3 ms·
It’s actually worse than 3.4. You can’t average growth numbers like that because that under-represents down years. e.g. A decline of 50% followed by an increas
by dpark 7y ago
It’s actually worse than 3.4. You can’t average growth numbers like that because that under-represents down years. e.g. A decline of 50% followed by an increase of 100% does not equal growth of 50% per year.
- WoodenChair 7y agoTrue, you are absolutely correct, my bad. But it tells the story I guess.