Coach Steroid likes his players to be big, fast, and obedient. If player A is better than player B in two of these three characteristics, then Coach Steroid prefers player A to player B (A > B). But, if player B is better than player A in two of these three characteristics, then Coach Steroid prefers B to A (BA). Otherwise, Coach Steroid is indifferent between players (A ~ B). Wilbur Westinghouse (WW) weight 340 pounds, runs very slowly, and is fairly obedient. Harold Hotpoint (HH) weighs 240 pounds, runs very fast, and is very disobedient. Jerry Jacuzzi (JJ) weighs 150 pounds, runs at average speed, and is extremely obedient. a) Does Coach Steroid prefer Wilbur Westinghouse to Hotpoint or vice versa? Explain. b) Does Coach Steroid prefer Harold Hotpoint to Jerry Jacuzzi or vice versa? Explain. c) Does Coach Steroid prefer Wilbur Westinghouse to Jerry Jacuzzi or vice versa? Explain. d) Does Coach Steroid have transitive preferences? Explain.

Coach Steroid likes his players to be big, fast, and obedient. If player A is better than player B in two of these three characteristics, then Coach Steroid prefers player A to player B (A > B). But, if player B is better than player A in two of these three characteristics, then Coach Steroid prefers B to A (BA). Otherwise, Coach Steroid is indifferent between players (A ~ B). Wilbur Westinghouse (WW) weight 340 pounds, runs very slowly, and is fairly obedient. Harold Hotpoint (HH) weighs 240 pounds, runs very fast, and is very disobedient. Jerry Jacuzzi (JJ) weighs 150 pounds, runs at average speed, and is extremely obedient. a) Does Coach Steroid prefer Wilbur Westinghouse to Hotpoint or vice versa? Explain. b) Does Coach Steroid prefer Harold Hotpoint to Jerry Jacuzzi or vice versa? Explain. c) Does Coach Steroid prefer Wilbur Westinghouse to Jerry Jacuzzi or vice versa? Explain. d) Does Coach Steroid have transitive preferences? Explain.

