Are you cucks as smart as you think you are? Spoiler; you're

>>714281795
$200.

200. Anyone that doesn't have autism can answer easily.

>>714281950
it's obviously 300

>>714281795

When the guy brings the $100 back to the owner, they're now even. Then the owner gives him $100 worth of "cash and prizes" and now is out $100.

Explain to me how the fuck that money doubles.

You can't cause you're wrong.

Going by keystone pricing the owner lost $165.

> Depends how much items were worth . owner would get some back. \thread

>>714282138
Found the autists

>>714281795
Obviously 100, are yall retards?? OP included

>>714282151
This is the only correct one .

>>714281795
Obviously $30 + what the owner paid for the goods

Owner
Owner (-100)
Owner sells 70$item from stolen money... (-70)
Owner gives back 30 change from the stolen 100..

Answer is 170.

Less than $100.
The owner ultimately loses $30 and $70 worth of goods. $70 worth of goods is worth less than $70 to the owner, so the owner lost less than $100.

>>714282415
This duh

it's 170, ya'll

>>714282460

LOLWUT

He returned the money, so he didn't lose the 100$.

He still got the 100$ back to him, so it's just 100$ - 70$ he got, so he profitted 30$ and the owner lost 30$

wow math is hard

>>714282151
>buys $70 worth of goods

>>714282415
>>714282549
These fags are right

>>714281795
60

>>714281795
100

>>714281795

owner got stolen 100$

thief knows that 100$ he stole got him 70$+30$ in exchange thats still 100$

in real world owner would make profit of the items so he didnt lose full value but there is no such number stated so it cannot be answered in this way

gg ez

It's obvious who hasn't worked as a waiter or cashier before. If someone takes $100 from your register then uses that $100 to buy $70 worth of goods, your register isn't going to be short $30

>>714282267
Some random anon steals $50 to you, then he goes to starbucks and takes a coffee. How much money did Starbucks lose? In fact, spend the stole money buying some goods doesn't change anything, the owner remains with his $100 lost

The issue here that confuses most people is they think that stealing $70 and then buying something worth $70 from the same place cancels out the theft (or 70% of it, at least)

If you steal $100, the business loses $100 from a prior sale. If you then buy something from the same place using $70 of that $100, you're not returning $70 to the owner, you're merely contributing a sale to the business that would already have took place with or without you. So technically speaking, the business falls behind because you took the money earned from a PRIOR sale of another customer.

>>714282551
>>714282708
Unless the loss of those goods prevents another sale, say if the goods were limited in quantity. Then the owner would have lost the full retail value of the goods, so $100

/b/ stands for braindead

START
Owner has: $100 cash, $30 cash, $70 worth of goods
Thief has: nothing

MIDDLE
Owner has: £30 cash, $70 worth of goods
Thief has: $100 cash

END
Owner has: $100 cash
Thief has: $30 cash, $70 worth of goods.


So the owner lost $30 of cash, plus $70 of goods.

>>714283130
No you're fucking stupid . he only loses what he paid for them and 30 on top of that. Is this site autistic

Restocking inventory, if they do that, which they usually don't. Bout to return hair clippers after cutting my hair

>>714283273
But he would have gotten $70 for those goods if not for the thief. So they were worth $70 to him

>>714282138
Because ofbthe items he bought you idiot. Cucksevante ye are

File: 1478083414382.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

130 in actual money
200 if you include the cash value of goods
you people are stupid

Actually if you steal 100$ in goods from a store, the store does not lose 100$ because they bought It cheaper to being able to sell It at 100$ and generste profit.

So, the owner lost 100-(profit margin of goods valued 70$)

>>714283450
Yeah but that doesn't mean he lost 70 dollars... He could have made profit on them but instead lost his cost of the items plus 30 change

200 $ in cash money and 1,000,000$ in emotional damages

>>714283527

the owner got the 100 back, genius. would you like to try to sell me back the pubes you bought from me?

>>714283574
This is the only correct answer

>>714283574
"How much money did the owner lose" If he was going to make $70 off those goods, then he lost $70.

Apparently /b/ needs to think about themselves to actually use their brain. I will give you short fantasy of yours that all of you idiots here, judging from many threads, masturbate to:

>black dude beats the shit out of you, takes your wallet with 100$
>he unzips his pants
>he pays you 100$ for fucking you in the ass
>you agree, because hey, why not, you have already been masturbating to neko futa furry undead tentacle Bugs Bunny amateur cosplay
>you give him 30$ back, since you have no dignity left

Now tell me why the fuck you would lose only 30$ or 100$ or whatever stupid answer you guys keep giving

>>714281795
easy the owner went bankrupt

How can he not remember the guy who just stole $100 5 min ago, this story doesn't add up ;)

30 bucks + [(inventory sell price) - (inventory bought price)]. If the answer is meant to give both these values. It's either $30, $100, or can't be answered.

