Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow’s election. Would such an agreement improve utility? Would such an agreement be an equilibrium? 15-2 To Vote or Not to Vote Part IISuppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow's election. Wouldsuch an agreement improve utility? Would such an agreement be anequilibrium?

Answered: Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to…

Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow’s election. Would such an agreement improve utility? Would such an agreement be an equilibrium?

Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach

5th Edition

ISBN:9781337106665

Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor

Publisher:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor

Chapter15: Strategic Games

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 15.2IP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Exercise 6.1Suppose that two airlines decide to collude. Analyse the game between these two companies. Suppose that each of them can charge for tickets a high price or a low price. If one of them charges 100 euros, it gets few profits if the other also charges 100 euros and high profits if the other charges 200 euros. On the other hand, if the company charges 200 euros, it obtains very little profit if the other charges 100 euros and an average profit if the other also charges 200 euros. a) Represent the matrix of results of this game. b) What is the Nash equilibrium in this game? Explain your answer. c) Is there an outcome that would be better than the Nash equilibrium for the two airlines? How could it be achieved? Who would lose out if it were reached?
10. Player A and Player B are playing a game . First , Player A chooses to either " Keep " or " Pass " . Second , Player B observes A's choice and Player B then chooses to either Keep or Pass . This process continues which creates the sequential game below . Please mark decisions that rational and selfish players will choose at every decision node ( 3 decisions by player A and 3 decisions by player B ) - mark them on the Figure . What is the equilibrium of this game ?
learn.canterbury.ac.nz Clasarsom Nov 15-ICO EUC LEARN | AKO See the game below and answer the questions 8 to 11: Player-1 C Player-2 X, Y Y Player-1 9 14 8. Player-2 16 17 16 Nash Equilibrium in this game: Select one: O a. Playert: C; Player2: X O b. Playert: C; Player2: Y Oc. Playert: L; Player2: X Od. Playert: L; Player2: Y e. None
7 In bargaining theory, sometimes an individual’s patience level can affect his or her bargaining power. Consider a simple repeated game in which Person 1 makes an offer to purchase a good that Person 2 is selling; Person 2 can either accept this offer or reject it and make a counteroffer. This game continues until one player accepts the other’s offer. Explain how incorporating the rate of time preference (ββ) into such a repeated game might alter the outcome.
Sean is arguing with his girlfriend, Yvette. They have been going out for a little more than two years. YVETTE: I'm leaving you, Sean. Get over it. SEAN: Are you saying that being single will make you happier than you've been with me? Speaking personally, I think the utility we've had in this relationship was much more than you could have had if you'd been single this whole time! YVETTE: I had taken an economics class and the word "utility" rings a bell. It's not that at all. We've had a fine time. It's that the utility I would get by continuing our relationship isn't worth it anymore. SEAN: I've never been dumped by someone citing the law of before. You're a piece of work, you know that? Yvette doesn't hear. She has already walked off, leaving Sean feeling like something of a sunk cost.
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.
Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes "cancel each other out." They each gain 14 units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose 14 units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each 7 units of utility. The following matrix summarizes the strategies for both Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward. Mrs. Ward Vote Don't Vote Vote Mr. Ward: -7, Mrs. Ward: -7 Mr. Ward: 7, Mrs. Ward: -14 Mr. Ward Don't Vote Mr. Ward: -14, Mrs. Ward: 7 Mr. Ward: 0, Mrs. Ward: 0 The Nash equilibrium for this game is for Mr. Ward to and for Mrs. Ward to Under this outcome, Mr. Ward receives a payoff of units of utility and Mrs. Ward receives a payoff of units of utility. Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow's election. True or False: This agreement would increase utility for each spouse, compared to the Nash equilibrium from the previous part of the question. O True O False This agreement not to vote a…
