Can /b/ solve this simple puzzle?

>>713960356
100 dollars, nigger who robbed the place got 30 dollars cash and 30 dollars of items without having any money/food stamps to begin with

130$ u cunt

File: 1476145158002.jpg (34KB, 448x545px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 448x545px

>>713960356
>took a picture of a piece of paper/monitor

>>713960443
30 dollars cash and 70 dollars of items even, white trash spelling you see

>>713960356
170?

Grossly 100$
Depends of what the store owner paid for the items he sold and shit

you lose $100 aswell as $70 in merchandise
so he kind of loses $170 but he only lost $100 cash

>>713960356
u own a shop. u lost nothing. fuck u

>>713960537
>Depends of what the store owner paid for the items he sold and shit
this

>>713960356
200 you retarded faggots

>>713960356
> takes $100
> gives you $100 back in exchange for $70 of merch and $30 change
You're out $100, probably less, depending on what the markup for the $70 worth of merch is really worth.

>>713960356
100$ minus money earned because of the selling of your items.

he lost $60 you fucking kids. now goto bed

>>713960537
>>713960537
considering the average markup on items in mom and pop shops, he is out 30 dollars cash and whatever the cost of the items purchased. In all reality 60 dollars total or so imo

>>713960854
about fucking time

$30 + COGS

Funny how you plebs think when you don't own a business.

File: out.png (869KB, 1120x1134px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 1120x1134px

There's no solution because it's not given that the items are worth exactly as much money as you're selling them for.

dum fks he steals 100 then gives 100 back to buy 70 worth of items and gets 30 change thus shop keeper loses 100 or if you want to be retarded he lost 200

>>713960356
one hundred dollars, in merchandise.

>>713961085
the store items stolen are assets?

$70 dollars worth of assets doesnt change depending on whatever the fuck it is

If items were not stolen he would have sold them for $70 to someone else

>>713961085
shop keeper is selling them for 70$ you dumb fuck thus he lost 70$ it doesn't matter if the ite,s are worth less it means he loses more profit.

Anyone not saying $130 is retarded or trolling.

>>713960356
How the fuck do you know it was the same $100? Do you record all the serial numbers or something? If so, your life is pretty meaningless. Also you shouldn't be running a business because you're dumb as fuck and let's see what actually happened here:

a) You lose $100
- total loss so far = $100
b) You get it back again
- total loss so far = $0
c) You give nig $70 of stuff
- total loss so far = wholesale value of stuff
- assume 20% markup, value = 70 * 0.8
- value of goods = $56
- total loss so far = $56
d) You give nig $30 of change.
- total loss = $56 + $30 = $86

You have at least $100 on hand, so be thankful he didn't come back and rob you of the $100. Also learn math. Also stop being a dick and leaving the register unattended, if you own the fucking store.

But if it's not your store, the problem is worse. If it's not your store, you owe the owner the value of the goods you sold (if you're honest, but I wouldn't be in this situation). Instead, take $30 out of your own pocket, put it in the register, close that fucker up, and act dumb when the boss mentions $70 of stuff has been stolen. Suggest that your boss is an idiot for not putting better security in place. Make him feel like a complete loser. Bottle his tears and sell them for profit as some kind of fancy label mineral water with known aphrodisiac properties.

>>713961304
but he doesnt lose 70 because he sold the items to the guy for 70.
if the guy didnt come back and spend the 100 dollars on 70 dollars worth of items the owner has lost 170 HURRRRRR DURRRRRRRRR

>>713961269
OR, he could have soldn them for more or less to someone else depending on any future change in their value according to the how much of resource it do,.

>>713961304
no but whant if thge resource3 change in world

>>713961412
but if the guy didnt come back and buy $70 dollars the items wouldent have sold

The correct answer is 130$

I have a masters in mathematics

Fuck this thread already

>>713961506
but then the asset cant have a fixed price of $70 dollars therefor he never lost anything as we change the price of the asset to 0.

owner lost 60 bucks

>>713960356
$170

Let me spell this out for you fucking retards.
He stole $100. Then spent $70. Then got $30 back.
100-70=30
30+30=60
Class dismissed. Go back to being fucking retarded.

>>713960356
You had $70 retail value of merchandise stolen.
You had $30 in cash stolen.
You had some time stolen.

Typically in a retail environment your 'cost' on a good sold is 2/3 the sale price. So, 70*2/3=~$50 say. Then you gave the dude $30 cause you didn't know he took the hundy to begin with, but you got the hundy back. So, about $80 plus the wasted time. So, $100.

