EBK PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS
7th Edition
ISBN: 8220100469640
Author: Mankiw
Publisher: Cengage Learning US
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 22, Problem 7PA
Subpart (a):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (b):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (c):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (d):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes "cancel each other out." They each gain 24 units of utility from a vote for
their positions (and lose 24 units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each 12 units of utility.
The following matrix summarizes the strategies for both Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward.
Mr. Ward
Vote
Vote
Mrs. Ward
Mr. Ward: -12, Mrs. Ward: -12
Don't Vote Mr. Ward: -24, Mrs. Ward: 12
The Nash equilibrium for this game is for Mr. Ward to
payoff of
Don't Vote
Mr. Ward: 12, Mrs. Ward: -24
Mr. Ward: 0, Mrs. Ward: 0
units of utility and Mrs. Ward receives a payoff of
and for Mrs. Ward to
units of utility.
Under this outcome, Mr. Ward receives a
Marie and Mike usually vote against each other’s party in the SSC elections resulting to negating or offsetting their votes. If they vote for their party of choice, each of them gains four units of utility (and lose four units of utility from a vote against their party of choice). However, it costs each of them two units of utility for the hassle of actually voting during the SSC elections.
Can you explain the scenario above?
Answer it correctly please. Explain your choice. I will rate accordingly. Multiple votes will given. So do
Chapter 22 Solutions
EBK PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Two friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answerarrow_forwardLet's call a committee of three people a "consumer." (Groups of people often act together as "consumers.") Our committee makes decisions using majority voting. When the committee members compare two alternatives, x and y, they simply take a vote, and the winner is said to be "preferred" by the committee to the loser. Suppose that the preferences of the individuals are as follows: Person 1 likes x best, y second best, and z third best. We write this in the following way: Person 1: x, y, z. Assume the preferences of the other two people are: Person 2: y, z, x; and Person 3 : z, x, y. Show that in this example the committee preferences produced by majority voting violate transitivity. (This is the famous "voting paradox" first described by the French philosopher and mathematician Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794).)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_forward
- Mr. and Mrs. Smith vote opposite in presidential elections in a swing state. Assign 1 point for voting your preferred candidate and 0 points if you don’t vote. If you don’t want your candidate to lose, what is the Nash equilibrium in this situation, please explain ?arrow_forwardTaylor, Faith, Jay, and Jessica are college roommates. They're trying to decide where the four of them should go for spring break: Orlando or Las Vegas. If they order the tickets by 11:00 PM on February 1, the cost will be just $500 per person. If they miss that deadline, the cost rises to $1,200 per person. The following table shows the benefit (in dollar terms) that each roommate would get from the two trips. Roommate Taylor Benefit from Orlando Benefit from Las Vegas Faith $1,250 $800 $550 $800 Jay Jessica $650 $600 $850 $1,050 The roommates tend to put off making decisions. So, when February 1 rolls around and they still haven't made a decision, they schedule a vote for 10:00 PM that night. In case of a tie, they will flip a coin between the two vacation destinations. The roommates will get the most total benefit if they choose to go to Given the individual benefits each roommate receives from the two trips, which trip will each roommate vote for? Fill in the table with each…arrow_forward10 Question 9 There are four axioms that underpin Expected Utility Theory. Match the names of these axioms to the four descriptions below. Prompts If lottery A is preferred to lottery B; and lottery B is preferred to lottery C; then lottery A must be preferred to lottery C. For every pair of possible lotteries, A and B; either A is preferred to B, B is preferred to A, or A is valued indifferently to B. There is nothing so good (or so bad) that it does not become insignificant if it occurs with small enough probability. If we have to choose between two lotteries which are partially identical, then our decision should only donand on the difference hotween the tw Submitted Answers Choose a match Choose a match Choose a match Choose a matcharrow_forward
- Public Good Contribution: Three players live in a town, and each can choose to contribute to fund a streetlamp. The value of having the streetlamp is 3 for each player, and the value of not having it is 0. The mayor asks each player to contribute either 1 or nothing. Each player makes a decision without knowing others’ contributions. If at least two players contribute then the lamp will be erected. If one player or no players contribute then the lamp will not be erected, in which case any person who contributed will not get his money back. Write down the strategy sets of each player, their payoffs, and find all pure-strategy Nash equilibria.arrow_forwardLet 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_forwardA market economy seems to be able to satisfy customers who have different tastes in cars. Whether you want a big car, small car, red car or blue car, as long as you are willing to pay for it, you can find the car you desire. But with protective services (police), the market doesn’t seem to work as well. If you want lots of police attention, or little police protection, whether you want them to carry guns or not, whether you want them to prevent drug sales or not, none of us seem to be able to get the exact protection services that we are willing to pay for. Using economic reasoning, can you explain why the market can provide for many different tastes in cars, but not for many different tastes in protective servicesarrow_forward
- Consider the following voting game. There are three players, 1, 2 and 3. And there are three alternatives: A, B and C. Players vote simultaneously for an alternative. Abstaining is not allowed. Thus, the strategy space for each player is {A, B, C}. The alternative with the most votes wins. If no alternative receives a majority, then alternative A is selected. Denote ui(d) the utility obtained by player i if alternave d {A, B, C} is selected. The payoff functions are, u1 (A) = u2 (B) = u3 (C) = 2 u1 (B) = u2 (C) = u3 (A) = 1 u1 (C) = u2 (A) = u3 (B) = 0 a. Let us denote by (i, j, k) a profile of pure strategies where player 1’s strategy is (to vote for) i, player 2’s strategy is j and player 3’s strategy is k. Show that the pure strategy profiles (A,A,A) and (A,B,A) are both Nash equilibria. b. Is (A,A,B) a Nash equilibrium? Comment.arrow_forwardBleecker Street runs from A to B, as shown in the diagram. The lone convenience store currently in operation along this street is at A. An entrepreneur who wants to open another store in the neighborhood is weighing a choice between the only two available locations, C and D. If customers, who are uniformly distributed along Bleecker Street, always shop at the store nearest to where they live, which of the locations C or D would be optimal from the perspective of customers and why? A C D B O Location D because that would minimize the average travel time for customers. O Location D because that would mean each store would get an equal share of the market. O Location C because that would give the new entrepreneur higher profits. O Locations C and D would be equally attractive because consumers have no reason to care about the relative profitability of different entrepreneurs.arrow_forwardSuppose there are only five people in a society and each favors one of the five highway construction options in Table 16.2 (include no highway construction as one of the options). Explain which of these highway options will be selected using a majority paired-choice vote. Will this option be the optimal size of the project from an economic perspective?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...EconomicsISBN:9781285165875Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...
Economics
ISBN:9781285165875
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning