Please write your answer as precise as possible. Long answers are not necessary.Consider the oil production of OPEC. We simplify the situation to only two countries' case. Eachaction in the payoff matrix represents the amount of oil produced by each player. For example,"small" means a small amount of crude oil is produced; “large" means a large amount of crude oilis produced. The payoff pairs in the table represent each country's profit, respectively. For example,"Very high profit, Very low profitť" pair in the bottom left cell denotes a pair of payoffs that Irangets "Very high profit", and Saudi Arabia gets “Very low profit".Saudi ArabiaSmallLargeSmallHigh profit, High profitVery low profit, Very high profitIranLarge Very high profit, Very low profitLow profit, Low profit*Note: Very high profit > High profit > Low profit >Very low profitWhat outcome (Nash equilibrium) of this game between two countries would you predict? Useyour answer to explain why OPEC has failed to keep the oil price (profit) high in the long-run.

Game theory provides a mathematical method to determine the equilibrium strategy when two or more…

Consider the oil production of OPEC. We simplify the situation to only two countries' case. Each action in the payoff matrix represents the amount of oil produced by each player. For example, small" means a small amount of crude oil is produced; “large" means a large amount of crude oil s produced. The payoff pairs in the table represent each country’s profit, respectively. For example, Very high profit, Very low profit" pair in the bottom left cell denotes a pair of payoffs that Iran gets “Very high profit", and Saudi Arabia gets “Very low profit". Saudi Arabia Small Large Small High profit, High profit Very low profit, Very high profit Iran Large Very high profit, Very low profit Low profit, Low profit *Note: Very high profit > High profit > Low profit > Very low profit What outcome (Nash equilibrium) of this game between two countries would you predict? Use vour answer to explain why OPEC has failed to keep the oil price (profit) high in the long-run.

Consider the oil production of OPEC. We simplify the situation to only two countries' case. Each action in the payoff matrix represents the amount of oil produced by each player. For example, small" means a small amount of crude oil is produced; “large" means a large amount of crude oil s produced. The payoff pairs in the table represent each country’s profit, respectively. For example, Very high profit, Very low profit" pair in the bottom left cell denotes a pair of payoffs that Iran gets “Very high profit", and Saudi Arabia gets “Very low profit". Saudi Arabia Small Large Small High profit, High profit Very low profit, Very high profit Iran Large Very high profit, Very low profit Low profit, Low profit *Note: Very high profit > High profit > Low profit > Very low profit What outcome (Nash equilibrium) of this game between two countries would you predict? Use vour answer to explain why OPEC has failed to keep the oil price (profit) high in the long-run.

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 we’ve modelled a firm’s entry decision with a one-shot, simultaneous move game, determined payoffs and found the Nash equilibrium. Suppose with the payoffs we came up with, both firms have a clear dominant strategy such that there is a Nash equilibrium in which both firms play their dominant strategy. However, when we observe the actual actions of the firms, we see that they don’t choose the strategy wepredicted and the outcome of the game doesn’t match the Nash equilibrium. What are 4 reasons this might be? (Hint: The firms are rational.)
Make sure you clearly write your name and submission:. 1. Consider the 2-player, zero-sum game "Rock, Paper, Scissors". Each player chooses one of 3 strategies: rock, paper, or scissors. Then, both players reveal their choices. The outcome is determined as follows. If both players choose the same strategy, neither player wins or loses anything. Otherwise: • "paper covers rock": if one player chooses paper and the other chooses rock, the player who chose paper wins and is paid 1 by the other player. • "scissors cut paper": if one player chooses scissors and the other chooses paper, the player who chose scissors wins and is paid 1 by the other player. • "rock breaks scissors": if one player chooses rock and the other player chooses scissors, the player who chose rock wins and is paid 1 by the other player. We can write the payoff matrix for this game as follows: rock paper -1 0 1 rock 0 paper 1 scissors -1 (a) Show that this game does not have a pure Nash equilibrium. 1 X 3 (b) Show that…
Question 3: Represent Rock-Paper-Scissors 1 point, the loser gets -1 and in case of a tie each player gets 0. What are the dominant strategies? What is the Nash equilibrium? game in a matrix format. Note that the winner gets
Suppose that both Apple and Samsung simultaneously choose A or S. Depict the game played by the two tech firms in matrix form.
If Bean Bruuer advertises, Hatte Latte makes a higher profit if it chooses If Bean Bruuer doesn't advertise, Hatte Latte makes a higher profit if it chooses Suppose that both firms start off by deciding not to advertise. If the firms act independently, what strategies will they end up choosing? Hatte Latte will choose not to advertise and Bean Bruuer will choose to advertise. Both firms will choose not to advertise. Both firms choose to advertise. Hatte Latte will choose to advertise and Bean Bruuer will choose not to advertise. Again, suppose that both firms start off not advertising. If the firms decide to collude, what strategies will they end up choosing? Hatte Latte will choose to advertise and Bean Bruuer will choose not to advertise. Hatte Latte will choose not to advertise and Bean Bruuer will choose to advertise. Both firms will choose to advertise. Both firms will choose not to advertise.
In the game shown below, Player 1 can move Up or Down, and Player 2 can move Left or Right. The players must move at the same time without knowledge of the other player’s move. The first payoff is for the row player (Player 1) and the second payoff is for the column player (Player 2). Solve each game using game theoretic logic. Player 2 Player 1 Left Right Up 7, 7 2, 9 Down 9, 2 1, 3
suppose that the world is comprised of two countries: X and Y. Because of the absence of centralized world governance, the control of global externalities is particularly challenging, which is the case with greenhouse gases linked to climate change. The entries in the following Payoff Table describe each country's well-being under different abatement patterns: X\Y No Abate Abate No Abate 12,12 24,8 Abate 8,24 20,20 Now suppose that the game is repeated indefinitely. Define the concepts of Trigger Strategies and also the concept of Business as Usual Strategies for the repeated game. Verify that trigger strategies supporting cooperative payoffs (20,20) constitute a non-cooperative equilibrium of the repeated game when δ=0.8. Are trigger strategies still an equilibrium when δ=0.30? Explain intuitively why and verify that Business as Usual still is an equilibrium in this case.
Please help with #2
Please help with #1
For the R & D game that Kimberly-Clark(Kleenex) and Procter & Gamble (Puffs) Play. Each firm has two strategies: Do R&D or do not R&D. If neither firm does R&D, Kimberly-Clark makes $30 million and Procter & Gamble makes $70 million. If both does R&D, Kimberly-Clark makes $5 million and Procter & Gamble makes $45 million. if only Procter & Gamble does R&D, it makes $85 million and Kimberly-Clark makes -$10 million, and if only Kimberly-Clark does R&D it makes $85 million and Procter & Gamble makes -$10 million. 7) Create the payoff matrix for this game?
Answer to image?
What would be the correct answer in this case? I was surprised that "B. The Nash equilibrium is for Saudi Arabia to produce a high output and for Kuwait to produce a high output" was incorrect.