>>713961792
Wrong

>>713961304
you stupid prick
theif +100
shop
-100+70items
theif
-100+70items+30
shop
-70 and -100 = 170 so items do dictate loss u bellend

>>713961687
Wrong

>>713961792
Doesn't matter how much it was bought for. If the sticker price was $70 and it was stolen, $70 is lost.

30 you dumb fucks

$200

>>713961857
No, I'm not.

File: avatar_1480761086307.jpg (44KB, 930x930px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 930x930px

>>713961980

but banana 2 dolla
banana sit there go bad
flatmate eats banana
i lose 2 dolla (over banana i give no fucks about)

ask flatmate 2 dollar
he say buy me banana 2 dollar
flatmate buy banana for me
banana going bad
flatmate eats banana

ask flatmate banana
flatmate give me 2 dollar
i buy banana
banana going bad
flatmate eat banana

-$4

>>713961466
>>713961792

Anyone who says anything other than this is literally retarded.

>>713960356
$60 in cash and $70 in products
/thread

>>713961730
He stole $100.
He has $100.
He lost $100.
He now has $0.
He got $70 worth of goods.
He now has $70 worth of goods.
He got $30 in change.
He now has $30 plus $70 worth of goods.
Equals $100.
The thief walks away with $100 in combined cash and goods.
The shopkeeper is down $100 in combined cash and goods.
The shopkeeper lost $100.

File: 1480558242069.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>713962006

>>713962167
no proof goods worth 70 dollars fuck u

>>713961269
They're only worth $70 after they're sold, not before. Before they're sold, they're worth their wholesale value (and in reality, not even that). The retail value is the value the seller thinks you'd be willing to pay for the item, not it's actual worth. Almost nothing is sold for what it's really worth. It doesn't matter if you could theoretically sell it to somebody else for $70, untill you actually do, it's not valued at $70. The moment the person who bought it opens the packaging, the value instantly drops to below $70 again. It's only valued at its retail price for a very short instance of time. Sometimes things can go up in value after they're sold, but it's rare. Happens though. Of course if there's a fire in the store, on the insurance report those items will be valued at $280.

>>713962258
The proof is in the fact that that's what they're being sold for

>>713962302
>>713962129
>ask flatmate banana
>flatmate give me 2 dollar
>i buy banana
>banana going bad
>flatmate eat banana
>-$4

>>713960443
Retard
>>713960458
Retard
>>713960494
Retard
>>713960507
Retard
>>713960537
Retard
>>713960539
Retard
>>713960698
Retard
>>713960699
Retard
>>713960712
Retard
>>713960815
Fucking thank you. Someone who got it right.
>>713961124
Retard
>>713961199
Retard
>>713961412
Retard
>>713961466
Autist
>>713961644
Retard
>>713961683
Winner again
>>713961687
Retard
>>713961730
Good job
>>713961792
Autist
>>713961845
Retard
>>713961971
Retard
>>713961980
Retard
>>713962156
Retard
>>713962167
Retard

>>713962394
Retard

>>713962130
>quotes two people who gave different answers
>hurr durr if u don't agree with this u r retarded
Ishiggydiggydo

>>713961939
You don't know what "lost" means.

If I put $10,000 sticker price on a car then sell it to you for $1,000 that doesn't mean I lost $9,000. It means it was only worth $1,000.

If I buy a car for $5000 and sell it to you for $4000, then I LOST $1000 because it was only worth $4000.

If I buy something for $10, then you steal $100 from me and come to me and go "hey, I'll buy that thing for $100" and I go "sure", then I MAY have gotten $80 back from you if it was only WORTH $20.

Three words:
Cost
Value
Loss

>>713960356
$170. The store owner paid for 70 dollars of his own merchandise

>>713962502
Learn to read. Same fucking answer. Each person factored in for unknowns and got slightly different answers using the same method. Same fucking answer.

It's $100. Came to that conclusion myself. Looked up online elsewhere and that is confirmed the answer. Bye

$30

>how much money
>money
Retards ITT.

>>713961644
Then you need to give that masters back. I only have a minor and this is easy. Assuming the $70 of supply cost him $70 to get. Then a stolen $100 bill is the first stage.
He comes back he hands the guy the $100 bill and takes $70 of supply and $30 of cash. This is a 1 to 1 ratio in trade so still a $100 trade.
The store owner now needs to go spend $70 to go buy $70 of supply. He is out the $30 he gave the guy and the $70 he gave the supplier. So in net he will have lost $100.
The question does not say how many dollars were stolen cause that would be a $100 bill which was returned and then given a $30 bill (arguably not stolen) that would be a $130 stolen

>>713960458
to be this stupid... oh lord

>loose
The question was a trick the whole time.

File: Screenshot_2016-11-28-20-03-51.png (140KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 320x480px

>>713960356
$30, minus whatever profit you made off the items he bought, right?