Owner lost none of his money. it was stolen!

in this situation the owner only actually lost money when the thief stole from him, because whatever happened next was fair exchange if you read carefully

in a realistic scenario the owner would have lost slightly less than 100 bucks but since there's no other numbers he lost 100$

>>714283574

What is opportunity cost

70 dollars worth of goods is worth 70 dollars.

>>714283856
Because he bought 70 worth of items meaning the owner got back a markup on that 70 dollars . so he didn't lose the full 70.

>>714283527
You are a fucking retArd. I capitalized that a for a reason. The thief would have never spent this $100 back in the store for $70 in goods and $30 of cash. The sale would have never happened had he lost the $100 bill.

How much new physical money has come in from the customer = 0

how much money is the customer walking away with = 30 in cash and 70 worth of goods
So the store owner lost 30 cash of 70 worth of food, now if you include what he paid for the goods, and what he expected to earn from it, that´s different, also this whole thing wasted alot of the owners time

>>714284044
That's not how math works friend .

hundo plus however much he bought the merchandise for and maybe some kind of opportunity cost

>>714284136
>70=70
>that's not how math works

>>714283527
>OP said it's not $100
>ppl start bringing random answers

OK then, he lost $30 + what owner paid for $70 of goods + what owner has to pay in ?trading taxes? of $70 in goods sold. It's less of $100

>>714281795
the owner purchased the merchandise for an amount unknown to us so if you go by this idiots way of thinking then the answer is 30

Owner is at -$100
Thief is at $100

Then thief buys $70 worth of stuff and then gets $30 change from the $100.

Owner should be at -$100 if

-$100(stolen)+$100(used to buy)-$70(stuff purchased with stolen money)-$30(change from stolen money)

is correct.

If the $70 worth of stuff isn't considered actual money, then the owner should be at -$30. (the question is asking how much money the owner lost, not how much money + goods he lost)

>>714281795
Its $100; $30 in cash and $70 in goods

Starts at 0

-$100 stolen

-$70 of goods

now -$170

+$100 back the dude used to pay

now -$70

-$30 in change

$100

the owner lost 130$

>>714284257
But the goods are worth money. Your logic is flawed

>>714281795
7

After stealing from register:
Thief: $100 Cash, $0 goods
Store: -$100 Cash, $0 goods

After coming back:
Thief: $30 Cash, $70 goods
Store: -$30 Cash, -$70 goods

>>714283252
this guy's got it

HE STOLE:
$30 CASH
$70 WORTH OF GOODS

>>714284353
But the goods aren't physical cash....

>>714281795
Owner has
>$130 and $70 of goods for $200 total

theft happens
thief has
>$100
owner has
>$30 and $70 worth of goods for $100 total
owner has lost $100

thief comes back and makes a purchase
thief has
>$30 and $70 worth of goods for $100 total
owner has
>$100
owner has lost $100

it could be argued that the owner only lost what he paid wholesale for the goods and his labor in the exchange
but that is only a viable argument if the goods sold were perishable, near it expiration, and the owner would not have sold it before it expired
but that answer can only be reached by adding it to the original conditions of the problem

>>714284198
He didn't lose money he could have potentially made he lost what he already paid are you stuopd as fuck

shop lost around less than 100$ worth of Money + Goods. All of you saying otherwise are autists.

>>714281795
One hundred dollar

>>714284389
The don't need to be for the owner to lose money on them??

Doesn't matter what he paid for the goods.
Owner loses (wholesale cost of goods)+(the profit on those goods that he won't make because the goods are gone)+(30 dollars change)
100 bucks

>Hey faggots, are you as smart as you think you are?
>What's 2+2?
>Spoiler alert: It's not 4

it's a simple equation really
-100 + 100 - (x + 30) where x = the value of the goods
the hundreds cancel out
thus we end up with
-(x + 30)
you can consider the value of the goods as $70 if you want
-(70 + 30)
-100

You cant know because you dont know what the shopowner pays for the products..

> the awnser is you can't know

>>714284456

It's called opportunity cost.
If you make 100 dollars a day at your job, and you call in for an unpaid sick day, you just lost 100 dollars. You didn't "break even".

The owner lost $30 + what he paid for the goods

UNLESS

Losing those goods prevented another sale, due to limited quantity. In which case, those goods were worth retail value to the owner, he would have lost $30 + $70, or $100

>>714284198
$70 worth of product means different things to a customer than it does to the owner either at expected sale or at wholesale cost.
Its $70 including profit for the owner, thus they are losing less than $70 in this example.

When the owner balances at the end of the day he will be short $100

>>714282460
the owner loses $30 since he wasnt supposed to get any change whatsoever since its change from stolen money.

