Myeconlab With Pearson Etext -- Access Card -- For Microeconomics
9th Edition
ISBN: 9780134143071
Author: PINDYCK, Robert, Rubinfeld, Daniel
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 13, Problem 7RQ
To determine
Promising to announce a high
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Consider the following entry-deterrence game. A potential entrant has two strategies, “Enter” or “Stay Out”. An incumbent firm can either Price Low or Price High, depending on whether they want to try to fight or accommodate the entrant. (The Price Low option could be a limit price, for example). Suppose if the entrant Enters and the incumbent Prices Low, both firms lose $-1M. If the entrant enters and the incumbent Prices High, each firm earns $2M. If the Entrant doesn’t enter, the incumbent earns $4M and the entrant earns $0.
a)Using the concept of Nash Equilibrium, what are the predicted strategies and profits? Set up a game box or tree and explain your reasoning.
b) Give an example of a different profit outcome that would lead to a different Nash Equilibrium. (From this, you can see that sometimes deterrence is effective and sometimes it isn’t, depending on the profits).
Boeing and Airbus are the two primary producers of passenger aircraft. Both firms are preparing to announce their new long-distance jets. Each firm can design their plan to maximize comfort or the number of seats. If both firms choose to maximize the same characteristic they will sell 100 planes each and if they maximize different characteristics they will each sell 150 planes each. Both firms want to maximize sales.
Draw a game tree and find the equilibrium strategies and payoffs. Show your work.
Two roommates John and Joe are playing a simultaneous game of cleaning the apartment. If neither of them clean, the apartment gets filthy and both get a utility of 2. If John cleans and Joe doesn’t, John gets a utility of 1 and Joe gets a utility of 4. If Joe cleans and John doesn’t, Joe gets a utility of 1 and John gets a utility of 4 and if both clean up the apartment, they each get a utility of 3.What is the Nash equilibrium of this game?
Group of answer choices
Joe cleans, John doesn’t
John cleans, Joe doesn’t
Both of them clean the apartment
Neither of them clean the apartment
Chapter 13 Solutions
Myeconlab With Pearson Etext -- Access Card -- For Microeconomics
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Player 1 and Player 2 are trying to agree on how to split a pie of size 1 in a two-stage bargaining game. If no agreement is reached after the two stages are complete, the pie is split for them according to a pre-arranged agreement that gives Player 1 and Player 2 one-quarter and three quarters of the pie, respectively. In the first stage, Player 1 makes an offer (x1, x2), where x1 + x2 = 1. Player 2 can either accept this offer (at which point the game ends and the pie is split according to Player 1’s offer), or can make a counter-offer. When Player 2 makes a counter offer, Player 1 can either accept (in which case the pie is split according to Player 2’s offer) or can reject, in which case the pie is split according to the pre-arranged agreement. Both players have a discount factor d – getting dx in the first stage (after Player 1’s proposal) is as good as getting x in the second stage (after Player 2’s proposal). a) In the last stage of the game, Player 1 will accept any offer…arrow_forwardTwo firms are playing an infinitely-repeated prisoner's dilemma pricing game of the following form: Firm 1 Firm 2 Low price High Price Low price 4, 4 20, 0 High price 0, 20 12,12 Consider the decision to cheat ONLY ONCE for a firm in this game against the opponent that is a Tit-for-Tat player. Cheating firm gets an extra in payoffs for the first round, but has to face $0 payoffs for the second round in order to be able to bring the opponent to the collusive outcome again in the third round. What is the minimum rate of return (r) that would make defecting only once? Show your calculations.arrow_forwardConsider the following game. There are two payers, Player 1 and Player 2. Player 1 chooses a row (10, 20, or 30), and Player 2 chooses a column (10/20/30). Payoffs are in the cells of the table, with those on the left going to Player 1 and those on the right going to player 2. Suppose that Player 1 chooses his strategy (10, 20 or 30), first, and subsequently, and after observing Player 1’s choice, Player 2 chooses his own strategy (of 10, 20 or 30). Which of the following statements is true regarding this modified game? I. It is a simultaneous move game, because the timing of moves is irrelevant in classifying games.II. It is a sequential move game, because Player 2 observes Player 1’s choice before he chooses his own strategy.III. This modification gives Player 1 a ‘first mover advantage’. A) I and IIB) II and IIIC) I and IIID) I onlyE) II onlyarrow_forward
- For the game in FIGURE 7.6, derive players’ best-reply functions, plot them as shown in Figure 7.5, and find the Nash equilibrium.arrow_forwardRefer to the normal-form game of price competition in the payoff matrix below Firm B Low Price High Price Firm A Low Price 0, 0 50, −10 High Price −10, 50 20, 20 Suppose the game is infinitely repeated, and the interest rate is 20 percent. Both firms agree to charge a high price, provided no player has charged a low price in the past. This collusive outcome will be implemented with a trigger strategy that states that if any firm cheats, then the agreement is no longer valid, and each firm may make independent decisions. Will the trigger strategy be effective in implementing the collusive agreement? Please explain and show all necessary calculations.arrow_forwardIn the collusion game, collusion was only sustainable in the infinite horizon repeated game. One Nash Equilibrium of that game can be found when all players play a “grim trigger” strategy, where they collude until an opponent chooses to compete, and then compete for all future rounds as a punishment. In such a game, if the one period bonus that comes from competing is low enough, firms always collude and the punishment is never triggered. Is the punishment (vowing to compete forever after one deviates) realistic, especially if firms can communicate freely? Why or why not? (Hint: Is a grim trigger Nash Equilibrium a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium? What kinds of Nash Equilibria does Subgame erfection rule out in sequential games?)arrow_forward
