Microeconomics, Student Value Edition (2nd Edition)
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134461786
Author: Daron Acemoglu, David Laibson, John List
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 2P
To determine
Appropriate bid for a shoe when:
(a) There are five other bidders.
(b) There are ten other bidders.
To determine
Right time to bid very close to
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Imagine that two firms in two different countries want to bring a new product tomarket. Due to economies of scale, if both firms do this, they will both lose £50million. But if only one firm does this, it will gain £300 million.(a) What is the best strategy for firm A, if firm B has not yet entered the market, andwhy?(b) Illustrate this with a game theory diagram, showing appropriate payouts.(c) What is the welfare-maximising strategy for a government, and why?
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…
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.
Chapter 17 Solutions
Microeconomics, Student Value Edition (2nd Edition)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Does each individual in a prisoners dilemma benefit more from cooperation or from pursuing self-interest? Explain briefly.arrow_forward12. Consider a game where each player picks a number from 0 to 60. The guess that is closest to half ofthe average of the chosen numbers wins a prize. If several peopleare equally close, then they share theprize. The game theory implies that (A) all players have dominant strategies to choose 0 (B) all players have dominant strategies to choose 30 (C) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick 0 (D) there is a Nash equilibrium where all players pick positive numbers 13. Behavioral data in such games suggests that (A) most subjects choose 0; (B) most subjects choose 30; (C) common answers include 30, 15, 7.5, and 0; (D) most subjects use randomization. Can you help me answer number 13 please?arrow_forwardImagine that two firms in two different countries want to bring a new product to market. Due to economies of scale, if both firms do this, they will both lose £50 million. But if only one firm does this, it will gain £300 million. (a) What is the best strategy for firm A, if firm B has not yet entered the market, and why? (b) Illustrate this with a game theory diagram, showing appropriate payouts. (c) What is the welfare-maximising strategy for a government, and why?arrow_forward
- Let us see the example of Juan and María given but modify their preferences. It is still the case that they are competitive and are deciding whether to show up at their mom’s house at 8:00 A.M., 9:00 A.M., 10:00 A.M., or 11:00 A.M. But now they don’t mind waking up early. Assume that the payoff is 1 if he or she shows up before the other sibling, it is 0 if he or she shows up after the other sibling, and it is 1 if they show up at the same time. The time of the morning does not matter. Find all Nash equilibria.arrow_forwardPlease no written by hand Two players bargain over how to split $10. Each player i ∈ {1, 2} choose a number si ∈ [0, 10] (which does not need to be an integer). Each player’s payoff is the money he receives. We consider two allocation rules. In each case, if s1 + s2 ≤ 10, each player gets his chosen amount si and the rest is destroyed. 1. In the first case, if s1 + s2 > 10, both players get zero. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 2. In the second case, if s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 6= s2, the player who chose the smallest amount receives this amount and the other gets the rest. If s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 = s2, they both get $5. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 3. Now suppose that s1 and s2 must be integers. Does this change the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in either case?arrow_forwardDescribe the Nash equilibrium/a and the mutually-preferred outcome. Finally, consider how people are sometimes able to resolve this social dilemma in the real world. Clearly explain how this method is successful in moving the players to a socially optimal outcome.arrow_forward
- Consider the following two-player game.First, player 1 selects a number x≥0. Player 2 observes x. Then, simultaneously andindependently, player 1 selects a number y1 and player 2 selects a number y2, at which pointthe game ends.Player 1’s payoff is: u1(x; y1) = −3y21 + 6y1y2 −13x2 + 8xPlayer 2’s payoff is: u2(y2) = 6y1y2 −6y22 + 12xy2Draw the game tree of this game and identify its Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium.arrow_forwardSuppose O2 and Vodafone are the only two telecommunicationscompanies in UK. Both companies are considering whether ornot to stop offering unlimited data plans. Each company has twostrategies: stop or don’t stop. The first entry in the brackets is the payoffsof O2 and the second entry is the payoffs of Vodafone, both in $million.What will be the dominant strategies of O2 and Vodafone and what willbe the Nash equilibrium? Explain your answers.arrow_forwardConsider 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?arrow_forward
- 5) Three legislators are set to vote on a bill to raise the salary of legislators. The majority wins, so all three will receive the raise if at least two of them vote in favor of the bill. The raise is valued at R by each legislator. Voting in favor of the bill comes with political backlash from constituents, though, even if the bill fails. Let C be the cost of backlash for anyone voting in favor of the bill. Finally, suppose that 0 < C < R. There are four possible payoffs for each legislator: 0: if they vote against the bill and at least one other legislator votes against it (so the bill fails) R: if they vote against the bill and the others vote for the bill (so the bill passes) -C: if they vote for the bill and no one else votes for the bill (so the bill fails) R-C: if they vote for the bill and at least one other legislator votes for it (so the bill passes). The three legislators are named X, Y, and Z, and voting happens sequentially and orally. So X announces their vote (to…arrow_forwardTwo farmers have unlimited access to a common plot of land and can let their cows graze on it. The matrix below shows the benefits they get from grazing either 1 or 2+ cows on the land. Farmer 2 Farmer1 1 cow 2+ cows 1 cow 8,8 2,10 2+cows 10,2 4,4 What kind of game is this? What is/are the Nash equilibrium/equilibria? What is/are the Pareto efficient outcome(s) in this game? (Hint: Remember that Pareto efficiency occurs when no one person can be made better off without someone else being made worse off) The government offers a reward or subsidy for communities where farmers only allow 1 cow to graze on the common field, resulting in a new payoff matrix:…arrow_forward. Find the Nash equilibrium of the following modified Rock-Paper-Scissors game: • When rock (R) beats scissors (S), the winner’s payoff is 10 and the loser’s payoff is −10. • When paper (P) beats rock, the winner’s payoff is 5 and the loser’s payoff is −5. • When scissors beats paper, the winner’s payoff is 2 and the loser’s payoff is −2. • In case of ties, both players receive 0 payoff. You are suposed to create a system of equations and then solve for them and find 3 probabilities- please show how to do thatarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics 2eEconomicsISBN:9781947172364Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David ShapiroPublisher:OpenStax
Principles of Economics 2e
Economics
ISBN:9781947172364
Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro
Publisher:OpenStax