Are you actually smart? Prove it faggots

Smart enough to print screen

File: _83236396_1146899.jpg (83KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x576px

>>34596389
30 bucks original first answer best answer prove me wrong faggots.

$100

He traded $70 worth of goods for $70 of equal value so he's still out $100.

/thread

>>34596389
$100.
The only thing that matters is the theft, the rest are normal business transactions.

>>34596410
Yes $30 but there's also the goods she stole which costed $70 worth.

>>34596421
this + the cost of whatever he was going to buy next with the $100

The chance is 2/3.

>>34596389
>hey, think about this
>lol no you silly, you're not allowed to think about it

Fuck that and fuck you, OP

File: 79728f_5505754.jpg (64KB, 906x799px)

64KB, 906x799px

The question needs to clarify if it's asking how much cash the owner lost (in which case it's $30) or how much value overall was lost in both money and goods (in which case it's $100)

Bad question

File: 1486074600664.png (44KB, 658x662px)

44KB, 658x662px

>>34596389
>tfw keep getting $200

I hate being a brainlet so fucking much

>no one said 200

Lots of mentally ill around here, it seems

>>34596417
>He traded $70 worth of goods for $70 of equal value so he's still out $100.
actually the cost of the goods sold in stores is most often insanely higher than the cost of production
if anything hes stealing a fair amount back when she makes the transaction

>>34596545
But that depends if you mean "lost" as in the actual cost price of the stock or the lost potential earnings from selling it to an actual customer.

>>34596522
You're not a brainlet its a dumbass question.

$100

She walks away with $30 and $70 worth of goods, but she gave the $100 bill back, which cancels the first part out.

She might as well just stole $30 from the register and whatever was worth the $70.

>>34596409
Don't have the sauce img, just this stupid one I saw on normiebook

>>34596421
this is the correct answer. it fucking doesn't matter with what bill did she buy what afterwards. That's just a normal transaction.
saw this on normiebook and nobody said this only few people said 100 but stupidly explained it in "70 bucks worth of product + 30 buck change". I c can really see that /r9k/ is smarter than normiebook. And it feels good.

It's 200.
First 100 stolen
Then 70 because, independently of how much money she makes from this she would have gotten another 70 from a regular customer for the food produced
And 30 for giving the thief what was gained by honesty

Or idk im high as fuck

>>34596644
>First 100 stolen
>Then 100 given back
>Then 70
>And 30

it's 100 overall, she didn't leave with the hundred in cash she originally stole

File: 1485868442352.jpg (92KB, 800x746px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x746px

>>34596524
How the fuck can you even get 200?
Let's say the amount of money they both start out with is 0 to make it simple.
>Woman has 0
>Man has 0
Now the woman steals 100$
>W 100
>M -100
Woman now takes the goods worth 70$
>W 170
>M -170
Then the woman gives him 100$
>W 70
>M -70
Now the man gives her 30$
>W 100
>M -100
Man loses 100$, how can you even arrive to any other conclusion?

>>34596644
>>34596522
>>34596524

if a regular person comes and buys shit with 100 bill does the shop owner loses something? no.
You can say she returned him the 100 bucks afterwards and then got 70 worth of product and 30 change for free. thus the poor guy losing only the 100.

File: 1445363308333.jpg (35KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 633x758px

>>34596673
You are thinking of it as 70$ net income for the store. It's goods the thief is buying, and goods cost money to the store. Independently of how much is their net income on the goods, by selling those goods to someone else they would have made 70$

And then 30 more

O man I just realized I'm actually wrong, kek.

Nevermind all I said

File: image.jpg (39KB, 456x320px)

39KB, 456x320px

>>34596389
The owner lost everything.
>his business wasn't doing very well
>losing the 100 got him behind in paying his mortgage on his store
>bank takes his store, so he loses that
>loses only source of income
>can no longer pay rent, loses housing
>loses will to live
>kills himself

File: 1479619420954.png (92KB, 837x400px)

92KB, 837x400px

>>34596743
You forgot the part inbetween losing bank taking store and losing housing in which his wife takes his kids. It is because of the alimony when he loses the house and eventually offs himself

it's 100
not 200
guys just think about it

>>34596683
>both start at 0
>woman ends at 100 and man ends at -100
That's 200 by your math famaroni.

>>34597823
> the man ends at -100

> how much did the owner loose

woman gains
man looses
how much
200...

dumb as a fucking rock.

Unknown. $100 is incorrect because the prices of the products are higher than what it cost him, that's how he makes profit.

So really he lost more than $30 but less than $100

>>34596389
30$, plus 70$ worth of stock if you want to be that obnoxious

>>34597947
yeah you think you are hot shit nerd?

File: MoF trio.png (855KB, 1280x1782px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 1280x1782px

>>34596389
What products...did she "buy"? How much does it cost to ship these products...?