- Alcoa and Kaiser, duopolists in the market for primary aluminum ingot, choose prices of their 500 foot rolls of sheet aluminum on the first day of the month. The following payoff table shows their monthly payoffs resulting from the pricing decisions they can make. Suppose Alcoa and Kaiser repeat their pricing decision on the first day of every month. Suppose they have been cooperating for the past few months, but now the manager at Kaiser is trying to decide whether to cheat or to continue cooperating. Kaiser’s manager believes Kaiser can get away with cheating for two months, but he also believes that Kaiser would be punished for the next two months after cheating. After punishment, Kaiser’s manager expects the two firms would return to cooperation. Kaiser’s manager ignores the time-value of money and does not discount future benefits or costs. Will Kaiser cooperate or cheat? Explain.arrow_forwardAlcoa and Kaiser, duopolists in the market for primary aluminum ingot, choose prices of their 500 foot rolls of sheet aluminum on the first day of the month. The following payoff table shows their monthly payoffs resulting from the pricing decisions they can make. Suppose Alcoa and Kaiser repeat their pricing decision on the first day of every month. Suppose they have been cooperating for the past few months, but now the manager at Kaiser is trying to decide whether to cheat or to continue cooperating. Kaiser’s manager believes Kaiser can get away with cheating for two months, but he also believes that Kaiser would be punished for the next two months after cheating. After punishment, Kaiser’s manager expects the two firms would return to cooperation. Kaiser’s manager ignores the time-value of money and does not discount future benefits or costs. 4. Suppose you were asked to manage a golf course that was currently charging a uniform price. Would you suggest that the course continue…arrow_forwardAlcoa and Kaiser, duopolists in the market for primary aluminum ingot, choose prices of their 500 foot rolls of sheet aluminum on the first day of the month. The following payoff table shows their monthly payoffs resulting from the pricing decisions they can make. Suppose Alcoa and Kaiser repeat their pricing decision on the first day of every month. Suppose they have been cooperating for the past few months, but now the manager at Kaiser is trying to decide whether to cheat or to continue cooperating. Kaiser’s manager believes Kaiser can get away with cheating for two months, but he also believes that Kaiser would be punished for the next two months after cheating. After punishment, Kaiser’s manager expects the two firms would return to cooperation. Kaiser’s manager ignores the time-value of money and does not discount future benefits or costs. What is the monthly gain to Kaiser from cheating? What is the present value of the benefit from cheating for the two months of cheating?arrow_forward
- Alcoa and Kaiser, duopolists in the market for primary aluminum ingot, choose prices of their 500 foot rolls of sheet aluminum on the first day of the month. The following payoff table shows their monthly payoffs resulting from the pricing decisions they can make. Suppose Alcoa and Kaiser repeat their pricing decision on the first day of every month. Suppose they have been cooperating for the past few months, but now the manager at Kaiser is trying to decide whether to cheat or to continue cooperating. Kaiser’s manager believes Kaiser can get away with cheating for two months, but he also believes that Kaiser would be punished for the next two months after cheating. After punishment, Kaiser’s manager expects the two firms would return to cooperation. What is the monthly cost of punishment to Kaiser? What is the present value of the cost of cheating for the two months of punishment?arrow_forwardtwo players, a and b are playing an asymmetrical game. there are n points on the game board. each turn player a targets a pair of points and player b says whether those two points are connected or unconnected. a can target each pair only once and the game ends when all pairs have been targeted. player b wins if a point is connected with all other points on the very last turn, while player a wins if any point is connected with all other points on any turn but the very last one or if no point is connected to all other points after the last turn. for what values of n does either player have a winning strategy?arrow_forwardA payoff matrix is shown below. With the payoffs in each field indicated in the form (Player 1’s payoff, Player 2’s payoff). Player 2 Left Right Player 1 Up ($1, $1) ($2, $4) Down ($7, $8) ($3, $3) Which of the following is true? The only Nash Equilibrium is Player 1 playing ‘Up’ and Player 2 playing ‘Right’. The only Nash Equilibrium is Player 1 playing ‘Down’ and Player 2 playing ‘Left’. The only Nash Equilibrium is Player 1 playing ‘Down’ and Player 2 playing ‘Right’. None of the other answers provided are true.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506381
Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris
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