Both answer me 48. In 1960, the National Football League expanded into Dallas and Minneapolis in order to satisfy complaints from local politicians.O TrueO False 47. The following graph is associated with which of the answers below? Choose ALL correct answers.MC, MRMCMR,MCCMR,MR2E,E (quantity of effort)O Prize money is so high in professional golf and tennis players earn the same income regardless of their effort.O The intersection of MR2 and MC1 provides the same monetary reward as MR1 and MC1O Competitors in the touranments are incentivized by high rewards to exert greater effort and reach MR1 and MC1O The graph only applies to athletes in "team" sports rather than individual competition.

The answers which can be considered correct given the above diagram are as follows: Competitors in…

Answered: MC, MR MC MR, MCC MR , MR2 E,

Business

Economics

MC, MR MC MR, MCC MR , MR2 E,

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 friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answer
Economics Two players are bargaining over a three period bargaining model as discussed in class with player 1 making offers in rounds 1 and 3. Player 2 makes an offer in round 2 only. Each player has a common discount factor delta. The two players are bargaining to split $20. They have three time periods available to them for their bargaining game. At the end of round 3, if no agreement has been reached then player 1 receives $2 and player 2 receives $1 and the rest of the money is destroyed. Find the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium outcome in the finite horizon model in which the game ends after period 3.
6) You have been assigned to create a new TV game show, and you have an interesting idea that you call, “I WANT TO BE A MILLIONAIRE.” The basics are: 1) two contestants; 2) the show begins with each contestant being given $1 million (!); and then 3) they begin playing a game that can increase or decrease that $1 million. You worry that the initial outlay of $2 million will stun your producers, so you decide to prepare them with a simpler version of your game that you call: “I WANT $3.” There are four steps in this simpler game: There are two contestants/opponents (who do not know each other and cannot communicate with each other during the game). Each player is given $3 at the start of the game. Independently and simultaneously, each player must choose whether they want to add $0, $1, $2 or $3 to their initial stake of $3. Doing so reduces their opponent’s award by $0, $2, $4, or $6, respectively. Each player knows that their payoff at the end of the game is based on their initial…
Table 9-03. Suppose you are a general in the army. Your country is at war. You are trying to invade the enemy. You can attack on the enemys east coast or the west coast. The enemy has only enough troops to defend one coast. The payoff matrix below represents whether you or the enemy wins (represented by 1) or loses (represented by 0). Enemy Defend east coast Defend west coast Enemy: 1 Enemy: 0 Attack east coast You: 0 You: 1 You Enemy: 0 Enemy: 1 Attack west coast You: 1 You: 0 Refer to Table 9-03. To win the war, O a. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the east coast. O b. you must attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or the west coast is irrelevant to you. c. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the west coast. d. you must never attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or…
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?
Answer this question
An old lady is looking for help crossing the street. Only one person is needed to help her; if more people help her, this is no better. You and I are the two people in the vicinity who can help; we have to choose simultaneously whether to do so. Each of us will get pleasure worth a 3 from her success (no matter who helps her), But each one who goes to help will bear a cost of 1, this being the value of our time taken up in helping. If neither player helps, the payoff for each player is zero. Set up this game in strategic form.
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.
You want to travel to Las Vegas to celebrate spring break and your "A" in your microeconomics class! You are trying to figure out if you should drive or fly. A round trip airline ticket from Riverside to Las Vegas costs $350 and flying there and back takes about 5 hours. Driving roundtrip to Las Vegas costs about $50 in gas and takes about 10 hours. Other things constant, what is the minimum amount of money that you would have to expect to make by gambling in Las Vegas to induce you as a rational individual to fly rather than drive? O $10 an hour $60 an hour O $70 an hour O $300 an hour
7
Suppose you were playing the Split or Steal game for a jackpot of $100,000. Which would you choose: Split or Steal? Explain why
Answer as many parts as you can