Democrats caused recession in 2007

[kaz]

Then link me to the post where you do.......if you can't, don't revisit this subject.....

OK, thanks for instructing me papa san. I'll get right on that

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.....


I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

No it doesn't

There's truth to that......my heroic efforts notwithstanding, you remain the uninformed imbecile you were yesterday ..

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

 

[IcebergSlim]

OK, thanks for instructing me papa san. I'll get right on that

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.....


I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

No it doesn't

There's truth to that......my heroic efforts notwithstanding, you remain the uninformed imbecile you were yesterday ..

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

 

[pinqy]

And? Why is that bad, and what were the causes. You're not countering anything I've said

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled.

It is also an extremely subjective measure. So I could not know specifically what you meant or how you would measure it.

Bull shit. There is some subjectivity when you measure it. Any study should define how exactly they are measuring it. But the definition is very clear economically and any variation would be minor

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

Who decides reasonable?

As I said, it's a term from economics. And I also said I would give you one definition. From here, do your own research

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

Is that including people who are unable to work full time due to personal reasons?

Not economically, no

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

What if that reason was disbarment? And what about a theater major working in a restaurant? Underemployed or normal?

If it's disbarment then no, it's not underemployment. How is that answer not already clear to you? That clearly didn't mean the parameter of the definition that jobs aren't available

As for a "theater major" based on the information you gave, no, they are not underemployed

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

I spent over a decade professionally dealing with just these kinds of topics. It is a complex topic and a general search would not tell me which specific definition you were using

It's clear what it means. It's an economic term. This is bull, you just don't know what it means

You made a specific claim about underemployment. You refuse to cite your source and the methodology used to reach the conclusion. I'll gladly walk you through th definitions and math for any of my statements

I'm not Google and I'm not researching basic information and definitions for you. Note there is no question mark in that sentence

Let's sum this up, then: you have no support for your claim that underemployment has been inflated. That's what I was asking for and that's what you refuse to give.

I wasn't asking for a general definition of underemployment, and I wasn't asking for your opinion on how it should be defined. I was adking what definition was used in the study/report you used to conclude currently rising underemployment.
There are not and have never been any reputable studies that use your two-part definition of underemployed, so you can't have a source.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Long term lackluster economy has inflated underemployment and made a lot of workers give up and quit looking

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled.

It is also an extremely subjective measure. So I could not know specifically what you meant or how you would measure it.

Bull shit. There is some subjectivity when you measure it. Any study should define how exactly they are measuring it. But the definition is very clear economically and any variation would be minor

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

Who decides reasonable?

As I said, it's a term from economics. And I also said I would give you one definition. From here, do your own research

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

Is that including people who are unable to work full time due to personal reasons?

Not economically, no

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

What if that reason was disbarment? And what about a theater major working in a restaurant? Underemployed or normal?

If it's disbarment then no, it's not underemployment. How is that answer not already clear to you? That clearly didn't mean the parameter of the definition that jobs aren't available

As for a "theater major" based on the information you gave, no, they are not underemployed

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

I spent over a decade professionally dealing with just these kinds of topics. It is a complex topic and a general search would not tell me which specific definition you were using

It's clear what it means. It's an economic term. This is bull, you just don't know what it means

You made a specific claim about underemployment. You refuse to cite your source and the methodology used to reach the conclusion. I'll gladly walk you through th definitions and math for any of my statements

I'm not Google and I'm not researching basic information and definitions for you. Note there is no question mark in that sentence

Let's sum this up, then: you have no support for your claim that underemployment has been inflated. That's what I was asking for and that's what you refuse to give.

I wasn't asking for a general definition of underemployment, and I wasn't asking for your opinion on how it should be defined. I was adking what definition was used in the study/report you used to conclude currently rising underemployment.
There are not and have never been any reputable studies that use your two-part definition of underemployed, so you can't have a source.

There is a term to describe such rhetorical techniques.....but its name cannot be spoken.

 

[kaz]

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.....


I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

No it doesn't

There's truth to that......my heroic efforts notwithstanding, you remain the uninformed imbecile you were yesterday ..

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

 

[kaz]

How are you defining and measuring "underemployment," and how are you defining "a lot" when the number of discouraged (people who "gave up" has been steadily going down?

Underemployment is a simple concept that is basic to economics and easily Googled.

It is also an extremely subjective measure. So I could not know specifically what you meant or how you would measure it.

Bull shit. There is some subjectivity when you measure it. Any study should define how exactly they are measuring it. But the definition is very clear economically and any variation would be minor

It's when workers who are earning less than they reasonably should because of reasons such as:

Who decides reasonable?

As I said, it's a term from economics. And I also said I would give you one definition. From here, do your own research

1) They want full time or more hours than they can get. For example, workers who are limited to under 30 hours by employers so they don't have to pay for Obamacare

Is that including people who are unable to work full time due to personal reasons?

