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:
Consider the following explanation.
Explanation:
According to the law of one price, identical goods
sold IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS must sell for the same
price, except for costs associated with MOVEMENT BETWEEN LOCATIONS.
Those costs reflect TRADE BARRIERS and the cost of shipping.
According to the law of one price, if the price of a good
in one location does not match the price of the same good in
a different location, sellers will increase supply
in the location where the good is MORE EXPENSIVE
until prices in both locations are equal.
Answer:
what kind of a question is this. im kinda confused like whaa
Explanation:
Answer:
The economic surplus will decrease by $2.20
Explanation:
$81.40 and $79.20 are <em>marginal </em>cost and benefit, which are the changes to total costs and total benefits due to producing and consuming one additional barrel of oil.
They can be used to calculate <em>change </em>to economic surplus, which is the change to the net economic value received by society, which is given by:
marginal benefit - marginal cost = $79.20 - $81.40 = - $2.20
Answer: (E) Union shop
Explanation:
The union shop arrangement is refers to the process in which we require the number of workers for join and also participate in the specific union and it is also called as the post entry or the closed shop.
The workers or the union representatives also providing the various types of benefits in the specific time period. Depending on the different protection level the trade unions are varying nation to nations.
According to the given question, the Neal's human resource manager is basically referring to the union ship that is related to the union membership.
Therefore, Option (E) is correct answer.
