Consider a Stackelberg game of quantity competition between two firms. Firm 1 is the leader and firm 2 is the follower. Market demand is described by the inverse demand function P=1000-4Q. Each firm has a constant unit cost of production equal to 20. Suppose firm 2's unit cost of production is c<20. What value would c have so that in the Nash Equilibrium, the two firms, the leader and the follower, had the same market share?

Consider a Stackelberg game of quantity competition between two firms. Firm 1 is the leader and firm 2 is the follower. Market demand is described by the inverse demand function P=1000-4Q. Each firm has a constant unit cost of production equal to 20. Suppose firm 2's unit cost of production is c<20. What value would c have so that in the Nash Equilibrium, the two firms, the leader and the follower, had the same market share?

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

Two firms X and Y compete with each other. Firm X can produce one of three products X1, X2, or X3. Similarly, firm Y can produce one of three products Y1, Y1, and Y3. Each firm's profit depends on its own and its competitor's decision about which product to produce. These profits are given in the table below where each cell presents profits corresponding to a pair of chosen strategies with the first number being the profit of firm X and the second being the profit of firm Y. For example, if X chooses to produce X3 and Y chooses to produce Y1, the profit of X will be $15 and the profit of Y will be $20. The firms make their product choice decisions simultaneously and independently of each other. Y1 Y2 Y3 X1 0, 0 12, 8 16, 16 15, 20 18, 9 20, 15 8, 12 18, 18 9, 18 X2 X3 11) Does this game have any equilibrium in dominant strategies? If yes, find all of them. 12) In addition to the equilibria (if any) you found in the previous question, does this game have any other equilibria? If yes,…
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 two firms A and B compete against each other in a Cournot fashion by choosing their quantities. What is the Nash Equilibrium of the game if both firms have a constant marginal cost of 2 and the price in the market is: p(qa + qB) = 20 – 2(qA + qB). O (3, 3) O (2, 2) O (4, 4) None of the other answers are correct (5, 5)
Can a strategy be dominant for one player in a Nash equilibrium
Imagine that there are two snowboard manufacturers (FatSki and WideBoard) in the market. Each firm can either produce ten or twenty snowboards per day. The table below (see attached) shows the profit per snowboard for each firm that will result given the joint production decisions of these two firms. Draw the game payoff matrix for this situation. Does either player have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it? What is the Nash equilibrium solution and how many boards should each player produce each day? Since FatSki and WideBoard must play this game repeatedly (i.e. make production decisions every day), what strategy would you advise them to play in order to maximize their payoff over the long term?
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?
Imagine a small town with three car repair shops competing for a limited number of customers. Explain why the three shops working together to keep their prices high is unlikely to be a Nash equilibrium.
O Cell A O Cell C O Cell E O Cell I None of the above
QUESTION 13 Consider a market where two firms (1 and 2) produce differentiated goods and compete in prices. The demand for firm 1 is given by D₁(P₁, P2) = 140 - 2p1 + P2 and demand for firm 2's product is D2 (P1, P2) 140 - 2p2 + P1 Both firms have a constant marginal cost of 20. What is the Nash equilibrium price of firm 1? (Only give a full number; if necessary, round to the lower integer; no dollar sign.)
In the game above, what is/are the EFFICIENT sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium?
While game theory predicts non-cooperative behavior for a one-shot Prisoner's dilemma. By repeating the game, say 20 rounds, it becomes possible to adopt more complex strategies that allow cooperative play as a Nash Equilibrium in at least some rounds of the game. True False
Two players F and C obtain the payoffs described in the matrix below when playing strategies F1, F2 and F3 (for player F) and strategies C1, C2 and C3 for player C. Select the CORRECT statement C1 C2 C3 F1 8,2 1, 1 4,0 F2 0,2 5,1 1,0 F3 1,3 0, 100 9,0 Select one: The Nash equilibrium in pure strategies is [F1, C1] ○ b. There is no Nash equilibrium in pure strategies c. Player C dominant strategy is C1 ○ d. Player F dominant strategy is F1 e. The Nash equilibrium in pure strategies is [F3, C2]