1. Alizeh and Kelly were traveling together and have gotten stranded at an airport overnight. They have no cash, but they did both think to bring granola bars and turkey sandwiches with them. They currently each have several granola bars and a few sandwiches. Alizeh announces that she'd be willing to give up a granola bar for one turkey sandwich. Kelly responds that turkey sandwiches are bigger than granola bars so she would be willing to give up a granola bar if she could get half a turkey sandwich. Is Kelly and Alizeh's current allocation of granola bars and turkey sandwiches efficient? Explain why or why not. (Note that you cannot rely on a rule here – you have to specifically explain why the allocation does or does not meet the definition of an efficient allocation.)
In the movie Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean and Buzz Gunderson compete for thefavours of sixteen year old Judy. Buzz's gang members steal two cars. The group of teenagers gathers on aLos Angeles lookout, with a cliff that drops down to the Pacific Ocean. James and Buzz are to drive the stolencars toward the cliff. The first person to jump from his car is declared the chicken (which is bad). The lastperson to jump is the hero (which is good), capturing Judy's affection and the gang's respect. The driverlesscars continue over the cliff and plunge to the rocks at its base.Each driver can make two possible actions. Jump when he feels endangered (be a chicken) or jump AFTERthe other driver jumps (be a rooster). Assuming that both feel endangered at the same moment, the followingmatrix represents the payoffs for James and Buzz for each choice of strategy.BuzzChicken RoosterJames Chicken 3, 3 -10, 20Rooster 20, -10 -50, -50 PLEASE ANSWER THE BELOW QUESTION WITH REFERECE TO THE ABOVE…
Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes “cancel each other out.” They each gain 6 units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose 6 units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each 3 units of utility. The following matrix summarizes the strategies for both Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward. Mrs. Ward Vote Don't Vote Mr. Ward Vote Mr. Ward: -3, Mrs. Ward: -3 Mr. Ward: 3, Mrs. Ward: -6 Don't Vote Mr. Ward: -6, Mrs. Ward: 3 Mr. Ward: 0, Mrs. Ward: 0 The Nash equilibrium for this game is for Mr. Ward to and for Mrs. Ward to . Under this outcome, Mr. Ward receives a payoff of units of utility and Mrs. Ward receives a payoff of units of utility. Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow's election. True or False: This agreement would decrease utility for each spouse, compared to the Nash equilibrium from the previous part of the question. True…
please discuss the separation eqilibrium in details 1. Assume that two players play the Tinder game. There are two types of potential boyfriends: the gentleman (25% of the population) and the douchebag (75% of the population), and they can decide on the different level of effort: low, medium, and high. For the first type, the respective costs are 30, 50, and 80. For the second type, the respective costs are 50, 75, and 120. For the potential boyfriend, the payoff from being in relationship is 130, and the payoff associated with being dumped is 70. The girl can get 60 if she stays single, 100 if she is in relationship with the gentleman, and 25 if she dates the douchebag (credits to Owen Sims) a) Present the game in the extensive form b) Calculate the expected pay-off for the girl. Should she date at all? c) Discuss whether the game has a separating equilibrium
Mr. and Mrs. Ward typically vote oppositely in elections and so their votes "cancel each other out." They each gain 30 units of utility from a vote for their positions (and lose 30 units of utility from a vote against their positions). However, the bother of actually voting costs each 15 units of utility. The following matrix summarizes the strategies for both Mr. Ward and Mrs. Ward. Mr. Ward Vote Don't Vote Mrs. Ward Vote Mr. Ward-15, Mrs. Ward: -15 Mr. Ward: 30, Mrs. Ward: 15 The Nash equilibrium for this game is for Mr. Ward to payoff of False Don't Vote Mr. Ward: 15, Mrs. Ward: -30 Mr. Ward: 0, Mrs. Ward: 0 units of utility and Mrs. Ward receives a payoff of This agreement not to vote. Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Ward agreed not to vote in tomorrow's election. True or False: This agreement would decrease utility for each spouse, compared to the Nash equilibrium from the previous part of the question. O True and for Mrs. Ward to units of utility a Nash equilibrium, Under this outcome, Mr.…