>>714281795
$140

>>714284635

What kind of backwards-ass understanding is that?
You may as well be saying "if you have two hundred-dollar-bills and I take one, you didn't lose any money because you still have another 100 dollar bill"

He's short one item from his inventory, he's not making money off something he purchased for sale. It doesn't have to be his last one.

>>714284758
>he wasnt supposed to get any change whatsoever since its change from stolen money.
I'll remember that the next time I need to give change
>you owe me $26.15 in change
>the money was stolen. prove it wasn't if you want that change.

None because the cops were waiting outside to riddle that nigger with bullets and give the owner's shit back.

>>714284606
/thread

>>714281795
$100

Spoiler: Your bait is shit.

File: bed time hopes for tomorrow.jpg (55KB, 480x678px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 480x678px

140$

100$ stolen at the start, thief came back and bought 70$ worth of goodies with the stolen money. That money was supposed to belong to the owner already so thief also stole a 70$ worth of item by using stolen money and owner gave him 30$ for return.
At the end of the deal owner is at loss for 100 dollars, but also at the loss because potential gain. At the end of a normal deal owner would have gain 70$ more but since he gave the 30$ return it's doubled as a loss.

Problem is the same as the thief using counterfeit money to buy stuff from the owner, but stealing 100$ changes everything.

30 dollars

Guy leaves with 30$ and 70$ worth of stuff, essentially the owner gave him $100 for free without gaining anything.

So the balance is -100

anyone who started thinking about changes, potential gains, value of items and shit are over-thinking it, and therefore autists.

>>714281795

$170

Everyone else is a fucking idiot

>>714281795

Owner has purchased goods for $x

After theft, owner has lost $100 (-100)

At point of sale, owner receives $70 (+70) but relinquishes goods worth $x (-x).

Running total = -100 +70 -x

Loss = $(30 + x)

>>714285297
no, just you

>>714284828
You have 5 bottles of wine from 1840, the only 5 left in existence. You sell each of those bottles for $70, for a total of $350, and you know you are going to sell them. But the thief buys one with your money, now you only have 4. You remain having lost $70 when he bought the wine, in addition to the $30 he already stole.

>>714285321

the buying price doesn't matter as the others said, the owner lost profit+the price he bought the product for. So he lost 70$ exactly in that regard, then the $30 change.

>but nobody talks about profits just the wholesale price

you can argue that he expects the profit as it is included in his business costs balance.

>>714281795
OK I work for a company that makes retail till software (EPOS) and deal with questions like this pretty often..

The till at the end of the day when they do their zread will be $100 down.

Simple as that.

Stop thinking about cost prices etc. And yes you could say that since the owner is possibly paying tax on the items then it could be that hes more down but since the question doesnt state it, we can assume that the items sold were tax exempt.

So theres the fecking answer

>>714282138
not really. goods that seller sells to him didn't cost him 70$ but lets say 35$. So the seller lost in fact around 65$

File: 1459963483450.jpg (461KB, 571x800px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 571x800px

>all them mad mathfags trying to fix each other
/b/ doesn't have to be /sci/, you know?

>>714285567

nobody asked about that you retard

how did you pass math class?

170 dollas...the 100 stolen 30 back in change but the 70dolla lost is added aswell

>>714281795
Wow you people are really stupid. Why the fuck do you need math to solve this simple ass riddle. The thief took $100 and came back to exchange a portion of it to goods, it's still $100 whatsoever lol

File: jimmy.png (259KB, 951x672px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 951x672px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3bEh-PEk1g

people in this thread

100+value of goods

30 dollars in change... what a cunt

>>714285692

exactly, you don't even need to do equations and shit just think about what you have at the end of the day. What a bunch of autists.

>>714285676
this makes sense to me, he could've spent the $70 anywhere

>>714285676
retard

>>714281795
spoler #3; the answer is $100

>>714282636
>buys stock for $70
>resells for $70

yeah sounds legit m8

>>714285676

you can't even add up your own retarded solution

>>714282151
This. He starts out with 100, guy steals 100 so now he has 0. Guy comes back and basically trades 70 for some merch worth whatever wholesale price the owner paid for it, and keeps 30 cash. Therefore the owner is out a little less than 100

>>714285858

not the point of the question, he lost the profit and the buying price anyway. Gtfo retard

Ok let's see.
From the perspective of the owner,
He was -100. The guy came back gave him the hundred. Therefore he was at 0. But he took 70$ worth of goods. Therefore the owner was at -70$. Then the owner gave the change which was 30$. Therefore the owner is down 100$.
The guy basically exchange 70$ into groceries and kept 30 in cash while the owner exchanged 70$ loss of money in grocerie lost. Accounting there was supposed to be an interest earned on selling the goods, I'd say the owner actually lost less than 100. But that doesn't matter.
The owner did loose 100 this cannot be broke down any simpler

>>714285985
So what is the profit after taxes and stock price?

