Answer:
The benefits of a High Speed Rail in California:
- It becomes a feasible alternative to air travel, because it can be either cheaper, or even faster, since passengers do not have to spend as much time on a train station as they do on an airport.
- If demand is high enough, state highways can become less congested, because many people who would otherwise travel by car, would take a high speed train instead.
- Because the trains are electric, they are likely to help reduce pollution.
The cons would be:
- We cannot know for sure how many people would take the high speed trains. Demand could not be high enough to justify the cost.
- The line would be very costly.
- It could end up benefit only a small section of the population who would take the trains, or who travel often.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as can be seen in most countries where high speed lines have been made between large cities. For example, in Spain, the line between Madrid and Barcelona is profitable. The same would likely happen for a line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
What are the implications of starting a project based on tenuous projections that may or may not come true 10 years from now?
If demand projections are tenous, there is always the possiblity that the high speed line could not be profitable. However, this risk can be lowered if the line is made between highly populated cities.
Could you justify the California high-speed rail project from the perspective of a massive public works initiative?
Yes, a high speed rail would be a project that could massively impact California. The benefits of its operation could outweight the cost.
In other words, what other factors enter into the decision of whether to pursue a high-speed rail project?
As I said before, the most important factor is to construct line between highly populated cities in order to reduce the risk of not having enough demand. It has been demonstrated around the world, in Spain, in Italy, in Japan, in China, that high speed lines that connect very populated regions, can be profitable.
Answer:
Multiplier = 3.33
Explanation:
Investment / Spending Multiplier denotes increase in Income multiple times increase in causal Investment.
Multiplier = Change in Income / Change in Investment = 1 / 1 - MPC
<em>M</em> = ΔY/ΔI = 1/ (1-MPC)
At Equilibrium, Investment = Savings = 750. Change in Investment = 900 - 750 = 150. Change in Income = 500.
M = 500/150 = 3.33
3.33 = 1/(1-MPC)
MPC = 0.70
Answer:
Constant Return to Scale
Explanation:
Based on the information given the numbers
suggest that between 100 and 110 units of output, the firm producing this output has CONSTANT RETURN TO SCALE.
Constant Return to Scale occurs in a situation where the proportional increase in all the inputs is as well equal to the proportional increase in output which means the returns to scale are constant , which is why RETURNS TO SCALE help to describe all what happens to long run returns when the scale of production increases.
Therefore Constant returns to scale often occur when the output increase in exactly the same way or the same proportion as the factors of production.
Within a Hootsuite analytics board, you can add a widget/metric, which is: <span>an individual display of a specific metric. Hootsuite is a program many business use to keep track of social media marketing, data received from this and how their competitors are trending. You can search different metrics and keep important information saved to make comparisons overtime. </span>
<span>B. A felt layer underneath the tablecloth i hope this help you</span>
