Simple test for most of you smarty pants. It's only 6 Qs, but my fellow Texans averaged only 2.9 correct! I am embarrassed for them.
Have fun.
https://www.usfinancialcapability.org/quiz.php
That was a really easy set of questions. Granted, I wouldn't have been able to answer them when I was say 20 or 30 years younger. LOLSimple test for most of you smarty pants. It's only 6 Qs, but my fellow Texans averaged only 2.9 correct! I am embarrassed for them.
Have fun.
https://www.usfinancialcapability.org/quiz.php
Just remember the rule of 72. Divide 72 by the interest rate and that’s roughly how many years money (or debt) takes to double.
I didn't do any complex calculations... with simple interest it would take 5 years to double...so with compounding the answer has to be less than 5 years ... whcih suggested the 2-4 year choice... and with compounding it would have to be more than 2 years... so 2-4 years had to be the right answer.
Simple test for most of you smarty pants. It's only 6 Qs, but my fellow Texans averaged only 2.9 correct! I am embarrassed for them.
Have fun.
https://www.usfinancialcapability.org/quiz.php
Well, that's one way. The other way is 5 years * 20% = 100%, which is double. That isn't counting the compounding aspect at all, which would reduce it to much less than 5 years because it's such a high interest rate. I guessed it would be about 3 years or so.
Just remember the rule of 72. Divide 72 by the interest rate and that’s roughly how many years money (or debt) takes to double.
It must of been transplants from other states that pulled down the Texans average.
Cast not grammar flames lest grammar flames be cast at thee.
Unlikely to be a problem. But I appreciate that I could be wrong!
It was not a random grammar correction. I do not "cast grammar flames" lightly. I did not, for example, correct the jarring (yet innocuous) solecism in Elbata's post just above this one; it wasn't relevant to the topic. However, DFW's post asserted that native Texans were, well, smarter than the average bear. Clearly, his or her post belied that assertion. Thus, the error was relevant (and perhaps revelatory!) to the topic.