>>714282549
this

>>714285985
We're not talking about how much he potentially lost, we're talking about how much he actually lost

Let's pretend that common knowledge of markup on sold goods is not relevant.

Lets pretend the owner starts with $1000
The owner lost $100
The the their buys $70 of goods which the owner will now have to buy more of.
He then give the their $30 in change

$1000 - $100 = $900

$900 + $70 (-$70 cause he needs to replace the purchaseday goods) = $900

$900 - $30 (the change) = $870

$1000 (staring cash) - $870 = $130

The owner lost $130

>>714286119

yes, me too. He lost 100$.

$70 worth of products, which is a combination of original buying price and profit, but this is not part of the question and nobody cares.

+

$30 in change.

SCIENCE

>>714286182
Annnnd another retard

>>714285042
What an idiot.

>>714286301
He lost less than 70 because he's only out the money he actually paid for the products, since we're not going to assume he's successful or unsuccessful at his business

>>714286182

jesus christ dude, your equation is all over the place. You add up losses and revenue randomly.

>>714286182
You're one of those who shit in your hand to not make noise at night and still got shit all over the place.

>>714286391

bro, I'm pretty sure you are baiting me, but here is my last try.

The dude just stole a $100 bill from the owner, then later exchanged it to products and some change basically.

Value wise the owner is $100 short because the bill was his all along. It's not rocket science.

And if you want to be autist about it, yes, he lost the product(basically the buying price) then the profit he had set on it(which is included in his business costs anyway so he expected that money)

>>714286182
fucking hell.

-100
+100
-70
-70
= -100

maths, its super simple stuff

>>714283252
Thank you

>>714283252
>Owner has: £30 cash
>£30 cash
>£

now you will confuse these retards even more.

In the end the Thief has 60$ Cash and Goods worth of 70$ , so the shop lost 130

Nah you cucks ,it's $200

>>714281795
Not enough information
We have to know the profit margin of the items purchased with the stolen money

>>714286538
He didn't lose the profit, there's no reason to assume the product would have sold

Occam's razor

File: fraser.gif (512KB, 227x252px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 227x252px

>>714286714

genius

>>714281795
The real answer is that he lost $30 in CASH.

The value of the transaction, however, is dependent on his markup for the goods. The store is making (sale price - item cost = profit)

So, $30 (stolen) + item cost (for $70 worth of goods) = total value lost.

It gets more complicated when you start calculating taxes and shit.

>>714286807

what are you talking about you retard?

the shop retail price was 70 because the nigga got back $30 in change. How can you not assume price based on that information?

>>714286714
How the fuc.. you know what, nevermind

>>714286751

>Being this fucking autistic

>>714286828

not the scope of the question. He expected $70 for the products, he didn't get it. He lost $70 + the change.

HOLY FUCK I don't know how anyone can say he lost less than $100 dollars. To start things off he had $100 dollars STOLEN you stupid kikes!

>>714281795
lost $30 but also lost $70 of goods. Doesn't matter what your semantic crap is, the owner's values went down by $100

100$ that were stolen
70$ worth of goods
30$ change.

total = 200$

But he got back 70$ from the nigger.

200-70 = 130$

>>714286714

where did the $60 come from, chimp?

>>714285858
$100 minus whatever profit he makes from $70 worth of sales.

>>714286980
The thief returns and gives the 100 back dumbass

>>714282460
$130?

130$
No?

>>714287003

jesus christ.

-$100
+$100
-$70
-$30

=

?????

OP here
>>714287003 is the only correct answer.

>>714283252
Yep checks out

>>714287003

also you calculated in the $30 twice.

>>714287058
-100 -70 -30 = -200 +100$ = +100$ but its not true.

>>714287003
What the fuck
So where did the 100 go?

File: chappelle.jpg (10KB, 245x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 245x240px

>>714281795
That fucking owner didn't lose shit,
that nigga got jacked.

0$ lost 100$ stolen fuck your logic

>>714287070

op you have no saying in this matter as you are obviously a baitmaster faggot or a retard.

>>714281795
It depends on how you chose determine loss.
One way to look at it is that 100 was removed and 70 was returned so the total loss could be considered the 30 that left the store.

Another way to look at it was that 30 was stolen but 70$ worth of goods might as well have been stolen with it so $100 in total was lost.

Another conclusion depending on how someone looks at it is that the person stole $100, then traded it for 30 unearned dollars and $70 worth of (essentially) stolen goods. which would be a total of 100 + (30 + 70) each taken illegally over the duration. This last of the easy ways to look at it is hardest to make sense of though.

