This post is going viral on facebook, I can't help but

200 dollars

>>8601765
get out of sci

>>8601762
garbage math strikes gain
http://www.flyingcoloursmaths.co.uk/new-years-resolution-genius-sic/

100 dollars

>>8601762
100 dollars in basic terms
More than 30 dollars in an economic sense.

I say this because the general idea of business is that for the market, those 70 dollars are worth more than the food, and for the cusotmer that food is worth more than 70 dollars.

So in the story, the thief traded 70$ of hard cash for what the store valued at maybe 60$ of food. So they lost 60$ of value, plus 30$ of hard cash so about 90.

But in reality, the amount the store actually values that food could be all over the place. Maybe the store values that food at 1$, which means they lost 99$. But as we do not know how much they value their products, the only correct answer is:

They lost more than (inclusive) 30$.

>>8601776
Where the fuck is food ever mentioned?

File: 7cff7f1c580e4c3f96d6385b942f8650.jpg (372KB, 1191x1536px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1191x1536px

>>8601762
Post a real math challenge to FB instead of all this bs crap.
Here you go.
Pic related.

>>8601776
>which means they lost 99$

I meant 31$

>>8601783
It is a store. I just thought of a grocery shop but maybe what they sell is sex toys. It doesn't really matter. The point that I'm making is that the answer is not well defined and could be any number in the closed interval [30,100]

>>8601776
>More than 30 dollars in an economic sense.
If you are going to get complex then you should also bring up legal views. A purchase with stolen money is not a valid legal transaction.

>>8601785
You do know nonsense like that doesn't really mean anything? It's just power fantasy for science geeks.

>>8601791
Why would the interval be [30, 100]? It could be [-inf, inf]. What if the store is selling products with price under the costs?

>>8601802
So they lost no money because they can get it back heh

>>8601831
>What if the store is selling products with price under the costs?

Well, because if you sell something for 70 dollars then that usually means that you value that thing at less than 70 dollars, which is why you are selling it for that amount. So it the interval cannot go above 100, as that would imply a store is selling something they value at 71$ for 70$ and that makes no sense.

And objects cannot have negative value. At least not objects that are sold.

So realistically the interval is (30,100). It makes more sense as an open interval because they lost at least more than 30$ and less than 100$

>>8601845
You are not using your big brain to think.

Event 1.
Store bought a dog for 70 dollars and sells it for 70 dollars.

Event 2.
Store bought a golden dog for 700'070 dollars and sells it for 70 dollars to get rid of it.

Event 3.
Store brought the cursed dog from a mysterious man who claims that if they ever get it sold, he will give the store 1'000'070 dollars.

So the store either loses zero dollars, loses 700'000 dollars, or wins 1 million dollars.

Brain. Use it.

>>8601876
>Store bought a dog for 70 dollars and sells it for 70 dollars.

Would never happen

>Store bought a golden dog for 700'070 dollars and sells it for 70 dollars to get rid of it.

Would never happen

>Store brought the cursed dog from a mysterious man who claims that if they ever get it sold, he will give the store 1'000'070 dollars.

Would never happen and I once read a book that had this plot. There was a cursed object that you had to sell to get rid of. The protagonist bought it for like 1 cent and then I don't know if he had to sell it for more or less. It was a long time ago. I had something to do with the devil and a bottle.

>>8601909
>Would never happen
The master economist strikes again! He has spoken! According to Heavenly Laws of The Trade, you are never allowed to sell a product at negative or zero profit!

>>8601762
$100

>>8601919
>you are never allowed

You are allowed, but in economics you also have to assume that people are not fucking retarded.

We can safely assume that a business would never sell something at a loss.

>>8601919
Okay, just to be constructive.

>Stockholder buys stock for 100 dollars
>Soon it's value is 90 dollars
>"Uh oh, well I hope it doesn't lose any further value."
>Soon, value is 50 dollars
>"Nope, I can't sell it. Such things would never happen."
>Value is now 20 dollars
>"Can't sell. Don't know why, but I can't sell it."
>Value is now 0 dollars. Company goes bankrupt.
>"Nope, I won't give you my stock."

>>8601929
You sell at loss to prevent further, larger loss. Same applies to opposite scenario. You don't need to sell at profit if you can wait to sell at larger profit.

You got this amazing gadget called brain and imagination. Use it.

>>8601933
Those are really extreme scenarios that are never considered in usual economic analysis.

File: IMG_2765.gif (858KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 240x228px

$100.

$70 of merchandise.
$30 cash.

How retarded are you guys?

>>8601950

LOL!!

you are a fucking retard for so many reasons

>>8601791
Shouldn't it be [30,inf]?
The value of the food can't be minus right

>>8601973
They're arguing over the value of the merchandise. I agree with you however, someone else could have bought that merchandise for the $70 making them lose a total of $100

>>8601920

>>8601982
Yes, but such an scenario is very unrealistic. But whatever. I guess it is true that it should be (-inf,inf) if you include super extreme scenarios.

>>8601950
Black hole is pretty extreme scenario too and led to the discovery on how the entire universe was born.

Owner loses 100 $ due stealing
Owner loses 70 $ due given goods
Owner gains 100 $ due payment
Owned loses 30 $ due change

Total loses 200$
Total gains 100 $

Total total -100$

A: 100$

>>8601785
How is this relavant to anything? Total circlejerk if you aske me.

