accounting problem!

[RATTY...]

I think you guys are being a little too rough. It is not a difficult question, but it is not something that is generally introduced to students until late highschool or early university, assuming they even take the necessary courses.

These kinds of financial questions are notorious for confusing people because some have trouble understanding the time dimension involved. I could probably have done this in my head if I tried, but I had a huge problem dealing with linear algebra in university (got a C- I believe) and my friends couldn't believe I would have trouble with any math course.

What's hard about that question is the words related to economics (time period, annually, semi, but since hes studying economics, we're looking away from that), besides that, it isn't hard at all.

Like Vykromond says, the question can be solved as an easy arithmetic problem. Or it can be solved the hard way with simple math. As long as you've learnt that it can be written as 1 = 100% and 0,01 is 1%, you're able to solve the problem the hard way with multiplication by writing it all out.

I'm not mocking the guy even though he is a retard, but I'm surprised that someone in university isn't able to solve this kind of problem.

EDIT: Simple arithmetics:

10 periods

S10 = (300*((1,04^10)-1))/(1.04-1) = 3601,832137

EDIT2:

When I think of it, how can you do economics without arithmetics, derivation and integration (in some cases), does the university royce attend make the students carve letters into stone tables?

EDIT3:

Pay me money bitches and I'll solve your math problems up to MATH1 engineering level, anything above it isn't worth the time.

[Blood]

I'm sorry if it's rough but I've got to agree with some of the people who posted here.. this is a pretty elementary problem for university-level.

[royCE]

yea, all of you passed accounting classes with A's....lol this forum is full of shit...yea the question is so easy when the problem is solved infront of you...i promise you, how problems are worded in some others, you wouldnt know wtf to do :/ there are actually formulas outside of excel which are way harder to calculate when the test is infront of you...and you have to do it on paper, and trust me, the formula used in excel would require you to write down the same shit 5 times over and over again considering this given problem...once again thank you eric, obviously these idiots have no clue wtf their talking about, i mean...money? of all people omg

[Liquid Blue]

you give more ammo for people to mock you

the more you post

[RATTY...]

yea, all of you passed accounting classes with A's....lol this forum is full of shit...yea the question is so easy when the problem is solved infront of you...i promise you, how problems are worded in some others, you wouldnt know wtf to do :/ there are actually formulas outside of excel which are way harder to calculate when the test is infront of you...and you have to do it on paper, and trust me, the formula used in excel would require you to write down the same shit 5 times over and over again considering this given problem...once again thank you eric, obviously these idiots have no clue wtf their talking about, i mean...money? of all people omg

People at university level isn't supposed to even consider this kind of thing as a problem.

And it is possible to write down one formula in excel, and pull down so it copies the formula to other places without needing to write it 5 times. That's some basic shit that ppl who study economics learn the first day, and ESPECIALLY ACCOUNTING, WHO DOES NOTHING ELSE THAN EXCEL AND SIMPLE MATH. Or you could just learn arithmetics and write a short line of numbers instead of wasting time writing it 5 times.

Not much to do today.

[royCE]

ew, i ment, the shit that allows you to that exact thing, scroll down in excel, is what you dont have on the test, however, there are different formulas for different problems, better yet different words which you have to consider when using those formulas, like if you should use present value formulas, or annuity formulas, future annuity formulas, and so on...it isnt that hard really, there are just some bumps every once in a while :/ y so sirius?

[Blocks]

Hey, go easy. I mean, he's got a point here. Excel is like magic, right? Problem in, answer out. You can't be expected to do magic by hand.

[Summa]

yea, all of you passed accounting classes with A's....lol this forum is full of shit...yea the question is so easy when the problem is solved infront of you...i promise you, how problems are worded in some others, you wouldnt know wtf to do :/ there are actually formulas outside of excel which are way harder to calculate when the test is infront of you...and you have to do it on paper, and trust me, the formula used in excel would require you to write down the same shit 5 times over and over again considering this given problem...once again thank you eric, obviously these idiots have no clue wtf their talking about, i mean...money? of all people omg

I'm sorry but every single problem in my advanced calc 2 class is harder than this.....and I'm studying to be a philosophy/lit major

[Pummel]

goddamn thats easy

[Vykromond]

What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality. There is nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term.

look nerd

if u want ppl 2 respond 2 wat ur sayin u gota simplify ur shit. tryna show us all how big of nerd u are? we alredy know... stop usin these damm big words and bullshit ok? fukin nerd wow

[Money]

Lol Boy Needs To Lerns Him Sum Cypherin

[Liquid Blue]

look nerd

if u want ppl 2 respond 2 wat ur sayin u gota simplify ur shit. tryna show us all how big of nerd u are? we alredy know... stop usin these damm big words and bullshit ok? fukin nerd wow

wut a nerd...my gurl bought me cod5....nerd

[Summa]

What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality. There is nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term.

I hope he quoted this, because it is copy/pasted and ripped off from Slavoj Zizek's Censorship Today: Violence, or Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses part 1

here's the link http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm It is the 9th paragraph under section 4.

If you didn't quote, then good day sir, you have been good will hunting'd


Ben Afleck from behind me: HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW!

[Vykromond]

are you serious sscu trench wars forums

yes it's almost like i intentionally replaced his words with zizek's...

[Fluffz]

lul u nubs all wrong. Obama is the Omega president and world economy is going to end in 2012. WAT AMOUNT is zero.