>>714287030
LOLOLOLOLOLOL He doesn't GIVE him the 100 dollars back, he uses the stolen money to buy shit the owner already bought so he is out the 100 dollars AND the cost of purchasing the goods for resale.

>>714285567
the only legit answer.
I mean, unless you are here for the trolling circlejerking

>>714281795
Trick question, they don't carry that much money in the registers to prevent guys like this

>>714287125

it's -100 you idiot.

>>714287119

Cash or goods that exited the store =
100$ from the register in cash.
+
70$ value of goods.
+
30$ change.


Amount that entered the register=
+70$ from the nigger.

In - Out = 70-200 = 130$ he lost that day.

>>714287179

the thief basically swaps the $100 bill to products and $30. It doesn't add up.

I love threads like this. Watching anons being autistic as fuck

>>714287174
Honestly any way that ends up being correct I don't care.

>>714281795
What he earns after doesn't matter as long as the money is not false, it's just a normal transaction.
The fact that he was robbed of 100$ stays and that's what he lost whatever your shitty brain assumes, stop believing money manipulators it obviously just fucks up your frail brain.
If you still don't understand just assume that the robber doesn't come back and an other customer comes with the same deal, 70$ stuff and 30$ change, then an other situation when this customer got his 100$ bill by the robber.

Once again you don't care about the money origin as long as it's not fake money.

File: I see.jpg (23KB, 648x348px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 648x348px

>>714281795
>Making 4chan bait this good.

>>714281795
Lost 100,

Lost 70 dollars in goods and 30 dollars change. But he used the 100 bill the nigger stole in the first place.
The shop owner also lost a sense of security, now being forced to install cameras, which cost at least 2k average.
He also lost time when he discovers the missing money. Which will take at least 2 hours to report and paperwork, time is money, so lets add another 100 because hes a hard worker. Then it cost him 20 bucks because he bought a pizza to try to make himself feel better, which is another charge as he lost 3 hours of sleep crying about his babushka at mother russia who depends on his che ks. Another 500 dollars.

In all the nig nog stole at least 2,920 dollars. Thats why thieves should be raped.

>>714287226

you fucked up again. The nigger pays with the $100 bill so the entered amount isn't 70.

That means then... $100 loss OMG

100$ were stolen, so this is (-100$)
nigger comes comes back, (buys) goods worth 70$ and pays with a 100$ bill.

-100$ (stolen) + 100$ paid = 0
goods taken = 70$ (-70$) he got the shit for free.

The twat then gives him 30$ back, so....

-70$ -30$ = -100$ which is how much he lost that day.

>>714287237
Jesus what the fuck. He doesn't swap it idiot. HE FUCKING STOLE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Holy shit you fucks are stupid as fuck! This thread is hilarious!

>>714281795
60

There are multiple ways both the IFRS and the US GAAP allow to record the inventory which the shopkeeper lost. It can either be the amount he spent on buying those goods, the amount he could reasonably assume to collect by selling those goods or a number or alternatives in between. The shopkeeper lost $30 in cash and $X in inventory depending on how they recorded it on their accounts.

>>714287357
why does this makes so much sense?

>>714287226
>In - Out = 70-200 = 130$ he lost that day.
so then you are counting the 70 going in as part of the first 100 going out successfully?

>>714281795
All are trolled, the answer is 100.

>>714287369

it was a figure of speech you retard. Value wise he gets $100 worth of stuff(products+change) for the bill, in the end the owner is $100 short(because he got back the original bill).

owner loses 100 from theft
(-100)gets given 70, but loses product
(-30 and value of product) Depends on the value of the product

>>714287399

Or rather, now that I think about it, the owner obviously doesn't consider the inventory stolen, but the cash not matching up, missing $100 from the register. The value of the inventory does not matter from an accounting perspective, all the shopkeeper sees is that considering all the transactions, there is $100 missing from the register.

>>714287357
finally.

>>714286940
It's very clearly worded, anon.
"how much MONEY did the owner lose?"

Well, did the owner actually lose any money? We're actually talking about the store losing money, which is not the owner.

If the owner's running his own register, it's gotta be a shitty small-time operation; likely a gas station or tiny convenience store.

Now, focus on the MONEY. The TILL is going to be short $100 when they count their MONEY at the end of the day.
They expect $70 in, but receive $100, and pay out $30 in change. Perfectly normal transaction.
$100 was already removed from TILL so, they will be $100 short when counted.
However, there's now x - 100 + 70 in the TILL - a $30 difference. This is how much MONEY is lost.

The value of the $70 in GOODS may as well have been straight stolen, all things considered. This is where it gets tricky. A business owner or student might be able to estimate the markup for those GOODS. The VALUE of these GOODS was also lost, which is technically ITEM COST but will not be written off as such, unless they know about the thievery.