OKAY LEMME BREAK IT DOWN REAL SIMPLE LIKE FOR YALL

SHOPKEEP HAS $100 PLUS $70 OF GOODS
THIEF HAS $0 PLUS $0 GOODS

THIEF STEAL $100

SHOPKEEP HAS $0 PLUS $70 GOODS
THIEF HAS $100 PLUS $0 GOODS

THIEF PICK UP $70 GOODS AND PUT IN CART

SHOPKEEP HAS $0 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $100 PLUS $70 GOODS

THIEF PAY FOR GOODS WITH $100 BILL

SHOPKEEP HAS $100 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $0 PLUS $70 GOODS

SHOPKEEP GIVE BACK $30 CHANGE

SHOPKEEP HAS $70 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $30 PLUS $70 GOODS

INITIALLY SHOPKEEP HAD $100 PLUS $70 GOODS = $170

SHOPKEEP NOW HAS $70 PLUS $0 GOODS = $70

$170 - $70 = $100

SHOPKEEP LOST $100

IT REALLY NOT AN HARD

>>713962526
If something is being sold for $5 and someone steals that item, in lie of paying the price, they stole $5.
No one can be this stupid. Except maybe for OP who doesn't know the difference between "lose" and "loose" (like his mother's pussy).

>>713960356
not counting the benefit mark up and such.
he lost 100 in cash
then
70 in merchandise
30 in cash because this idiot gave back change

so the dumb fuck lost 200 $ worth
130 $ in cold hard cash and 70 in items

>>713962759
kek

>>713960356
Who gave him back 30 change?? The picture is cut off.

>>713962394
Double retard because:

1. Totally fucking wrong; and
2. Actually took the time to make that post.

>>713962759
The only nigga who caught it.

>>713962746
Well, you can't assume $100...that would assume he's running a not for profit. That's stupid.

Anything slightly less than $100 would be a viable answer except that it then comes back to your definition of what is a loss vs what is worth of the product and value of the time etc.

owener can claim insurance on stolen money and goods owner loses nothing gains 170 bucks

>>713962863
basically at the end of the day, the shopkeeper lost 200$ because of his fuckery.

Without the thief ruining his day, the shopkeeper would have had 200 $ more in his till.

>>713960356
>loose
wat

>>713960356
>loose
U wot m8

>>713962829
This is the only correct answer

>>713960356
>How much money did I loose???
YOU SHIT MONEY?! :O

>>713962832
I would like to buy your insurance.

I have many valuable objects for sale. I live in a very low crime area.

$60
70-30=40
began with -100
-100+40=-60
Lost 60 dollars

File: 1471425644426.jpg (23KB, 540x533px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 540x533px

>>713962829
God bless you, Logic Man

>>713963138
Yeah, maybe if you're retarded.
Steals $100
Gets $70 worth of merchandise
Pays cashier
Receives $30
100-70+30 will always = 60 dumbass
The answer is $60

>>713962526
Finally, somone else in this fucking place understand economics. All these idiots make me feel worried for the future. Fucking 4chan... dumbing down the world, one faggot at a time.

File: 0.jpg (28KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x360px

count the money the register has at each event
A: money stolen: -$100
B: guy buys a $70 item and hands the clerk $100: +0
C: change is handed back to the thief: -$30

the question is how much money did he lose (meaning the clerk): -$30.

>>713963004
This is a math game not real world application since we have no idea what country he works in we could not determine how much he paid for the goods. Maybe he grows them himself or he robs someone everyday for these goods. The variable is unknown but if it was known then you could input it easily.

>>713960356
>he bought $70 in items and gave him back $30 change.
Nigger tipped $30?

>>713963040
pfft. Clearly you're 12.

Deductible on theft would probably be $1,000, then there's premiums, time spent dealing with police reports and paperwork, going over security camera footage of the incident, tracing receipts, maybe an audit associated with this theft by the insurance company...

This would cost literally THOUSANDS of dollars literally and in unaccountable money. You have to have your shit STOLE to file with insurance.

>>713963250
Thank Christ someone ITT isn't a complete retard.

>>713962829
only correct answer, the rest of you are shit trolls

>>713963311
They were already dumb. They just come here to repost facebook and jerk off to traps.

>>713960356
$100

>>713960356
$170
The original 100 was stolen from the store, which is a symbolic paper money loss. Then the 70 dollars in goods was stolen with that stolen 100, so now the total is $170.

This is simple economics here. The other 30 was part of the original 100 and thus is still part of that 100.

What we need to ask ourselves is "How much in value did they overall lose?" That would be a 100 dollar bill, and 70 in items. $170.

Also, OP misspelled "lose" wrong.