Assume that two people are bargaining over how to splt the surplus of theirjoint efforts, which total $100. The only difference between the two is that player A has an associated interest rate of 5 percent and player B has an associated interest rate of 20 percent. Based on Nash bargaining theory, what share of the $100 will Player A wind up with? (Please provide your answer in $ style format,)

Assume that two people are bargaining over how to splt the surplus of theirjoint efforts, which total $100. The only difference between the two is that player A has an associated interest rate of 5 percent and player B has an associated interest rate of 20 percent. Based on Nash bargaining theory, what share of the $100 will Player A wind up with? (Please provide your answer in $ style format,)

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

We can see from the payoff matrix that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this game because at least one firm would always have an incentive to change its behavior. From Nash's theorem, we know there must be at least one Nash equilibrium so there must be a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for this game. Find the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium by first deleting all dominated strategies in the game What's the expected payoff to Firm 1 in the equilibrium?
Suppose that Lionel Messi is negotiating a contract with FC Barcelona. Messi has an offer from Real Madrid for $20 million a year. If he signs with FC Barcelona, they will earn $90 million in revenue from the signing. FC Barcelona's next best option is to sign Cristiano Ronaldo. They would earn $70 million from signing Ronaldo and would pay him a contract of $10 million. Messi's bargaining power is w = 1/2. a) What is the negotiated salary between Messi and FC Barcelona under Nash Bargaining? What is Messi's surplus and what is FČ Barcelona's surplus? b) Due to an injury, FC Barcelona would only earn $50 million from signing Ronaldo but everything else remains the same. What is the negotiated salary between Messi and FC Barcelona under Nash Bargaining? What is Messi's surplus and what is FC Barcelona's surplus?
We can see from the payoff matrix that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this game because at least one firm would always have an incentive to change its behavior. From Nash's theorem, we know there must be at least one Nash equilibrium so there must be a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for this game. Find the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium by first deleting all dominated strategies in the game What's the expected payoff to Firm 2 in the equilibrium?
The options for the last 3 fill-in-the-blanks are "Up" or "Down." Thank you!
Suppose that Lionel Messi is negotiating a contract with FC Barcelona. Messi has an offer from Real Madrid for $20 million a year. If he signs with FC Barcelona, they will earn $90 million in revenue from the signing. FC Barcelona's next best option is to sign Cristiano Ronaldo. They would earn $70 million from signing Ronaldo and would pay him a contract of $10 million. Messi's bargaining power is w = 1/2. a) What is the negotiated salary between Messi and FC Barcelona under Nash Bargaining? What is Messi's surplus and what is FC Barcelona's surplus? b) Due to an injury, FC Barcelona would only earn $50 million from signing Ronaldo but everything else remains the same. What is the negotiated salary between Messi and FC Barcelona under Nash Bargaining? What is Messi's surplus and what is FC Barcelona's surplus?
The US and Canada have overfished North Atlantic cod stocks nearly to the point of extinction. Both countries wish to preserve the cod industry (and hence the cod stocks), so the two countries sign an agreement to limit fish hauls. Each country has two possible strategies: comply with the agreement (limit fishing) or renege on the agreement (overfish). Each country’s payoffs for different strategy combinations are given in the matrix below. The numbers in the cells represent utilities, and the payoff ordering is (US, Canada). QUESTIONS: 1.If this is a one-shot game (i.e., it is played once), do the players have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it? Briefly explain your answer. 2.What is the equilibrium of this game? Is it Pareto-optimal? How do you know?
Use the scenario below to answer the question. Chocolate raisin protein bars are Duc’s favorite dessert. A local bakery sells them for $1.00 each. Duc buys one and eats it at the bakery. Duc decides that he wants another one, but is not willing to pay full price. He knows the owner of the bakery and wants to negotiate. He offers to buy two more protein bars at $0.75 each. He plans to eat one at the store and anther one later. The bakery owner agrees to the deals. What is the total utility of Duc’s decision? 00 75 50 00
Suppose a $1 bill is to be divided between two players according to a simultaneous-move, one-shot bargaining game. Is there a Nash equilibrium to the bargaining game if the smallest unit in which the money can be divided is $0.01? Assume that if the players ask for more in total than is available, they go home empty-handed.
1.
John and Jane 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. A. Diagram a game in which John and Jane choose whether to vote or not to vote. B. Suppose John and Jane is in agreement not to vote during the election. 1.) Would such an agreement improve utility? Justify your answer. 2.) Would such an agreement be an equilibrium? Justify your answer.