There are multiple correct answers to this scenario, since it's unclear which elements we're talking about. You're just inferring a lot of information because you aren't retarded.

$30 in CASH was lost.
$70 in GOODS were lost.
Their ledger will be FUCKED UP, and if the OWNER wasn't running the register, somebody would probably get FIRED.

can't be found, too may variables are missing

>>714287406
Because one way or another the original amount stolen is the most that leaves the store in terms of value.

100 = 30 + 70 (or in this case ~70 as being paid with an exact 30 would mean that it was exactly 70 after tax)
If anything the thief left with a (very small amount) less than 100, but without knowing the areas average rate for sales tax that small amount is insignificant.

>>714287369
He stole the money but later come back and spend it.

>>714287513

that's why profits and wholesale prices don't matter in the end. Only retards think about it that deep.

>>714282415
this is most correct. it doesn't assume that the cost price of the goods is less than the shop price. sometimes shopkeepers sell at a loss for various reasons.

>>714281795

Advanced negro mathematics.

>>714287567

nobody questioned all of this crap, but good for you.

I'm happy that we agree in total $100 value was lost.

>>714287567
>"how much MONEY did the owner lose?"
If that is the case than only $30.00 of currency made it out the door. Also the items are negligible.

Yet another possible answer.

He lost $30 + $70 of goods
Or (n) if you're gonna be a cunty mathematician about it.
But you could still consider the fact that the owner is selling for a profit so you'd have to know how much he got the goods for.

What's the correct answer then?

$100 - whatever profit he makes from the goods.

>>714287628
Right, but 100 dollars was still stolen, so the amount without knowing all this other shit people are throwing down is 100 dollars lost. Anyone who says less than 100 dollars is just fucking retarded, probably leftist kikes who want to steal everything anways

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>714281795

>>714287779

the price with profit included is 70 exactly because that's how the transaction went with the nigga.

>>714285700
excellent contribution

>>714287782

$100, don't listen to the autists.

>>714287782
The only realistic possibilities are $100 & $30.00 right now. although given the last line of the question the probable answer is 30 and op is a tremendous fagot.

>>714287897

right. So if you are anal about it and you mean how much CASH he lost, it's 30. If the question means how much VALUE he lost, it's 100.

>>714287972
Exactly...

File: 25645885.jpg (44KB, 485x703px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 485x703px

>>714281795
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URwL_nxYl1k

>>714287683
You have to consider the face value of the goods (what the store sells it for) vs. what they paid for the goods (what the store buys it for)

Google spit this at me -
>A Simple Formula. Most retailers benchmark their pricing decisions using keystone pricing (explained below), which is essentially doubling the cost of the product to arrive at a 50% markup. However, in many instances you'll want to mark-up your products lower or higher depending on your specific situation.

Since the store is making approximately twice as much in PROFIT the GOODS they lost, they're losing $30 (cash) + $70 (GOODS) - $35~ (PROFIT) = $65~ total VALUE

Since PROFIT can vary, $65 in loss is the closest we can estimate.

Because the question asks specifically, "how much money did the owner lose?" you could also be correct by spitting out the cash amount lost.

>>714287972
Additionally ops original post does not expressly confirm that the answer is 30 but it does go out of the way to deny that it is 100. In short >>714287817 was correct about op.

>>714288028

no you don't have to consider all that, that's the tricky part of the question. People start assuming that there are more things to consider than it seems and that's what confuses them, that makes the question hard for people who have autism.

Also it's a very simple "riddle" basically, you don't need to assume that you need college-level-math shit on it.

>>714281795
$30.00
This is a word problem not a math problem.

> $100 or you're retarded
> here's why...

The owner must have at least $130 cash + $70 RRP worth of goods. $200 total.

The thief steals $100.

The owner now has $30 in the register + $70 worth of goods.

The thief comes back and gives the owner $100 in exchange for $70 goods + $30 change.

The thief walks away with a total of $100 worth of cash + goods... the owner has the original $100 note in the register!

At the end of the day (assuming no other transaction, etc, etc, the owner went from $200 to $100 total.

The owner lost $100!

>>714288234

if this doesn't help the retards, I don't know what will

>>714288226
It's not you faggot.

$30 change + $70 'expected cash' from the sale of the goods.

File: 11295610_10203844134778607_2560489819083272494_n.jpg (54KB, 954x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 954x960px

Sweet baby jesus you are so retarded.

let's try it this way:

A) Mr. A steals 100 $ from the owner. Then mr. B comes to the shop and buys 70 $ worth of goods, pays with 100 $ and gets 30 $ in change

B) Same, exept its mr A instead of mr B making the purchases.


How the fuck are these things different? By your logic every customer that steps in the store is a 30 $ or 100 $ loss for the owner? Sheesh, you guys are dumb.

