Let's think about a traditional game theory principal agent game. In this game we have two players, Lauren and Jason Lauren will choose to invest $500 dollars with Jason If she doesn't invest the money, she keeps the $500 and Jason gets nothing If she does invest the money, then Jason has a choice-he can cooperate by investing Lauren's money and then splitting the profit of another $500. This would give Lauren $750 (her original $500 investment plus $250 of profit) and would give Jason $250. Jason's other choice is to appropriate, or to steal Lauren's money and not invest it. If he does this, Lauren ends up with nothing and Jason has the entire $500. The following diagram outlines this game. Principal Agent Game Joson (750. 250) Louren oppropriate 10 s00 oninvest What will happen in this game? Lauren will not invest Lauren will invest and Jason will cooperate Lauren will invest and Jason will appropriate Next page

Let's think about a traditional game theory principal agent game. In this game we have two players, Lauren and Jason Lauren will choose to invest $500 dollars with Jason If she doesn't invest the money, she keeps the $500 and Jason gets nothing If she does invest the money, then Jason has a choice-he can cooperate by investing Lauren's money and then splitting the profit of another $500. This would give Lauren $750 (her original $500 investment plus $250 of profit) and would give Jason $250. Jason's other choice is to appropriate, or to steal Lauren's money and not invest it. If he does this, Lauren ends up with nothing and Jason has the entire $500. The following diagram outlines this game. Principal Agent Game Joson (750. 250) Louren oppropriate 10 s00 oninvest What will happen in this game? Lauren will not invest Lauren will invest and Jason will cooperate Lauren will invest and Jason will appropriate Next page

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

Your teacher in Principle of Finance class told you that there will be no averaging of the grades or curve grading. It means that students will get the marks they received and there is no adjustment. This also means that every student has a possibility to get A grade because your grade does not depend on the performance of your classfellows. Therefore, Zainab decided to study 3 hours every day regardless of what your classfellows are doing. In the language of game theory what kind of strategy she is using. Please explain your answer.
The options for the last 3 fill-in-the-blanks are "Up" or "Down." Thank you!
None
8.8
Once again, two ice cream truck vendors, A and B, are playing a simultaneous pricing game. If only one of the vendors prices low, he gets all the customers for a payoff of 12, while the other vendor gets no customers and a payoff of zero. If both vendors price high, they each get a payoff of 6. If both price low, they each get a payoff of 5. Suppose that the above game is repeated indefinitely, and together the vendors adopt a trigger strategy such that they would start charging the low price only if the other vendor charged a low price last time. Provided that the vendors stick to their new strategy, what would be the Nash equilibrium going forward? a) Both the vendors price high b) Both the vendors price low c) Vendor A prices high, vendor B prices low d) Vendor B prices high, vendor A prices low
In 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.
In the collusion game, collusion was only sustainable in the infinite horizon repeated game. One Nash Equilibrium of that game can be found when all players play a “grim trigger” strategy, where they collude until an opponent chooses to compete, and then compete for all future rounds as a punishment. In such a game, if the one period bonus that comes from competing is low enough, firms always collude and the punishment is never triggered. Is the punishment (vowing to compete forever after one deviates) realistic, especially if firms can communicate freely? Why or why not? (Hint: Is a grim trigger Nash Equilibrium a Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium? What kinds of Nash Equilibria does Subgame erfection rule out in sequential games?)
Olivia is thinking about opening a new bakery (the entrant). There is already a bakery open in her neighborhood (the incumbent), and the owner of the incumbent bakery makes it clear that if Olivia enters the market, they will cut their prices in an attempt to drive the new bakery out of business. Based on the payoff matrix below, is the incumbent’s threat credible? That is, if Olivia opens a new bakery, will the incumbent actually lower their prices? Note: the entrant chooses the row, the incumbent chooses the column High price Low price Enter 1, 2 -1, 1 Don’t enter 0, 10 0, 1 a. Yes, the threat is credible b. No, the threat is not credible
Consider the following two player game. In each cell the first number refers to the payoff to Player 1 while the second number refers to the payoff to Player 2. Suppose the two players move simultaneously (at the same time). Which one of the following statements is CORRECT? Player #1 Player #2 Top Bottom Left 7.7 4.0 Right 0,4 4,4 O There are three equilibria in this game: two pure strategy equilibria at [Top, Left] and [Bottom, Right) and al third equilibrium in mixed strategies. In the mixed strategy equilibrium of this game. Player 1 should play Top with probability 2/5 and Bottom with probability 3/5; Player 2 should play Left with probability 2/5 and Right with probability 3/5. O There are three equilibria in this game; two pure strategy equilibria at (Top. Left) and (Bottom, Right) and a third equilibrium in mixed strategies. In the mixed strategy equilibrium of this game, both players should randomize over the strategies with probability and %. O There is a unique dominant…
Please help with #1
Please help with #2
Keith and Blake play a simultaneous one-shot game. Keith chooses between Top and Bottom, whereas Blake chooses between left and right. Payoffs are given by (Keith's payoffs are listed first and Blake's payoffs second): Top+left: 3,-6. Top+right:0,-7 Bottom+left:4,0. Bottom+right:-2,6. In a mixed strategy equilibria, Keith will play Top with what probability? 1. 6/7 2. 1/4 3. 1/2 4. 1/7 5. 0 6. 3/4