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:
For 100 shares, the mount that should be paid = $1766
Explanation:
We have to calculate the price of the stock in the 4th year because the investor cannot afford the stock in another 3 years.
Price of the stock = Do + g / ke - g
Dividend in current year = $1.2
Dividend after 1 year = 1.2 +2.5% (1.2)= 1.23
Dividend after 2 years = 1.23 + 2.5%(1.23) = 1.26075
Dividend after 3 years = 1.26075 + 2.5%(1.26) = 1.29227
Price in 4th year = 1.29227 + 2.5% / (0.10 - 0.025)
=1.29227 + 2.5%(1.29227)/0.075
= 17.66
Therefore, for 100 shares, the mount that should be paid = 17.66 * 100 = $1766
It is from my experience since if it is from his experience then the author could tell us something like it is a beautiful place or it is very warm. based on these statements it is opinions since he doesn't have a fact do back it up. his experience tells us what he thought so it is his opinion
Answer:
Weeks of supply = 4.16 weeks
Explanation:
given data
net income = $20 million
revenue = $60 million
cost of goods sold = $25 million
inventory = $2 million
property, plant, and equipment = $500,000
to find out
how many weeks of supply does the firm hold
solution
we know here that Weeks of supply will be express as
Weeks of supply = 
× 52 weeks ....................................1
so put here value we get weeks of supply
Weeks of supply = 
× 52 weeks
Weeks of supply = 4.16 weeks