>>714288234 >>714288290
But anons, I can explain why you are incorrect.

>>714288157
Its only simple if you assume/infer a lot of information that isn't actually there.

Assume you're a nigger trying to answer this question. They don't go any deeper at all and will probably answer $170 or something retarded.

Level 2 would be normal/rational people who assume most of the information, and will answer $100.

Level 3 is someone who considers that value of goods is variable, based on profit. $65

Level 4 can go deeper into the ledger, tax rates, or even the owner being a separate entity from the store.

You can probably go deeper than that too, but I'm not that 'autistic', anon.

If this is some trick riddle where at the end it's asking how much actual 'money' the owner lost, then the answer would be $30. If we consider the goods worth $70, then the answer is logically $100.

The real value of the goods does not come into it as it's an impossible unknown variable. Anyone thinking differently should not have children!

File: 1412688126396.jpg (15KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 225x225px

>>714288344

please do

if you want to be more retarded than the rest, please bring in tax levels per states and calculate in the year in question and the dollar value of that year. Maybe the type of product too.

steal 100

-100

buys 70

-30

gives 30

-60 + shits

>>714288427

this

File: Mfw.jpg (150KB, 852x1041px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 852x1041px

100$ is taken. Then 70$ worth of stuff is bought with that 100$. the 30$ doesn't go tot the total since it was already part of the initial 100$ that was taken therefor the robber took 170$

BUT on the other hand if the robber takes 100$ and buys 70$ worth of stuff and gets 30$ change then he wouldn't be gaining 70$ on top of 100$ because he is returning the money to store and only getting 30$ cash on top of the 70$ value of his goods which would mean that he only took 100$ total

DOUBLE BUT lets say that the owner only had 200$ in the register and 200$ worth of goods in the store. The robber takes the 100$ from the register so the owner has 100$ in the register and then 200$ worth of goods still in the store. Now the robber comes back and gives him 70$ back but takes 70$ of goods so now the owner has 170$ back in the register but only 130$ worth of goods in the store

TRIPLE BUT since the 70$ was his own he didn't gain 70$ SO that means that he lost 100$ cash to begin with but then 70$ cash is basically traded for 70$ in goods

FINAL BUT we dont know the profit margin that the owner makes off each item/the items retail value without the added tax and fees so therefor we have no clue what the answer is.
>mfw

UNLESS we assume that 70$ is its true value then this is what the story looks like in an equation:
-100$ (cash) + 70$ (cash) - 70$ (goods) = 100$

OP is master troll

>>714283252
Yeah this is right.

>>714285567
Although if the thief didn´t buy it someone else would and the owner would have gotten 70$ for it, thus he lost 100$

>>714288455

jesus how many retards are here

you calculated the $30 loss twice.

The nigga pays with a $100 bill so that $30 change isn't loss in a technical sense.

>>714288500
"100$ lost" is what the equations answer should say just btw

>>714288427
Well no, they lost the product aswell.
$30 from the till and the value of the product which is $70

>Steal $100
>Buy $100 worth of stuff
>$100 loss

The only trick I can see with the riddle is the actual value the owner "lost" through buying the product in order to sell since they buy it cheaper than they sell, $70 could have cost him 50.

>>714281795
$170 because the change doesnt matter

>>714283273
If you cannot follow the logic of the previous post you are obviously stupid

>>714288371
> Level 3 is bullshit
'Opportunity cost' = the owner expected to receive $70 in exchange for the goods. They are worth $70 to the business / owner.

> Level 4 is just plain autismo & would have little-to-no real world bearing at all

>>714288371

i see your point but level 3 and onwards is bullshit since there are unknown variables. All we know is that the shop price is $70 of the products, and that includes profits usually but that's a useless information anyway.

>>714285354
no u

>>714288452 >>714288371
Your problem is that you are going too far. No matter how many levels deep you go with this direction to your thought you will be wrong because you are answering a question that is not being asked. This is playing into ops hands and giving him/her quite a show.

The question was:
>How much money did the owner lose???
and our one hint was that the answer could not be $100 and be correct.
if we clean up the last line to:
>How much cash was stolen?
(which would be plausible as "cash" & "money" can be interchangeable)
Then what you get is the 30 that he gave back willingly to the thief.

>>714288642

this. People here don't have any idea how a business works and shit.

>>714288741

I don't ,I just made fun of him.

>>714288741
I think that op planned for the image to mislead people, simply because he knew that people would look for total value lost rather than "money" (or currency) lost.

>>714288642
worth to the owner was not in question. The 70 in goods could easily be irrelevant.

>>714288604
You fuckin retard, I gave the answer of $100. Your English is not very good I see! How can you come up with a random fucking number like 50 based on a variable that you can't determine!? It's people like you that make other people even more fucking stupid with your confusing bullshit!