Not economically, no

2) They have education/skills/training they are not utilizing because of limited job opportunities. For example, a lawyer who is working at a bank as a cashier because they can't find a job as a lawyer.

What if that reason was disbarment? And what about a theater major working in a restaurant? Underemployed or normal?

If it's disbarment then no, it's not underemployment. How is that answer not already clear to you? That clearly didn't mean the parameter of the definition that jobs aren't available

As for a "theater major" based on the information you gave, no, they are not underemployed

I don't understand the aversion you people have to looking things up yourself

I spent over a decade professionally dealing with just these kinds of topics. It is a complex topic and a general search would not tell me which specific definition you were using

It's clear what it means. It's an economic term. This is bull, you just don't know what it means

You made a specific claim about underemployment. You refuse to cite your source and the methodology used to reach the conclusion. I'll gladly walk you through th definitions and math for any of my statements

I'm not Google and I'm not researching basic information and definitions for you. Note there is no question mark in that sentence

Let's sum this up, then: you have no support for your claim that underemployment has been inflated. That's what I was asking for and that's what you refuse to give.

I wasn't asking for a general definition of underemployment, and I wasn't asking for your opinion on how it should be defined. I was adking what definition was used in the study/report you used to conclude currently rising underemployment.
There are not and have never been any reputable studies that use your two-part definition of underemployed, so you can't have a source.

There is a term to describe such rhetorical techniques.....but its name cannot be spoken.

Here is how to describe your rhetorical technique. Yes it is/no it isn't

 

[hazlnut]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

Nice try.

Weak fail.

Fuck off.

 

[IcebergSlim]

No it doesn't

There's truth to that......my heroic efforts notwithstanding, you remain the uninformed imbecile you were yesterday ..

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

 

[kaz]

There's truth to that......my heroic efforts notwithstanding, you remain the uninformed imbecile you were yesterday ..

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

 

[IcebergSlim]

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

 

[kaz]

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

I gave you the answer in my response, dumb ass. You didn't even get an answer. And while I'm waiting for excel to open? It took me about 30 seconds to open excel, type in one simple formula and post it.

So what did you come up with as the time value of money to buy lettuce, tomatoes and beef this week and sell it next week?

 

[IcebergSlim]

The blue line?

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant.


Not at all.....I am looking for the COMPOUND AVERAGE RATE OF GROWTH over the period....I can break down the sub periods to whatever scale you prefer, assuming I have beginning and ending values for such increments....each increment may show a different rate.

If I aggregate them, they will combine to the same 6.6537%/yr...

 

[IcebergSlim]

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

I gave you the answer in my response, dumb ass. You didn't even get an answer. And while I'm waiting for excel to open? It took me about 30 seconds to open excel, type in one simple formula and post it.

So what did you come up with as the time value of money to buy lettuce, tomatoes and beef this week and sell it next week?

Took me 10 seconds.....even with my essential tremor (those buttons aren't very large)

Can you remember what point you thought you were trying to make with last week's lettuce?

 

[kaz]

He's still trying to figure out the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week. He's very intelligent. You have to let him work through his process before he can be coherent.

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant.


Not at all.....I am looking for the COMPOUND AVERAGE RATE OF GROWTH over the period....I can break down the sub periods to whatever scale you prefer, assuming I have beginning and ending values for such increments....each increment may show a different rate.

If I aggregate them, they will combine to the same 6.6537%/yr...

Wrong, that's not a mathematical property. You can't just take the averages, it gives you different results.

Try this in your calculator.

Take the 6.6537% I gave you as the answer and do a two year calculation where first you enter 1/2 * 6.6537% and the second year you take 3/2 * 6.6537%. The average would be the same as both years at 6.6537%. But note you get a different population with each calculation. The number isn't too far off, but when you're doing more years at more different rates it stops being close very quickly.

BTW, in addition to a Michigan MBA, I was a Math and Computer Science double major at Maryland. Also have a masters in Computer Science from Virginia Tech.

Just so you know, in the real world, we do actually create all these models in Excel. It makes it easy to keep changing parameters as we do real analysis on various options. It also is easier to verify what we are doing is correct, like realizing what you just said was wrong, you can't just average the numbers.

No one uses TVM calculators other than financial sales people and marketers. The real business people use Excel. We even have a saying, Corporate America runs on Excel. And damn it's true

 

[kaz]

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

I gave you the answer in my response, dumb ass. You didn't even get an answer. And while I'm waiting for excel to open? It took me about 30 seconds to open excel, type in one simple formula and post it.

So what did you come up with as the time value of money to buy lettuce, tomatoes and beef this week and sell it next week?

Took me 10 seconds.....even with my essential tremor (those buttons aren't very large)

Can you remember what point you thought you were trying to make with last week's lettuce?

Wasn't my point. It was O's. I just kept pointing out what you were saying was wrong, like you did again here in only 10 seconds! That's what she said ...

