DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       EC901 Micro
  HTML https://warwickec901micro.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Any Other Business
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 60--------------------------------------------------
       2011-2012 - Q5(b), Q8(a, ii)
   DIR By: ecplgq
       Date: January 4, 2013, 8:50 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi,
       Q5(b)
       Could somebody help explain the intuition behind why teh NE =
       symmetric i.e. t1=t2=t* when as in this questions the ki
       equations when written out in matrix format are symmetric? (i.e.
       [k1, k2] = [1, 1] + [top row: -1, 0.5; bottom row: 0.5, -1]*[t1,
       t2]?
       Q8(a, ii)
       Why do we not compare like for like when looking at whether the
       high type is better of in a pooling PBE vs. seperating PBE; for
       instance comparing the equilibrium payoff in the seperating PBE
       with that in the pooling PBE....?
       ....rather than as in the model answer; compare the equilibrium
       payoff in the seperating PBE with the expected wage in the
       pooling PBE
       Thank you,
       #Post#: 62--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 2011-2012 - Q5(b), Q8(a, ii)
   DIR By: Konrad
       Date: January 5, 2013, 5:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hey!
       Q5. I think it is simply because their revenue functions are
       identical in the way how their own taxes and the other country´s
       taxes affect capital.
       Q8 The question states that no one will get education in the
       pooling PBE. Since the payoff=expected wages - cost of
       education, talking about expected wages in this case is the same
       as talking about (expected?)payoff
       #Post#: 67--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 2011-2012 - Q5(b), Q8(a, ii)
   DIR By: Julia.Wirtz
       Date: January 9, 2013, 7:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I approve this answer  :)
       #Post#: 68--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 2011-2012 - Q5(b), Q8(a, ii)
   DIR By: ecplgq
       Date: January 9, 2013, 7:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you (o:
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1