Four brothers share a forest with 2,000 acres of trees. To preserve the forest, the government promises to pay the group $400,000 minus $200 per acre of trees that has been cut down (this money will be split evenly among the brothers.) Each brother can cut down and sell trees for $100 per acre. What is the symmetric Nash equilibrium quantity of cut tree acres per individual? a. 0 acres b. 100 acres c. 1,000 acres d. 500 acres
btw for part 1 of this question I found that not cutting any acres would maximize the profit of the group, if that is helpful...
@ganeshie8 @Directrix @Hero @Abhisar
I WILL FAN AND MEDAL HELP ME
Nash equilibrium I believe is when everyone acts in their own self interest, which may or may not be in the interest of the entire group
Seems to me that the "best situation" for each individual would be to cut down as many tree acres as possible.
The answer is apparently 500 acres, but why? I don't know
That's what I got as well.
Like "uhhhh" said, a Nash Equilibrium is the "greedy solution" when each individual maximizes their profit.
mind explaining?
Sure thing.
The brothers profit from two sources: 1) the government funds, and 2) cutting down trees.
All of these funds will be divided evenly (presumably) since each individual wants to maximize their profit.
Therefore, looking at the profits relative to ONE BROTHER: P1 = (400,000 - 200a)/4 (from the government divided among 4) and P2 = 100a (from the trees)
The total profit for one brother is given by P1 + P2 = (400,000 - 200a)/4 + 100a = (400,000 + 200a)/4
From the form of the profit, it is apparent that "a" should be made as large as possible
There are only 2000 acres for all 4 brothers, so each can get 500. This is the maximum value of a, and therefore, the maximum profit. In other words, the brothers should completely destroy the forest.
Does that make sense?
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!