Title: Stolen Art
1Stolen Art
- 50,000 paintings stolen from museums and private
collections around the world (including 287 by
Picasso, 43 by Van Gogh, 26 by Renoir, more than
100 by Rembrandt). - "Stolen art works don't end up on the walls of
criminal connoisseurs. They usually end up in
storage. - Mr Hill (former member of Metropolitan Police)
"I never pay a ransom. What I do is settle
expenses and provide a finder's fee. - Tate Gallery paid 3 million pounds to someone who
engineered the return of 2 works by Turner. - If thieves could somehow be persuaded that no
finder's fees would ever be paid, they might stop
stealing works of art. "But do you know a way to
persuade them that no collector, and no gallery,
never mind an insurance company, will ever hand
over a cent to get its treasured masterpieces
returned?" he asks. "Because I don't." -
2Ultimatum game
- One of you is Player A and the other is Player B.
- You have 10 to divide between you.
- Player A makes an offer how to divide it to
Player B. - Player B can accept or reject.
- If Player B accepts, the payoff is as offered. If
Player B rejects, they both get zero.
3Ultimatum Game in Extensive Form
(8,2)
Accept
Offer (8,2)
B
Reject
(0,0)
A
A
Accept
(5,5)
Offer (5,5)
B
B
(0,0)
Reject
4Subgame perfection
- A subgame is a point (node) where everyone knows
where they are. - Say at every node, only one player makes a
decision. A set of strategies is a subgame
perfect equilibrium if at every node (including
those never reached), a player chooses his
optimal strategy knowing that every node in the
future the same will happen.
5Backward Induction
- To solve for the subgame perfect equilibria, one
can start at the end nodes. - Determine what are the decisions at the end.
- Replace other earlier branches with the payoffs.
- Repeat.
- What are the subgame perfect equilibria in the
ultimatum game? - If players are irrational at nodes not reached,
can a player rationally choose a strategy that
isnt the subgame perfect strategy?
6Gender in Ultimatum games(Solnick 2001)
- Male offers to males 4.73gt to females 4.43
- Female offers to males 5.13gt to females 4.31.
- Males accept 2.45 from other maleslt2.82 from
females. - Females accept 3.39 from maleslt4.15 from
females.
7Bargaining w/ shrinking pie
- Take the ultimatum game. Assume when there is a
rejection the responder can make a
counter-proposal. - However, the pie shrinks after a rejection.
- What is the subgame perfect equilibrium when the
pie shrinks from 10 to 6.
8Bargaining w/ shrinking pie.
Size of 10
Size of 6
Accept
(8,2)
Accept
Offer (2,4)
(2,4)
Offer (8,2)
B
A
Reject
Reject
(0,0)
B
A
A
Accept
Accept
(5,5)
(3,3)
Offer (5,5)
B
B
B
A
Offer (3,3)
B
(0,0)
Reject
Reject
9Bargaining Discussion
- Do pies really shrink?
- The main government labour union in Israel went
on strike in September shutting down most of the
country. - From our analysis why do strikes happen?
10Hold-up problem
- A Contractor is hired to construct a building.
- Unexpected need emerges (new colour).
- Contractor can charge cost of change or high
price. - Client can agree or try to find outside help.
- Client is held up.
- Can one solve this with more explicit
contracts? - Reputation effects.
11Note High price is 1300 more than normal
(competitive). Searching costs 1400.
12Supplier hold-up problem
- If one company is supplying another company a
good used in production (such as a supplier of
coal to an electric company), then the supplier
can hold-up the buyer company. - This works if the buyer company decides to make
an investment to adjust its products to use the
supplier. - Once the investment is made, the supply can raise
its prices.
13Holdup payoffs(Supplier, Buyer)
Keep Price
(0,1000)
Keep Supplier
Make investment
Supplier
(750,250)
Raise price
Buyer
Buyer
(-1000,-500)
New Supplier
Dont invest (keep Supplier)
(0,0)
Buyers investment costs 500 only useful for
that supplier. Saves buyer 1500 (net 1000).
Supplier can raise price by 750.
14Holdup payoffs(Supplier, Buyer)
Keep Price
(0,1000)
(0,700)
Keep Supplier
Make investment
Supplier
(750,250)
(750,-50)
Raise price
Buyer
Buyer
(-1000,-500)
New Supplier
(-1000,-800)
Dont invest (keep Supplier)
(0,0)
What if investment now costs 800? Potential
savings 700. What happens? Another reason for a
government to allow Vertical Integration.
15Frog and the Scorpion
- Frog and Scorpion were at the edge of a river
wanting to cross. - The Scorpion said I will climb on you back and
you can swim across. - Frog said But what if you sting me.
- Scorpion answered, Why would I do that? Then we
both die. - What happened?
- Scorpion stung. The frog who cried Now we are
both doomed! Why did you do that? - Alas, said the Scorpion, it is my nature.
16Frog and the Scorpion payoffs(Frog,Scorpion)
Sting
(-10,5)
Scorpion
Carry
Refrain
(5,3)
Frog
Refuse
(0,0)
17Simple Model of Entry Deterrence
- A incumbent monopolist controls a market.
- A potential entrant is thinking of entering.
- The incumbent can expand capacity (or invest in a
new technology) that is costly and not needed
unless the entrant enters. - The entrant is deterred by this and stays out.
18Simple Model of Entry Deterrence
Enter
(-10,5)
Entrant
Exit
Expand Capacity
(0,15)
Incumbent
(10,10)
Enter
Entrant
Do nothing
(0,20)
Exit
19Patent Shelving
- Other deterrents to entry patent shelving
throw the innovation in the closet. - Incumbant can invest in a patent. While the
technology may be better than the current that it
uses, it may be too expensive to adapt existing
product line. Why? - Case studies
- Lucent buys Chromatis for 4.8 billion never
uses product. Lucent wants to prevent Nortel from
buying it. - Hollywood Top screen writers may rarely see a
script made into a movie. - Microsoft Does it really take hundreds of
programmers to write word?
20Patent Shelving (Incumbant, Entrant)
(70,0)
Use
Incumbent
Shelve
Invest in patent
(80,0)
Incumbent
Invest in patent
(10,50)
Entrant
Do nothing
(100,0)
Do nothing
21War Games
- Cold War Strategy MAD, mutually assured
destruction. Both the US and USSR had enough
nuclear weapons to destroy each other. - What does the game tree look like?
- The US put troops in Germany and said that if
West German were attacked it would mean nuclear
war. - Would this have happened?
- Why didnt USSR invade?
22New War Games
- Israel and Iran.
- Israel is a nuclear power and Iran is close to
becoming one. Will Israel attack Iran like they
did Iraq? - Iran warns Israel that an attack will mean a
harsh response. Is this credible? - Why would Israel not want a MAD situation?
- Could it make sense for missile defence rather
than offensive attack. - The Israeli spy satellite Ofek 6 malfunctioned
and was destroyed on launch. This may make a
window where Israel will be blind. How may this
increase the chance of an attack?
23New War Games
- US and North Korea.
- North Korea is manufacturing a bomb.
- US is threatening an attack.
- US has troops in North Korea. Bush is considering
reducing the numbers. Why?
24Bible Games (Adam Eve, God) Adam and Eve
decide whether or not to eat the forbidden fruit
from the tree of knowledge. If they eat, God
knows and decides upon a punishment.
25Kidnapping Game
- Criminal Kidnaps Teen.
- Requests ransom and threatens to kill if not
paid. - Parent decides whether or not to pay.
- If parent does not pay, criminal decides whether
or not to kill hostage. - Start at end. Does the criminal kill if no ransom
is paid? - What happens if there is no way to exchange
ransom? - How can the hostage save himself if no ransom is
paid? - What should a country do if its citizens are held
for ransom?
26Kidnapping Game (parent, criminal, child)
Exchange for Ransom
(-3,10,-2)
(-10,-2,-20)
Parent
Dont pay
Kidnap
Kill
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
(-1,-5,-1)
Identify
Release
Child
Refrain
Dont Kidnap
(0,0,0)
(-1,-1,-3)
27How reasonable is backward induction?
- May work in some simple games.
- Tic Tac Toe, yes, but how about Chess?
- Too large of a tree.
- Need to assign intermediate nodes.
- May not work well if players care about fairness.