Are they limited edition products? Do they gain value with time? Was it wine?

>>34598369
>>34597947
Literally stupid cunts. It doesn't matter how much does he actually profit from the product. Don't overthink it, it's written right there

let n be the amount of money in the register.
The woman steals $100. n = n - 100.
The woman gives $100 to the owner. n = n - 100 + 100
The owner gives her $30 in change. n = n - 100 + 100 - 30.
n = n - 30
-30.

I am an idiot.

>niggers calculating the $70 worth of bought goods as "lost money"

Niggers.

File: __arsene_lupin_iii_fiat_and_lupin_iii_drawn_by_nasubi_w_c_s__sample-ecd307423e0dde31ce118220dda6781c.jpg (261KB, 850x1131px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 850x1131px

>>34598369
>>34598414
Also were these products that were collecting dust? Was she in the most unexpected manner doing the shop owner a service by "stealing" these products? Often shops only profit from certain items, many things do not sell well and it may benefit a shop to have someone steal their products as opposed to have their product bought, think the ET and other atari games that ended up in a landfill

>>34596389
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS who gives a fuck

File: __i_168_and_i_class_destroyer_kantai_collection_drawn_by_bacius__dfd695c74639b76fcbdc994b1452bbc9.jpg (321KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 800x800px

>>34596389
The owner gained an experience which is worth more than all the money in the world

>>34598448
>n = n - 100
nigger what? why? substitite whatever number you want and this will never be true. Are you bring ironic?

>man has 100
>100 is stolen
>then he just sells shit for money resulting in no loss of money otherwise why the fuck would he sell the shit in the first place it doesn't matter if the girl used his stolen 100 or her own or whatever that doesn't fuckibg matter

>>34596389
The womon litterally just stole 1o0 from the guy since she came in with nothing and left with 70 worth of oreganami and 30 bucks but she also stole his hart

>>34598581
yeah say there's $1000 in the register.
The woman takes $100, so there's now $900.
She gives the man $100 to pay for her $70 of goods. There is now $1000 in the register.
He gives her back $30 in change. There is now $970 in the register.
$970 - $1000 = -$30

>>34598703
If she didn't stole the $100
$1000 in the register
She gives him a $100
Now there is $1100.
He gives her $30 back.
$1070 in the register now.
That's $100 more than he has in the scenario you described

>>34598703
>>34598909
Or another way to put it. If she bought a shit worth all the $100 she stole, does it mean it's like nothing happened? No he lost a fucking $100. If she bought a product with that money she got a $100 worth product for free that would otherwise end up in this guys cash register.

>>34596389
Here are the transactions laid out in a sequence to show how the end amount would be arrived at:

Woman steals $100 (Owner has now has a loss of $100)

Woman now gives back $100 to pay for goods (Owner loss it now $0)

Owner gives goods to woman worth $70; this is where the situation diverges from reality. In reality, this $70 would be recorded as sales revenue and, depending on the inventory system, a Cost of Goods Sold Expense would be recorded. This COGS would be the extra expense the owner would incur.

The owner gives back $30 of cash.

The ultimate loss would be $30 + whatever the cost of inventory was (some amount lower than $70, as it is logical to assume the store owner would sell the goods for a price higher than he purchased them for).

I know it says not to overthink it, but this is how the situation would occur in reality.

File: gesualdo.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>34598971
I also am drunk so please disregard grammatical errors.

>>34598703
you forgot that she stole $70 worth in goods

>>34598971
>This COGS
God, this is why people call accountants autistic. The reality is he lost $100 and that's it:

-100 in cash
+100 in cash
-70 in goods
-30 in cash

Nets to 100 bucks. Don't need to get into this COGS crap

>>34598971
>woman buys shit for $70 and the guy earns some amount of money based on blahblahblah
or
>woman first steals $100 and then buys shit for $70 and the guy earns some amount of money basedon blablabla

The net difference in these scenarios is the $100 she stole and that $100 is the only money this guy loses

I don't know the answer because I think I'm overthinking it. I've realized that's been my problem my entire life, I just think more than other people and it's been my downfall.

>>34599068
People that answered this post on normiebook were
>50% wrong because they are just stupid cunts
>40% wrong because they overthink it
>10% correct
Don't worry anon you are just like "other people"

Technically, the answer is $100; however, the typical retail mark-up at an average store is 250% from the vendor's price, so the store owner likely only paid $28 for the $70 of merchandise.

>Dumb roastie risked 5 years of prison for $58

>>34596389
I would say that the store suffered a shrink of $100.

>>34599035
>>34599055
I'm not arguing the intended answer to the problem is $100; I'm just saying the reality of the situation is more complicated

>>34596389
A: 100, B:0 -> A:0, B:100 -> A:70,B:30.
100 - 70 = 30.

