the Paris Agreement or not. The following payoff matrix contains the estimated payoffs for both countries for all possible strategies. Germany US Join Not join Join A: (500, 360) B: (100, 200) Not join C: (450, 300) D: (450, 350) What is the Nash equilibrium of this game if it has to be played sequentially and US moves first? US joins, Germany joins US joins, Germany does not join US does not join, Germany joins US does not join, Germany does not joinarrow_forward21.Consider the following game, which depicts US and Soviet confrontation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Each side has two options: to stand firm or back down. If both sides stand firm, the crisis escalates into global thermonuclear war. What is the equilibrium to this game (or equilibria, if more than one)? (a) Both the US and Soviet Union stand firm (b) Both the US and Soviet Union back down (c) The US stands firm and the Soviet Union backs down (d) The US backs down and the Soviet Union stands firm (a) and (b) (c) and (d)arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134078779Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. OsterPublisher:PEARSON
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134870069Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick KoellingPublisher:PEARSON
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781305585126Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...EconomicsISBN:9781259290619Author:Michael Baye, Jeff PrincePublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134078779
Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:PEARSON
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134870069
Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:PEARSON
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781305585126
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...
Economics
ISBN:9781259290619
Author:Michael Baye, Jeff Prince
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education