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.
I think it is Carry a risk of losing money (A)
Answer:
Realidades 2 WKBK page 109
Explanation:
Realidades 2 WKBK page 109
Answer:
Charu Khanna
The Net capital loss is:
= $2,000.
Explanation:
a) Stock Transactions and Data during 2019:
Stock Date Date Sold Sales Price ($) Cost Basis ($)
Purchased
4,000 shares Green Co. 06/04/07 08/05/19 12,000 3,000
500 shares Gold Co. 02/12/17 09/05/19 54,000 62,000
5,000 shares Blue Co. 02/04/08 10/08/19 18,000 22,000
100 shares Orange Co. 11/15/18 07/12/19 19,000 18,000
Total $103,000 $105,000
Net capital loss:
Long-term capital loss = $3,000
Short-term capital gain = $1,000
Net capital loss = $2,000 ($3,000 - $1,000)
Answer:
a. not able to be determined from the provided information.
Explanation:
For determining the over applied or under applied, first, we have to compute the predetermined rate based on the direct material cost which is
= $700,000 ÷ $1,000,000
= $0.70
Now the applied overhead is
= $0.70 × $1,200,000
= $840,000
And, the actual overhead amount is not given by which we can find out the underapplied or overapplied overhead amount
So, in this case, the correct option is a.