>>34599137
It's $100 even in reality because whatever shit he earns, loses whatever by selling her shit will always be $100 les than what would happen of she bought it woth her own money and not the $100 stolen from the guy

>>34596743
Damnit anon that made me burst out laughing

100 bucks, sad how stupid /r9k/ is nowadays

>>34599149
let's say the shot she boight costs $100
A:100, B:0
A:0,B:100
A:100,B:0
100 - 100 = 0
So he didn't lose anything in thos scenario or are you just retarded?

>>34599163
I think you and I are looking at it from, fundamentally, two different viewpoints. Yours is from the "potential earnings lost from a transaction that would occur through normal dealings".

Mine is from the point of accounting procedure and loss based on the basis he put into the goods.

Ultimately, the outflows from his store owner are the $30 of his own money (given in the change) and the goods. The goods cost him (meaning he purchased the goods) a certain amount, likely less than $70. He would report this cost, before it is sold, in inventory or purchases based on the accounting system used.

Then, when the goods are sold, the price that the store owner bought them for would be the expense.

The ultimate effect on his income and assets would be:
COGS: Whatever he paid for goods
Loss from theft: $30
Sales Revenue: $70
Cash: reduction of $30
Decrease in Inventory: Whatever he paid for the goods

If you disagree fundamentally with how the transaction should be view, there's nothing more I can say I suppose. Just that this is how it would be handled from an accounting viewpoint.

>>34596389
It's worded ambiguously. Are you just talking about the money? Are you including the stuff she bought? Is it a trick question and we're really supposed to be looking for what she "took" in all regards? There's no correct answer because we don't know what the question is asking.

>>34596625
If none of your normiebook friends can explain the conclusion correctly, I think you need to find smarter friends.

File: image.jpg (73KB, 628x592px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 628x592px

>>34596389
It's $100

t. asset protective specialist and this meme is going around

$100

>>34598971
>>34596545
shut up you dumb accountants.
opportunity cost

I'm not quite sure why people are thinking it's anything other than $100. She took $100 and did whatever she wanted with it, regardless if she bought something in his store, or any other...

>>34599368
It's not the only way it is not $100 might be this>>34599353 even though I still think it's the same shit

>>34599404
not my friends fortunately, just people from the page I liked that posted it

>>34599432
If stealing the $100 caused her to buy goods that the store would not have otherwise sold it is appropriate to deduct the markup.

>>34599409
>asset protective specialist
I can't believe so many people are having trouble with the problem that you actually felt the need to include this. I don't say this because I think I'm particularly smart; I just can't imagine anyone I know getting it wrong. This should be a no-brainer to anyone with the most basic grasp on math or economics.

>>34599409
this
$70 in goods and $30 in cash

>>34596389
Probably around 80 bucks, depending on how much he bought the goods for.

File: __drawn_by_teikoku_shounen__sample-be98dd87e3197dbda695e3c208513ce0.jpg (242KB, 850x637px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 850x637px

>>34598414
Actually that's another thing what's the current exchange rate of the dollar?

What is the value of the products that have been bought in a foreign country?

For the record no one in this thread is overthinking anything in fact they're probably underthinking it

File: 1449874547230.jpg (228KB, 2529x1377px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 2529x1377px

>>34596743
>suicide attempt fails, he's now a semi-conscious vegetable
>loses the ability to die

>>34599419
>"Opportunity cost refers to a benefit that a person could have received, but gave up, to take another course of action. Stated differently, an opportunity cost represents an alternative given up when a decision is made. This cost is, therefore, most relevant for two mutually exclusive events,"

>"In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost, also known as alternative cost, is the value (not a benefit) of the choice of a best alternative lost while making a decision. A choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives"

In the situation, the store owner made no decision. There was no "opportunity", thus no opportunity cost. It was one individual stealing from another against his will, not one person making a decision and undertaking a potential cost.

>>34599409
VA:LUE OF ASS ETS

Just think of the stuff of what was stolen, its crazy but they could have been doing the shop owner a favor by being a thief

Let's say the owner has $300 in assets: $150 in cash and $150 in merchandise. Roastie steals $100 of cash. Owner now has $50 in cash and still has $150 in merch, asset value = $200. She comes back and buys $70 worth of merch with the $100 bill, and receives $30 in change, so now the owner has $120 in cash and $80 in merch. He still has a total asset value of $200.

Thinking of it like >>34596421 did is a good way to cut out all the middlemen, because it doesn't matter where the 100$ came from for the normal business transactions.

Technically he lost $100 - the profit he made off of the merch, because if he's selling it for $70 he bought it for less than $70, and he would have recuperated some of that stolen $100 in the profit margin of the goods.

>>34596389
$100 minus the profit margin of the $70 item that the lady bought

>>34596389
C - $100.

She stole $100.
It doesn't matter what she bought with it or how much she used.

$100 - profit from sale of $70 (who knows what the fuck that is)