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

Suppose you would have to pay Alicia at least $150 to get her to part with a ticket she just bought to see her favorite band play next Friday. Loss aversion implies that if Alicia had not yet bought the ticket, she would: Multiple Choice no longer be interested in purchasing it. be willing to pay more than $150 for it. be willing to pay exactly $150 for it. be willing to pay less than $150 for it.
You are considering two options for your next family vacation. You can visit Disney World or Chicago. Your utility from Disney World is 100 if the weather is clear, and 0 if it rains. Chicago is worth a utility of 70 if the weather is clear and a utility of 40 if the weather is rainy. Also assume that the chance of rain at Disney World is going to be 50% and the chance of rain in Chicago is 40%. As a utility maximizer, should you plan to go to Disney World or Chicago? (Explain using relevant equations)
Rachael starts out with 10 lobsters and 5 coconuts. Freya starts out with 10 lobsters and 15 coconuts. After trading, Rachael ends up with 8 lobsters and 10 coconuts. Rachael feels neither better nor worse off than when she started but cannot get Freya to agree to any more trades. Freya feels better off than when she started. Draw the Edgeworth box consistent with this story.
Subgame Perfect Equilibrium. Stephen J. Seagull must decide whether or not to start a new movie project. If he decides not to, he and Clod VandeCamp both get a utility of 10. If he decides to begin the project, both he and Clod must simultaneously decide who the director should be: George Spellbinder, or Ed Tree. If they disagree on the director, the movie isn't made, but both have wasted time, so they get only a utility of 0. If they agree on George Spellbinder, the movie will be a roaring success, and each gets a utility of 20. If they agree on Ed Tree, the movie will be terrible. and they will only get a utility of 5. (a). Draw the extensive form of this game. (b). Write down the normal form. (c). Find all Nash equilibria. (d). Apply the theory of iterated elimination of weakly dominated strategies and state its prediction. (e). Find all the subgame perfect equilibria.
2 Perfect Complement and Cobb-Douglas Two individuals A and B and two goods x and y. Initial endowment for persons A and B are (w, w)=(0,8), (w, w)=(12,0). Their utility functions are UA(TA, YA)=min(TA, YA) and UB (TB, YB)=IBYB) • Find the Pareto improvement set of the endowment allocation • Find the Pareto improvement set of the allocation (11,1) for A and (1,7) for B • Indicate the contract curve in the Edgeworth Box • Find the competitive equilibriums
Consider a two-person exchange economy in which initial endowments for both individuals are such that (e1 = e1) = (1,1). Suppose the two individuals have the following indirect utility functions: V1 (x, y) = ln M1 - a ln Px - (1-a) ln Py V2 (x, y) = ln M2 -b ln Px - (1-b) ln Py Where Mi is the income level of person i and Px and Py are the prices for goods x and goods y, respectively. a) Calculate the market clearing prices.
QUESTION 1 Alice (A) and Bob (B) have an endowment of goods 1 and 2, with Alice's endowment being (wt, w) = (1,2) and Bob's endowment equals (wf , w) = (1,3). Alice's utility is given by u4 (xf, xf) = 2 ln xf + In æ£ , while Bob's utility is uB(xf, x}) = ln xf + 2 ln x? . Suppose that the social planner considers it to be imperative that agent B consumes exactly one uni of good 1 and four units of good 2. Although the social planner can not force the individuals to a particular consumption, they can enforce transfers of good 1 between the consumers (transfers of good 2 are not enforceable by the social planner). What transfer of good 1 would guarantee that in the resulting competitive Walrasian equilibrium consumer B consumes one unit of good 1 and four units of good 2? Answer this please Select one: O a. One half unit of good 1 has to be transferred from agent A to agent B. O b. There is no endowment for which agent B would consume x = 1 and x = 4 in the corresponding competitive…
Answer both question (a) and (b) below. (a) State theWeak Axiom of Revealed Preference (WARP). (b) In a two-good model, suppose a consumer always chooses the midpoint of the budget line given any (p1; p2; I), does the demand function satisfy WARP? Why? (HINT: Graphs can be helpful to answer the question.)
Suppose that consumer I has the utility function u(x,y) = x + 2y and consumer II has the utility function u(x,y) = min{x, 2y}. Consumer I initially has 12 units of y and zero units of x, while consumer II has 12 units of x and zero units of y. It is correct to state that, in competitive equilibrium, the agents' consumption basket will be:
Suppose that you want to derive and draw the demand function for Mr. Seong (also known as Player 456). Mr. Seong likes to eat Dalgona Candy (D) and drink Soju (S). Suppose Mr. Seong's preferences can be expressed as U(D,S) = (D)º.² · (S)0.8. Suppose further the price of a Dalgona Candy is 2 (pº = 2) and the price of Soju is 4 (ps = 4). Mr. Seong has a budget of 100 to spend on the two goods. A. Use the substitution method to find Mr. Seong's optimal choice of Dalgona Candy and Soju. B. Use any method to find Mr. Seong's optimal choice of Dalgona Candy and Soju if the price of Soju was 5 (instead of 4). Feel free to use the Cobb-Douglas short-cut method if you want. C. Use your answers to A and B to derive the demand for Soju in the two diagrams below. That is, draw the change in the top diagram and then use your result to derive the demand curve in the bottom diagram. Several hints have been drawn in the diagram below. D 50 10 ps 5 4 20 20 25 S FYI: The Cobb-Douglas short-cut can be…
Problem: Imagine you have two competing athletes who have the option to use an illegal and dangerous drug to enhance their performance (i.e., dope). If neither athlete dopes, then neither gain an advantage. If only one dopes, then that athlete gains a massive advantage over their competitor, reduced by the medical and legal risks of doping (the athletes believe the advantage over their competitor outweighs the risks from doping ). However, if both athletes dope, the advantages cancel out, and only the risks remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had been doping. What outcome do we expect from these two athletes? Please use ideas like concepts of monopolies, Oligopolies and Game Theory and Factor markets for this scenario.
Persons A and B are roommates. Person A smokes and Person B does not. The index s measures how smoky the room is. It varies from s=0, where there is no smoke in the room, to s=1, when the room is filled with smoke. Thus, 1-s measures how "clean" the air in the room is. Person A's utility function is UA(XA,S)=XA+In(1+s), where xA is the amount of money Person A owns. Person B's utility function is uB(XB,1s)%3D3XB+2(1-s), where Xg is the amount of money Person B owns. Each person starts with an endowment of 5 units of money. Persch B has the legal right to a smoke-free room and there is a market for "emission right." At the Walrasian equilibrium, what will be the (per unit of smoke index) price p of the emission rights if the price of money is 1? O a. None of the other answers. O b. p=2/3 O c. p=1 O d. p=3/2 О е. р31/6