{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Formerly iab:
8/16/2015 9:22:21 PM
1
Wow just wow
no but if we know that U.S min wage is 69% of UK and that U.S. Price is $40 it's hardly -blam!-ing rocket science.
We divide 40 by 69 and multiply by 100 fffffffs
Christ
English
-
Edited by Unicorn Goo: 8/16/2015 9:25:50 PMAnd you get a number further from the solution than mine. Btw you never accounted for the 20%vat. Please include that in your problem and let's see how far you are off then. Mines included and I'm less than $2 from what the OP posted was the price.
-
I'm not arguing the math you brain dead imbecile. The central economic premise was wrong about the link between min wage and price but you then applied the math in a way that had no logic. That's the point. I'm not about to start defending my math in defence of an economic model you have just pulled out of your arse. We're done here.
-
Because you cant. You came here boasting my math is wrong and you can't even back your incomplete sh!t up. You need math 090
-
I have used math to prove your central argument wrong. The only way you can get the maths to appear right is to use your special brand of stupidity. Idiot.
-
You proved nothing besides how much of an imbecile you are. Your math couldn't show anything besides wrong solutions. Funny how I could magically come up with a number much closer than yours but you are the self proclaimed math wiz here. Put up or shut up Are you going to add that 20% tax or not?
