Answer:
Hi
It meant a political situation among the states in which none of them achieved a power superior to the others. It is an idea of the late Middle Ages, applied to major or minor geographic regions that comprise the plurality of sovereign territories. Throughout Europe there is a legitimate feeling, always subject to interpretation, whereby any action required the confirmation of the rest of the States, the most significant case being the invasion of a territory. In this way the doctrine of just war was reached, to the problem of to what extent and to what extent the actual or imminent engraving of a State could mean a warlike justification. Transactions between contestants, neutral or rival, never ended, hence the relevance of diplomacy, as the concepts of balance, neutrality, freedom of Europe or sovereignty are interpreted continuously, while being used in conversations. Some thought of equilibrium as a natural system, because it was a consequence of international relations, and when a great power had too much force it threatened the others, and therefore, had to counteract the disproportion. Others considered it a desired goal for which he had fought.
In the rest of the world this balance of powers is characterized by the profusion of dictatorial or authoritarian regimes that have dominated the political scene and that have influenced the future of their peoples. A second point is the emergence of serious and bloody war conflicts, by territorial issues, which is not explained very well both in its unleashing and in its results, as consequences of the mere quantification of the powers faced. In all these, both in its gestation and its consequences, the role it plays in the character, personal ambitions and strategic conceptions of the leaders or rulers who govern the destinies of the countries involved appears with particular relevance.
Explanation:
What is the task ? Mathematical equations?
Answer:
5.98 years
Explanation:
The computation of the payback period is shown below:
In year 0 = -$1,530,000
In year 1 = $305,000
In year 2 = $270,000
In year 3 = $240,000
In year 4 = $240,000
In year 5 = $240,000
In year 6 = $240,000
In year 7 = $240,000
In year 8 = $240,000
In year 9 = $240,000
In year 10 = $240,000
If we added the first 5 year cash inflows than it would be $1,295,000
Now we have to subtract the $1,295,000 from the $1,530,000 , so the amount would be $235,000 as if we sum the six year cash inflow so the total amount is exceeded to the initial investment. So, we subtract it
And, the next year cash inflow is $240,000
So, the payback period equal to
= 5 years + $235,000 ÷ $240,000
= 5.98 years
Answer:
the private sector should never build a plant, regardless of benefits, because water is a public resource that needs public oversight
Explanation:
The win-win situation refers to the situation in which each one is happy as a result that arrives is best and beneficial for the company
Since in the question, it is mentioned that there is a win-win scenario as there is a larger treatment for the public at a lower cost per gallon
Therefore by this, the private sector should never develop that plant i.e water as it is a resource that is consumed by the public irrespective of their benefits
