on 21st may last year, there was a publication on the rule of 72 in the newpaper. it's sort of like an investment strategy and i thought it'd be useful to put it here so i can throw the tattered article away and still have a reference somewhere that doesn't clutter up my narrow study desk. here's the first of four parts...
tool #1: how long to double your money?
to answer this question, all you need to know is (i) the interest rate and (ii) "the rule of 72".
it works like this: the number of years it takes to double your money times the interest rate is equal to 72. here are some examples:
(i) first, an easy one: suppose an investment earns 7.2 per cent interest. then it will take 10 years to double your money. why? because 10 years x 7.2% = 72. of course, it is also true that 72 / 7.2% = 10 years.
(ii) another easy one: if you earn 10 per cent per year, it takes 7.2 years to double your money. calculation: 72 / 10% = 7.2 years.
(iii) one more example: you can expect a lot of ups and downs when you invest in the stock market. but over the long run, you can expect to earn about 12 per cent per year from singapore shares.
using our new rule, it means your money in shares will double every six years. calculation: 72 / 12% = six years.
(iv) advanced lesson: you are eligible to take a payout from your cpf retirement account at age 62. but if you put off receiving your retirement payout by one year, until age 63, then after 18 years, you will receive an extra year of payout.
it is another application of the rule of 72. you earn 4 per cent interest in your retirement account. at 4 per cent, you double your money in 18 years (72 / 4%). it gives you an extra year's payout in year 19.
language is messed up. insurance agents are now financial planners. salesmen are now sales consultants. poaching assignments are now called sales.
learning day is officially on the last day of feb this year. i'm supposed to come up with a topic to talk about for 10-20mins. i have no idea what to talk about. maybe linguistic sexism. this is not a contradiction. yes, i am occasionally sick of gynocentrism because some things are overdone. but it is undeniable that some reasonings are logical. not all. i filter.
i'm feeling nauseous. the upsetting political correctness has gotten to me again. feminist psychosis has upsetted my stomach. the blind pursuit for academic excellence has made me sick of feminist ideals. not doing honours is a good choice. at least i no longer have to place myself in the gynocentric perspective and do what i sometimes feel is forced. we have been brainwashed into the gynocentric culture.
i just caught liping on shoot 3 and what she said was pretty much expected. it really isn't her fault but when i heard the point brought up, i felt like throwing up. i realised we have all been brainwashed thoroughly by academia. it's sick. stop the feministic brainwashing. i'm not blaming the feminists either but some things don't really make sense at all.
warning to those furthering studies: avoid too many feminist lecturers. it's a kind of brainwashing.
would you go for a managerial position in singapore at $3k/mth or a teaching position in hong kong at $6k/mth?
i need a brain that can master a new language in one week.
no. i just need the effort.
i don't want a jack anymore... other than the times i need a royal flush.
i don't recall being bitten by a spider though i did bump one off yesterday. but my keen spider sense has gotten me some sneak peeks into the caps of some el hons people. so far, i know one got a cap of 4.7, one 4.875 and the other a mean 5. these people are showing their mettle by getting into the dean's list all at the same time. sigh... with people getting caps like that, how can 4.3 ever make it to dean's. fuck elsea. if only i can s/u this solitary b-.
new year resolution has always been "the thing" for some time now. so much so that it has become some sort of a tautology to be asked to list your resolutions come new year. but how often have resolutions been real visions than mere decorative words?
in a society of today where thinking out-of-the-box is the 'in' word, "out-of-the-box" has really become "in-the-box". when paradoxes like burning ice, frozen fire, selfless egocentric and the likes have grown so common, such "creativity" has become mere conformity and the kind of product that any tim, duck and horry can churn out.
when the "foreparents" (my efforts at verbal hygiene again) of deviance first stood out, they were hailed as heroes. the creative ones. the cool ones. but the listing of new year resolutions has become un-cool and obiang before i knew it. being quite a blogder, i browsed quite a few blogs of people i know and unsurprisingly, the listing of not listing has become the 'in' thing. it has become more common now for people to recognise that resolutions have been mere displays of conformity to the western ideals that we have been over-exposed in the media. people now explicitly state that they no longer want to list resolutions because resolutions never work. so common has it become, it is uncreative. it is "in-the-box".
in the media, however, resolutions is still the kind of thing that people talk about as the clock strikes 12. deviance from the conventions of media, it appears, has become the norm. it has become a conformity to the norm of being deviant. this is uncreative.
for 2008, i am not going to list my resolutions because resolutions never work. i'm a walking paradox. double the irony.