 

[rdean]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

The Democrats didn't cause the collapse, but they had a chance to head it off and did nothing. In fact they were warned by Bush and he asked them to act 5 times. Each time they said no. They wanted it to happen so they could blame Bush and win elections.

Blame Bush and win elections?

Oops, you messed up.

Let me fix it for you.

Republicans have done everything they can to destroy the economy and bring down the country so they could blame Obama and win elections.

 

[PredFan]

Whenever democrats want to say that it was the economic policies of the repubican party that led to the recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 then someone should just point out this video


There are plenty of other videos of democrats preventing people from addressing the issues that led to the housing bubble and collapse.

The Democrats didn't cause the collapse, but they had a chance to head it off and did nothing. In fact they were warned by Bush and he asked them to act 5 times. Each time they said no. They wanted it to happen so they could blame Bush and win elections.

Blame Bush and win elections?

Oops, you messed up.

Let me fix it for you.

Republicans have done everything they can to destroy the economy and bring down the country so they could blame Obama and win elections.

Lol, I can always count on you to be stupidly entertaining. Do you know what conversation this is, eh dumbass? How you can be that stupid and still use modern technology is a mystery.

 

[IcebergSlim]

the discount rate to figure out the time value of money of buying lettuce and tomatoes and beef and selling them the next week


What has this to do with O's chart, or anything else for that matter?

It is what you would do with the tools you are advocating using

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant.


Not at all.....I am looking for the COMPOUND AVERAGE RATE OF GROWTH over the period....I can break down the sub periods to whatever scale you prefer, assuming I have beginning and ending values for such increments....each increment may show a different rate.

If I aggregate them, they will combine to the same 6.6537%/yr...

Wrong, that's not a mathematical property. You can't just take the averages, it gives you different results.

Try this in your calculator.

Take the 6.6537% I gave you as the answer and do a two year calculation where first you enter 1/2 * 6.6537% and the second year you take 3/2 * 6.6537%. The average would be the same as both years at 6.6537%. But note you get a different population with each calculation. The number isn't too far off, but when you're doing more years at more different rates it stops being close very quickly.

BTW, in addition to a Michigan MBA, I was a Math and Computer Science double major at Maryland. Also have a masters in Computer Science from Virginia Tech.

Just so you know, in the real world, we do actually create all these models in Excel. It makes it easy to keep changing parameters as we do real analysis on various options. It also is easier to verify what we are doing is correct, like realizing what you just said was wrong, you can't just average the numbers.

No one uses TVM calculators other than financial sales people and marketers. The real business people use Excel. We even have a saying, Corporate America runs on Excel. And damn it's true

In the context of compounding, geometric, not arithmetic, average is implied.....

Should you ever find yourself in the vicinity of an Investment Bank's M&A Dept., see how many of the deal makers pack HP 12cs.....

Pop open the formula cell in your spreadsheet....

Show me the formula it contains.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Do elaborate....

You live in a city of 1 million people.......5 years from now the population is estimated to grow to 1.38 million...

What tool would you use to determine the suggested annual growth rate?

A) No, you didn't

B) No, it isn't

C) A tvm calculator

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

I gave you the answer in my response, dumb ass. You didn't even get an answer. And while I'm waiting for excel to open? It took me about 30 seconds to open excel, type in one simple formula and post it.

So what did you come up with as the time value of money to buy lettuce, tomatoes and beef this week and sell it next week?

Took me 10 seconds.....even with my essential tremor (those buttons aren't very large)

Can you remember what point you thought you were trying to make with last week's lettuce?

Wasn't my point. It was O's. I just kept pointing out what you were saying was wrong, like you did again here in only 10 seconds! That's what she said ...

Cut and paste the comment I made involving lettuce that you believe is wrong....

 

[kaz]

You made the assumption the growth is going to be constant. The irony is typically analysis would be the reverse, you'd have an expected growth rate and use that to calculate the expected population. But fine, let's go with your scenario.

The tool I would use is Excel and I would take the fifth root of 1.38 and subtract 1. It's a simple math formula, why would you bother with a more complex solution?

That gives you BTW 6.6537%

Is there a fucking echo in here?

Democrats caused recession in 2007

While you wait for excel to open, I've already solved the problem......using my BAII Professional....

And, even though no investment in last week's lettuce is involved, the answer is the same as in the two scenarios I offered last night....

Oh, the Multifariousness!

I gave you the answer in my response, dumb ass. You didn't even get an answer. And while I'm waiting for excel to open? It took me about 30 seconds to open excel, type in one simple formula and post it.

So what did you come up with as the time value of money to buy lettuce, tomatoes and beef this week and sell it next week?

Took me 10 seconds.....even with my essential tremor (those buttons aren't very large)

Can you remember what point you thought you were trying to make with last week's lettuce?

Wasn't my point. It was O's. I just kept pointing out what you were saying was wrong, like you did again here in only 10 seconds! That's what she said ...

Cut and paste the comment I made involving lettuce that you believe is wrong....

Everything you said was wrong