Nathan -
In your past two replies to my original answer to your first question, you have demonstrated a concerted effort to stoop to personal innuendos and attacks.
As a rule, I don't do this. For you, I am making an exception.
In your first reply, you stated that I made "hinted" comments regarding your common sense. I pointed out that what I did discuss was the USE of common sense. The original responses are still posted - please read them. Perhaps you are the "sensitive" type.
Next, you implied that poor math skills were responsible for my original response. This innuendo followed your mathematical projections of Intel's growth rates, statements of other companies growth rates, etc..
Again, PLEASE RE-READ my FIRST response. I stated nothing about computing compouded growth rates. I SIMPLY stated an observation that Intel would have to TRIPLE their sales from 1996 to 2000 to reach the $60 billion mark and that this was quite unlikely. I made no reference to any math whatsoever, computational predictions, compunded growth rates or whatever. Again, RE-READ the postings!
Now here is where I get personal. Nathan, you obviously can read, but judging by your reactions from my replies, YOU DON'T COMPREHEND WELL.
You repeatedly accuse me of saying things, or doing things in the case of math computation, that I did not say or do.
I made two simple statements (and one observation), one in each of two responses. Do you COMPREHEND THAT? If not, RE-READ THEM! I can't emphasize this enough.
Now, for math skills. I will challenge you anytime, anywhere to a test of math skills. UNLIKE YOU, Nathan, my personal profile lists my credentials. Post yours, then read mine, and we'll compare, OK!
And if you want that challenge, let me know. I have some free time available. Again - anytime, anywhere - you name the price!
Now, here is some math. Intel's revenue from 1992 thru 1996 (estimated) is as follows:
Year Income Growth Rate
(Billions)
1992 0 5844
1993 1 8782 0.3345479
1994 2 11521 0.2377398
1995 3 16202 0.2889149
1996 4 20000 0.1899 (est.)
This averages out to a 26.2% annual growth rate. Only one year was it above 30%.
Projecting out for the next years assumin 26.2% growth rate -
Year Projected
Income (Billions)
1997 25255.513
1998 31892.048
1999 40272.502
2000 50855.135
There - $50 billion in the year 2000, ASSUMING 26.2% compounded growth rate.
I won't dwell on predictions, forecasts, etc. I generally leave these to Wall Street Analysts, Economists, Weather Men and Gypsies. They get paid for their brilliant prognostications.
I await your response. But please, respond to what I have written, not what you THINK I've written.
Paul |
