PRINC OF ECONOMICS PKG >CUSTOM<
7th Edition
ISBN: 9781305018549
Author: Mankiw
Publisher: CENGAGE C
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 4PA
Subpart (a):
To determine
The dominant trade strategy of United States and Mexico.
Subpart (b):
To determine
The dominant trade strategy of United States and Mexico.
Subpart (c):
To determine
The dominant trade strategy of United States and Mexico.
Subpart (d):
To determine
The dominant trade strategy of United States and Mexico.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Learn your wayIncludes step-by-step video
schedule08:24
Students have asked these similar questions
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 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?
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.
True or false? If a game has a Nash equilibrium, that equilibrium will be the equilibrium that we expect to observe in the real world.
False. People don’t always act in the way that a Nash equilibrium requires. People don’t always make the necessary calculations and they take into account the outcome of others.
False. A Nash equilibrium is based on very strict assumptions that rarely hold in the real world. No real-world situation leads to a Nash equilibrium.
True. As long as people are rational and have their own self-interest at heart, real-life games will result in the Nash equilibrium.
True. Nash’s theory of equilibrium outcomes was derived from real-world interactions. The theory holds true for almost all real-world scenarios.
Chapter 17 Solutions
PRINC OF ECONOMICS PKG >CUSTOM<
Ch. 17.1 - Prob. 1QQCh. 17.2 - Prob. 2QQCh. 17.3 - Prob. 3QQCh. 17 - Prob. 1CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 2CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 3CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 4CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 5CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 6CQQCh. 17 - Prob. 1QR
Ch. 17 - Prob. 2QRCh. 17 - Prob. 3QRCh. 17 - Prob. 4QRCh. 17 - Prob. 5QRCh. 17 - Prob. 6QRCh. 17 - Prob. 7QRCh. 17 - Prob. 1PACh. 17 - Prob. 2PACh. 17 - Prob. 3PACh. 17 - Prob. 4PACh. 17 - Prob. 5PACh. 17 - Prob. 6PACh. 17 - A case study in the chapter describes a phone...Ch. 17 - Prob. 8PACh. 17 - Prob. 9PA
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Imagine 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_forwardJane and Sara are competing orange juice salespersons in Amherst. Their stands are next to each other on a street and consumers regard them as identical. The marginal cost of an orange juice is $1. The demand for orange juice every hour is Q = 20 − P where P is the lowest price between the two salespersons. If their prices are equal they split demand equally. a. If they set prices simultaneously (prices can be any real number), what is the Nash equilibrium price? b. If, against what we have assumed in class, orange juice salespersons have to charge prices in whole dollars ($1, $2, $3, etc), what are the Nash equilibrium prices? c. Assuming whole dollar pricing, if Jane sets her price before Sara, what price would she charge? Answer all 3 partsarrow_forwardAssume M's monetary weight equals $4. The monetary weight for 1, and 1, is $2 each; the monetary weight for I, and 1, and is $3 each. Where, if any, is the Nash Equilibrium?arrow_forward
- Use the figures below to answer the following question. The figure on the left is the payoff matrix that represents the invisible hand game where two farmers decide which crop to plant, with the Nash equilibrium circled. The figure on the right illustrates the gains from trade realised in a perfectly competitive market. Discuss the common idea that is implied by both the invisible hand game and the perfectly competitive market.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 shown in the following payoff matrix: United States' Decision Low Tariffs High Tariffs Mexico's Decision Low Tariffs $28 billion, $28 billion $20 billion, $30 billion High Tariffs $30 billion, $20 billion $25 billion, $25 billion The dominant strategy for the United States is always to choose tariffs. The dominant strategy for Mexico is always to choose tariffs. True or False: The Nash equilibrium outcome for trade policy is for the United States to have low tariffs and Mexico to have high tariffs. True False 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. True or False: Given the trade strategy decisions in the table, the United States is better off and…arrow_forwardwhere is the nash equilibrium? find out the dominant strategy. it was discovered that two domestic manufacturing companies were fixing prices. if each company is silent, there is no penalty, but production and business are disrupted due to continuous investigation by the Fair Trade Commission. The penalty for revealing the estimated loss due to the investigation and collusion is as follows: Firm 2 Silence Disclosure Silence -200, -200 -590, 0 Firm 1 Disclosure 0, -590 -450, -450 fine( a hundred million won)arrow_forward
- The inverse market demand for fax paper is given by P=100-Q. There are two firms who produce fax paper. Firm 1 has a cost of production of C1= 15*Q1 and firm 2 has a cost of production of C2=20*Q2 a) Suppose that firm play a Stackelberg game. First firm 1 sets the quantity in t=1, then, knowing which quantityfirm 1 has set, firm 2 chooses the quantity in t=2. What are the Stackelberg quantities and prices? What arethe profits od firm 1 and 2? Compared to part a) which firm benefits and which firm loses?arrow_forwardQuestion 3 Markets improve welfare because consumers gain from the exchange. It's a win-lose. O producers gain from e exchange. It's a win-lose. O producers and consumers gain from exchange. It's a win-win. O it's a zero-sum game, where the gains to one party offset the loses to the other party.arrow_forwardEconomics: Industrial Economics Question Consider the following sequential game between firm 1 and firm 2: First, firm 1 decides to either adopt an aggressive marketing strategy or not. Second, Firm 2 observes firm 1's decision and then also decides between its own aggressive strategy, a passive strategy or whether to leave the market altogether. The profits (in millions of dollars) of the firms are as follows: If both adopt an aggressive strategy, then firm 1's payoff is $14 and firm 2's is $1. If firm 1 adopts an aggressive strategy and firm 2 does not, then the payoff for firm 1 is $21 and for firm 2 is -$5. If firm 1 does nothing and firm 2 adopts an aggressive strategy, firm 1's payoff is $10 and firm 2's is $9. If both do nothing, then firm 1 makes $20 in profits and firm 2 makes $5. Finally, if firm 2 leaves the market altogether, it makes $0 and firm 1 makes $20 with an aggressive strategy and $24 without one. 1. Using the principle of backward induction, the most…arrow_forward
- In game theory, what is a subgame? What is a subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium? If possible, could you please provide an example? Thank you!arrow_forwardRecall the price matching game we discussed in class video. The main conclusion we can draw from this analysis was a. price matching acts like excess capacity because it deters entry into the market b. price matching can result in consumers paying higher than competitive prices c. price matching re-enforces the Nash equilibrium of low competitive pricing d.firms will invest in productive capacity to obtain economies of scalearrow_forwardExplain how organizations can collude to raise prices of products like sugar using the concept of market forces.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781305585126Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...EconomicsISBN:9781285165875Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Microeconomics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781305971493Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781305585126
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...
Economics
ISBN:9781285165875
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Microeconomics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781305971493
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning