EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
12th Edition
ISBN: 9781305176386
Author: Snyder
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 12.3, Problem 2MQ
To determine
the best response function would be during both firm’s marginal cost increased by the same amount
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Jane and Sara are competing orange juice salespersons in Amherst. Their stands are next to each other on a street and consumers regard them as identical. The marginal cost of an orange juice is $1. The demand for orange juice every hour is Q = 20 − P where P is the lowest price between the two salespersons. If their prices are equal they split demand equally.
a. If they set prices simultaneously (prices can be any real number), what is the Nash equilibrium price?
b. If, against what we have assumed in class, orange juice salespersons have to charge prices in whole dollars ($1, $2, $3, etc), what are the Nash equilibrium prices?
c. Assuming whole dollar pricing, if Jane sets her price before Sara, what price would she charge?
Answer all 3 parts
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.
Two firms operating in the same market must decide between charging a high price or a low
price. The Payoffs are as below. Firm A's profit is listed before the comma, B's profit after the
comma.
Firm B
Firm A
Low Price
High Price
Low Price
16, 17
7, 28
High Price
28, 7
22, 22
If each firm tries to choose a price that is optimal, regardless of the other firm's price, what is
the Nash equilibrium? Does either firm have a dominant strategy?
Chapter 12 Solutions
EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
Ch. 12.2 - Prob. 1TTACh. 12.2 - Prob. 2TTACh. 12.2 - Prob. 1MQCh. 12.2 - Prob. 2MQCh. 12.2 - Prob. 1.1TTACh. 12.2 - Prob. 2.1TTACh. 12.2 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 12.3 - Prob. 1MQCh. 12.3 - Prob. 2MQCh. 12.3 - Prob. 1TTA
Ch. 12.3 - Prob. 2TTACh. 12.3 - Prob. 1.1MQCh. 12.3 - Prob. 2.1MQCh. 12.3 - Prob. 1.1TTACh. 12.3 - Prob. 2.1TTACh. 12.4 - Prob. 1TTACh. 12.4 - Prob. 2TTACh. 12.5 - Prob. 1MQCh. 12.5 - Prob. 2MQCh. 12.5 - Prob. 1TTACh. 12.5 - Prob. 2TTACh. 12.6 - Prob. 1MQCh. 12.6 - Prob. 2MQCh. 12 - Prob. 1RQCh. 12 - Prob. 2RQCh. 12 - Prob. 3RQCh. 12 - Prob. 4RQCh. 12 - Prob. 5RQCh. 12 - Prob. 6RQCh. 12 - Prob. 7RQCh. 12 - Prob. 8RQCh. 12 - Prob. 9RQCh. 12 - Prob. 10RQCh. 12 - Prob. 12.1PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.2PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.3PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.4PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.5PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.6PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.7PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.8PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.9PCh. 12 - Prob. 12.10P
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Consider two ice cream sellers competing at a beach that is 1000 metres long. Ice cream prices are fixed by the ice cream company, but companies can choose their locations simultaneously. Customers are located uniformly (spread out evenly on the beach) and do not like walking. The cost of walking every metre is the same (i.e. linear cost). a) Suppose there are three ice cream sellers that locate simultaneously. Find the Nash equilibrium is there is one. Else, explain why there is none. (Focus on pure strategy Nash equilibria)arrow_forwardFind any Nash equilibria in the game below. Firm B Co-operate Don’t co-operate Firm A Co-operate 60 60 0 80 Don’t co-operate 80 0 10 10 Answer a. There is one Nash equilibrium: both firms don't co-operate. b. There are no Nash equilibria. c. There are two Nash equilibria: one firm co-operates and the other firm doesn't co-operate. d. There are two Nash equilibria: (i) both firms co-operate and (ii) both firms don't co-operate.arrow_forwardFind any Nash equilibria in the game below. Firm B Co-operate Don’t co-operate Firm A Co-operate 60 60 0 80 Don’t co-operate 80 0 10 10 a. There is one Nash equilibrium: both firms don't co-operate. b. There are no Nash equilibria. c. There are two Nash equilibria: one firm co-operates and the other firm doesn't co-operate. d. There are two Nash equilibria: (i) both firms co-operate and (ii) both firms don't co-operate.arrow_forward
- Economics Consider two firms that are choosing the price of competing products. The choices are contained in the payoff table. Each firm can raise price, lower price, or maintain their price. Suppose the game is played once each period forever. If both players play the strategy "always lower price" is this a Nash equilibrium? Let b = discount rate, 0 < b <1. Raise price Maintain price Lower price Firm B Raise price Maintain price Lower price 6. 4 8. 8 1.1 5, 5 4, 6 7.2 1.1 3.3 Firm A 2.7 No. because it is dominated by raising the price. No, because it is dominated by both firms raising the price. No, because it is dominated by maintaining the price. Yes.arrow_forwardDefine a dominant strategy and Nash equilibrium. Can two firms interacting with each other have no Nash equilibria if both have a dominant strategy?arrow_forwardThe attached diagram depicts two firms controlled by Jacob and Elsa, and two potential actions each firm might take. Payoffs from action combinations appear in the normal-form depiction of the game played by Jacob and Elsa. What is the Nash equilibrium of the game (Jacob's strategy listed first)? a b Jacob's Actions d Dont' Advertise Advertise, Advertise Advertise Don't Advertise J=300 J=400 Don't advertise, Don't advertise Elsa's Actions Don't advertise (Jacob), Advertise (Elsa) с Advertise (Jacob), Don't Advertise (Elsa) E=200 Selected answer will be automatically saved. For keyboard navigation, press up/down arrow keys to select an answer. E=50 Advertise J=100 J=200 E=300 E=100arrow_forward
- Consider the following game: PLAYER 2 Left Middle Right Up 0,0 2,5 5.4 PLAYER 1 Middle 1,2 7,3 4,3 Down 5,5 3, 1 2, 1 Which of the following statements is true? There are two Nash equilibria, and they are both Pareto efficient. There is a unique Nash equilibrium. There are two Nash equilibria, and they are both Pareto inefficient. There are two Nash equilibria, but only one is Pareto efficient. None of these.arrow_forwardConsider the following static game with two firms as the players. Each firm must decide either to upgrade (U) an existing good to a new version; or not upgrade it (N). The decisions are simultaneous. If a firm chooses to upgrade, they have to pay a fixed cost of 7. If they don’t upgrade, there is no fixed cost. The marginal cost is always equal to 3. The demand side of the market is as follows: If neither firm upgrades, each firm sells 2 units at price 4. If both firms upgrade, each firm sells 3 units at price 5. If only one firm upgrades, the one who upgrades sells 5 units at price 5, and the other firm does not sell anything.arrow_forwardUse the following normal-form game to answer the following questions. a. For what values of x is strategy D (strictly) dominant for player 2? b. For what values of x is strategy B (strictly) dominant for player 1? c. For what values of x is (B, D) the only Nash equilibrium of the game?arrow_forward
- Nash equilibrium refers to the optimal outcome of a game where there is no incentive for the players to deviate from their initial strategy. An individual (or player) can receive no incremental benefit from changing actions, assuming other players remain constant in their strategies. Given this premise, can there be a no Nash equilibrium?arrow_forwardTrue or false? If a game has a Nash equilibrium, that equilibrium will be the equilibrium that we expect to observe in the real world. False. People don’t always act in the way that a Nash equilibrium requires. People don’t always make the necessary calculations and they take into account the outcome of others. False. A Nash equilibrium is based on very strict assumptions that rarely hold in the real world. No real-world situation leads to a Nash equilibrium. True. As long as people are rational and have their own self-interest at heart, real-life games will result in the Nash equilibrium. True. Nash’s theory of equilibrium outcomes was derived from real-world interactions. The theory holds true for almost all real-world scenarios.arrow_forwardWhat is the difference, if any, between a dominant strategy and a Nash equilibrium? Give examples.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Exploring EconomicsEconomicsISBN:9781544336329Author:Robert L. SextonPublisher:SAGE Publications, Inc
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage Learning
Exploring Economics
Economics
ISBN:9781544336329
Author:Robert L. Sexton
Publisher:SAGE Publications, Inc
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning