Talk:Stackelberg competition

term missing?
I just edited the equation for Pi_1, but on second thought it occurs to me that there may be a term missing. Shouldn't it be the total differential as follows?


 * $$\frac{d \Pi_1}{d q_1} = (\frac{\partial P(q_1+q_2)}{\partial q_1} + \frac{\partial P(q_1+q_2)}{\partial q_2}.\frac{\partial q_2(q_1)}{\partial q_1}).q_1 + P(q_1+q_2(q_1)) - \frac{\partial C_1 (q_1)}{\partial q_1}$$

Common Man 08:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nash equilibrium?
Stackelberg's model has many Nash Equilibrium, isn't this describing subgame perfect equilibrium? Smmurphy 17:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is obvious vandalism in the first part of the page. A knowledgeable person should correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Correct version of page
The link below seems to be the version of the page free of vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stackelberg_competition&oldid=118524910


 * I have just done a humongous revert to the material from december 2006. It seems everything since then has been vandalism (or changes from british to american spelling). nadav 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jargon-free explanation
For those of us who aren't game theorists, it would be nice for the article to explain some terms that are used in the introduction. What does it mean for firms to
 * "compete on quantity"
 * "go first". Do what first?
 * "commit to a future non-Stackelberg follower action"
 * "have commitment power"

It seems that the second paragraph under "Nash equilibrium" is a much better introduction to what the game is actually about for those who don't already know. LachlanA 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Conditions for Equilibria
Setting the first derrivative of follower's payoff (conditional on leader's output) to zero does not guarantee a maximum -there could be many or no solutions. The function does not even have to be differentiable. Some conditions on the cost and price functions are necessary.

I suggest adding the following conditions (sufficient but not necessary):

1) Supposing that the functions p(q1,q1), c1(q1), and c2(q2) are differentiable. (For price function, at least want 1st partials, don't really need differentiability).

2) First partials of of p are non-positive 3) Derrivatives of cost functions are non-negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.51 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stackelberg compared with Cournot
The section "Stackelberg compared with Cournot" is not right, especially the claim "more information hurts". I was wondering why I can not find my previous editing. Jackzhp (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the worst summaries I've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalextreme (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Duopolio di Stakelberg" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Duopolio di Stakelberg and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)