HOLY FUCK GUYS I ALREADY POSTED THE LONG ASS ONE WITH THE kek'd FILE NAME BUT SERIOUSLY YALL HAVE AUTISM

he takes 100$ then gives 70$ back for 70$ in goods.

100-70 = 30(change) + 70

the. change. doesnt. fucking. count. as. additional. loss. it. is. the. robbers. money.

change. means. RETURNING. SOMEONES. UNSPENT. CASH. NOT. GIVING. THEM. MORE.

>>714288960
Did you even read the post?

You went full on attack mode and you clearly didn't understand what was said.

>>714288944

how can it be irrelevant, that's the value he set to the products, therefore that's the value he lost.

the wholesale price and the profit margin is what irrelevant, nobody cares about that.

>>714288642
>>714288686
What you fucksticks aren't understanding is that PROFIT is the only thing that matters to the OWNER.

PROFIT is what the OWNER sees on his check.

This is why the TILL/STORE being separate from the OWNER is an important concept.

This is why the value of the GOODS and their PROFIT/COST are important as well.

Since the OWNER was expecting to receive $35 PROFIT (GOODS), and instead lost $100 directly from the till, he actually lost $65 on HIS PAYCHECK, not accounting for tax, payroll, expenses, etc.

Since the question directly asks how much the OWNER lost, $65 is the best answer I can reasonably come up with without digging deeper.

>>714288994
So the 30$ the robber gets as change + the 70$ in goods is all the owner lost

>>714281795
It says how much MONEY did the owner lose, not the total value of the loss.

The only money lost was $100. The goods were paid for legitimately.

You could take into account the value of the goods and all that but it doesn't state that.

>>714288741
But now he hes to reorder the goods he sold right away because he is an autistic fuck, so the answer would be 30$ + the money he spends on rebuying the goods he sold.

>>714289022
>ine!? It's people like you that make other people even more fucking s

I see you never worked in your life huh?

If you need to buy stock, that's your money. You need to sell that+profit to make it worth your time & effort you idiot.

File: idiot.jpg (27KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x512px

>>714281795
Chrisjoy Rupal Facebook.

>>714289020
but the question was only about money, not particularly the goods.

>>714288994
>the. change. doesnt. fucking. count. as. additional. loss. it. is. the. robbers. money.
but it isn't the robbers money because the money was stolen to begin with, The change as you put it was the remnant cash from the 100. The 70 as goods should be what should not count if anything given the wording.

>>714282151

>/threading your own post

Found the faggot and a new one at that!

File: wpid-IMG_20131012_140917.jpg (163KB, 768x1011px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 768x1011px

$100.
The guy did not increase any.
>stole $100
>buys $70 worth of shit. (loses $70 in cash)
>Ends up with $70 worth of shit plus $30 (total value $100)
>store owner gets that $70 back in exchange for $70 worth of shit which is nullified.
So yeah.. they lost only $100. That is if you are looking at it as face value and not counting how much they actually paid for the product VS how much they mark it up for to make profit. If we are strictly talking about the retailed markup values, then the answer is simply $100.
I am a programmer so knowing math is my business. Fuck with me.

>>714289015
The post had the number 50 in there which should never of been mentioned. Who cares what was said, we're focusing on the answer and that is $100 mathematically. End of Story!

>>714289237

that's why the answer is either $30 if we are talking about MONEY and $100 if we are talking about VALUE(because the profit and stock price was the owner's money originally)

>>714289020
Also the question does not use the word value at all. Meaning that overall value may not be what the asker wants. if it was overall value it would be so close to 100 that the minuscule difference would make the question even more retarded than it already is given how little it goes into detail.

>>714281795
Are you dumb enough to photograph your monitor instead of printscreen?

>>714281795
$30.00 + ($70.00 - "Profit from Sale") = Money Owner is out.

Depends on how you want to look at it. Business Operating costs could arguably be factored in as well.

>>714282138
im literally smashing my head at my desk while writing this/
wehn you got 2 copies of the new cod for xmas (because your aunt and your mom are literal retards and bought it twice) and
youre selling 1 of em for 50 bucks on craigslist and i called you and we arranged a meeting for tomorrow and during the night i came in and stole 1 of the copies without you realizing it then in the next day i came to pick up the other one youl be left wihout both of your copies but with 50 bucks from me (but keep in mind you dint buy the cod at 50 bucks ,more like 80)meaning that you would have lost 160 from both of them and gained 50 $ from me -160+50=-110.
thats the same logic here the answer isnt 200 buts its definitely not 100 (if we count the goods at 20% less of their original cost ) so the answer is more like 70-80 cash

>>714289075
This nigger actually has a point. He lost the $100 so the $70 he got back is legit. What if the robber used a different $100?