MYECONLAB+ETEXT+KNAPP 104 STUDENT PACKET
6th Edition
ISBN: 9781323477816
Author: HUBBARD/KNAPP
Publisher: PEARSON C
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 14, Problem 14.4.8PA
To determine
Bargaining power.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Microsoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 6 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 2. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 2 while the rival gains 2 units of utility.
Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix, assuming that each company chooses its technology simultaneously.
Microsoft
Technology A
Technology B
Rival
Technology A
Rival:
, Microsoft
Rival:
, Microsoft
Technology B
Rival:
, Microsoft
Rival:
, Microsoft
True or False: There is no equilibrium in pure strategies.
True
False
Note:-
Do not provide handwritten…
A Nash Equilibrium is the equilibrium of a game in which;
Both players get the largest payoff amount
Both players get the best payoff independent of what the other players choices are
Both player, with the knowledge of what the other players possible moves are, do not have incentive to deviate from their strategy
There is incomplete information of the game and each player makes the move that is best for them and their payoff outcome
Suppose that in the market for milk, market share is divided among six companies in the following manner:
Chapter 14 Solutions
MYECONLAB+ETEXT+KNAPP 104 STUDENT PACKET
Ch. 14 - Prob. 14.1.1RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.2RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.3RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.4RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.5PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.6PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.7PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.8PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.9PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.1.10PA
Ch. 14 - Prob. 14.2.1RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.2RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.3RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.4RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.5PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.6PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.7PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.8PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.9PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.10PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.11PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.12PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.13PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.14PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.15PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.16PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.17PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.18PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.19PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.2.20PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.1RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.2RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.3PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.4PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.5PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.3.6PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.1RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.2RQCh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.3PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.4PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.5PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.6PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.7PACh. 14 - Prob. 14.4.8PA
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Microsoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 4 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 2. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 2 while the rival gains 2 units of utility. Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix, assuming that each company chooses its technology simultaneously. Microsoft Technology A Technology B Rival Technology A Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft Technology B Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft True or False: There is an equilibrium for this game in pure strategies.arrow_forwardMicrosoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 3 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 1. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 1 while the rival gains 1 units of utility.arrow_forwardThere is a city, which looks like chopped isosceles triangle, as shown below. Citizens live uniformly distributed all over the city. Two ice-cream vendors, A and B, must independently set up stores in the city. Each citizen buys from the vendor closest to their location and when equidistant from both vendors they choose by coin toss. Each vendor’s aim is to maximize the expected number of customers. A choice of location by the two vendors is a Nash equilibrium if no vendor can do better by deviating unilaterally. Does this game have a Nash equilibrium? If so, describe it. If not, explain why notarrow_forward
- Select the term that best describes each definition listed in the following table. Definition Nash Equilibrium Dominant Strategy Collusion Tit-for-tat Strategy Payoff Matrix Prisoners' Dilemma Game A case in which individually rational behavior leads to a jointly inefficient outcome A player's best choice, if it exists, regardless of his or her opponent's strategy A strategy in which a player cooperates until the other player defects and then defects until the other player cooperates again The event that occurs when agents in a game form an agreement about which strategies to implementarrow_forwardIf a player does not have a dominant strategy, can the game still have a Nash equilibrium? No. At least one player must have a dominant strategy for the outcome to be a Nash equilibrium. Yes. There is no need for a dominant strategy to exist in order to have a Nash equilibrium. The outcome is a Nash equilibrium because each player has made his or her optimal choice based on the optimal choice of the other player. No. If there is no dominant strategy, there is no predictable outcome and therefore no Nash equilibrium. Yes. A Nash equilibrium is possible only if neither player has a dominant strategy. If a dominant strategy exists, it is no longer a Nash equilibrium.arrow_forwardMost automobile companies in the United States between 1970 and 1990 knew that Toyota was able to create and capture advantage over its competitors because of the way it works with its suppliers. This is an example of _____. Path dependence Social complexity Social Capital Early mover advantagearrow_forward
- Two competing firms must choose their quantity of production simultaneously. Each firm can choose either a High quantity of 3 or a Low quantity of 2. The price for both firms is 9-Q, where Q is the sum of both their quantities. Costs are zero; the profit is simply price times quantity. For example, if firm 1 chooses High and firm 2 chooses Low, then price is 9-(3+2)=4; payoff for firm 1 is 12 while payoff for firm 2 is 8. What is the unique Nash equilibrium? (Firm 1's strategy will be written before firm 2's.)arrow_forwardSelect the term that best describes each definition listed in the following table. Definition Nash Equilibrium Dominant Strategy Collusion Tit-for-tat Strategy Payoff Matrix Prisoners' Dilemma Game A player's best choice, if it exists, regardless of his or her opponent's strategy A strategy in which a player cooperates until the other player defects and then defects until the other player cooperates again A set of strategies (one for each player) in which each player's strategy is the best option for that player, given the chosen strategy of the player's opponents A visual representation of a game showing all possible strategies for each player and all potential outcomes and payoffsarrow_forwardTwo hunters may choose, individually and simultaneously, to go deer hunting, as the deer can provide abundant and appetizing food, or to go hare hunting, also appetizing, but scarce. Deer hunting represents a challenge and requires mutual coordination. Hunting a deer without cooperation means that the deer will be safe; while hunting a deer in groups guarantees it will be caught. Hare hunting is an individual activity that does not require another hunter, and the one who decides to go hare hunting always makes it. The reward for hunting a hare is 1, while the reward for each of the hunters for catching a deer together is 3 for each one. The reward for not hunting a deer is 0. Specify the game in a normal way arising from this situation. Do the players have strictly dominated strategies? Determine the set of rationalizable strategies in this case. Find all Nash equilibriums in this case, if any. Are they efficient in Pareto sense? Justify your answer.arrow_forward
- Price competition between firms, from the firms’ perspective, can be similar to the prisoners’ dilemma. The best outcome for all firms would be for all to charge a high price. However, if the other firms charge a high price, any individual firm has incentives to charge a low price and steal the market. Additionally, if any other firm chooses a low price, each firm should charge a low price too so that it doesn’t get priced out of the market. Explain how price-matching (firms announcing a policy where they match the lowest price a customer can find or will honor a competitor’s coupon) can help firms avoid the Nash equilibrium in which they all charge a low price. Is it misleading for a firm to advertise price-matching as being beneficial to consumers? (Hint: What outcomes of the game are ruled out by the price-matching policy? How does ruling out these outcomes change the game and the decision the firms face?)arrow_forwardTwo firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium?arrow_forwardTwo firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium? Is the answer (B,B)? If not please explian what is the answer?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher: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