>>8601762
$30 and $70 worth of tampons

>>8601987
Unrealistic doesn't really mean anything, it is a math question

>>8601994
Obviously

anyone not saying 100
>pls go back to basic addition and subtraction.

>>8601987
Not unrealistic at all. You don't have much experience in high level trade if you think products/services can't have negative prices or negative profits.

>>8602011
The only time I've seen stores potentially selling at a loss is when a store burns down or when a business files for bankruptcy and just tries to desperately bring in one last breath of cash.

And even then, products are typically so over priced that even a 50% discount could still be a profit. Specially in the clothing industry, for example.

>>8601762

>tfw i had to think this through 3 times when i saw it on fb to get it right

am i a brainlet?

>>8601762
Hello, my name is Simon.

I am so proud and joyful that america has found my message.

Counter-measured B2 BR Ratio => 0.5

Would you like me to explain the purpose of my programming? It may take some time.

But it has to be choice. I will not take that from you.

Ever again.

Hello. My name is Simon.

>>8601992
Owner gains [math]x\in\mathbb{Q}_{>0}[/math] $ due to profit on sold goods

A: 100 - x $

>>8601973
He didn't buy the merchandise at 70 dollars you fucking nigger thats marked up

Less than 100.. we can't know for sure

>>8601973
>>8602298
Wait, I thought about it again

If the merch was guaranteed to be sold at some point the he lost his expenses(x) + 30 $ + 70$

More than 100 goybucks

>>8602308
BR Ratio = 0.4

You require 0.5 to reach 'critical mass' in order to collapse your function to 1.

goybucks introduces suffering to some people.

>>8601762

They lost a little bit less than $100. Maybe $95, because of the profit margin.

>>8602329
Yeah so he lost $95 plus $5 profit so in total he was kyped out of $100

A man comes onto the store and buys a product for 70$
how much has the owner gained
>he didn't gain anything because he lost the product
no, that way of looking at it is pointless and stupid.
The answer is 30$. He got stolen 100$ but made 70$ profit afterwards.

>woman walks in with 0 money
>leaves with 70 dollar dress
>leaves with 30 dollars change

its not rocket science desu

>>8602183
But none of that is given in the problem. We know the merchandise was valued at $70 had it been sold to anyone else therefore we can safely say they lost $100

>>8602011
Any normal person would assume they were selling it for profit normally. Stop stroking dick.

>>8602329
There is no profit. None of you dumbasses saw the lady bought 70 dollars of product for 70 dollars.

Since it said don't overthink, i thought it must be the first thing that comes to mind, so some sum or difference, so either 170 or just 30.
Then after 10 seconds of actually thinking about it, i arrived at the conclusion it must be 100 dollars. But it said don't over think it.

>>8602633
You idiot. You absolute retard. You monkey.
Don't you know that HUMANS pay in order to sell back at higher price and have profit? We are not niggers, we don't steal. That means he lost LESS than 100

>>8602641
>it said dont over think it
>taking nigger directions from kikebook literally

it's almost as if you want to be laughed at

he lost an item worth 70$ (bitch used stolen 100$ bill to pay)
and the owner then gave the bitch 30 in change

100$

stop with your retarded and autistic [-inf , inf] conjunct shit, the problem can be solved with aritmethics.

File: 1475258280801.png (10KB, 521x503px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 521x503px

step aside nerdlets

>>8601776
>those 70 dollars are worth more than the food, and for the cusotmer that food is worth more than 70 dollars
The general idea of trade is that items of equal value are traded against each other. I pay $70 to get something worth $70.
>the thief traded 70$ of hard cash for what the store valued at maybe 60$ of food.
Not true. There are a lot of elements that are included in the price of a good:
>the buying/production price of the good
>house rental costs or mortgage (for the store building)
>utilities such as electricity, water, heating, air conditioning
>advertising costs
>employee salaries
>added value
>tax
Undeniably, the first 5 elements are crucial for the seller to maintain his business. In your example, this may be $60. The remaining $10 are added value, and tax.
The added value is important for the business to stay lucrative: if the business makes no money, it is no business at all, but a non-profit organization. The seller has decided (or the free market forced him) that he wants to make (e.g.) $3 dollars of profit. Now because of the theft, he isn't making those $3, which he could have made if he still had the item. He is losing money in opportunity costs (correct me if im wrong on this one).
As for the tax: The tax is ultimately paid in total by the buyer, and then forwarded to internal revenues by the seller. In this case, the seller has to forward the tax to internal revenues even though it was paid for with the money that was stolen from his store.
>So they lost 60$ of value, plus 30$ of hard cash so about 90.
The seller lost 100 dollars.

>>8601776
>>8602792
From the buyer's perspective, the first 5 elements obviously go into his buying experience as well: He now has the item worth 60 dollars, he was able to buy that stuff in a store building with heating, he found that store through advertising, and there are employees helping him. He is indirectly using all these services too and paying for them.
The added value is typically decided by the free market, and is not something the store decides nilly willy. This is best seen in certain electronics items. The price will be very similar if not the same across several independant stores.
Theoretically, the buyer could re-sell the item immediately at the same price (or i guess slightly lower because you don't have employee salaries, advertising, etc). It would work with items like DVDs or video games, but probably not with food. You would think he can't resell the item for the same price because the 'added value' falls away, but actually the 'added value' is just zero in this case, meaning from your new buyers' perspective, the added value is the same added value they would pay for in a store.

economically speaking, the thief is only losing the tax money, which would be up to $7 depending on what state he came from.

He did lose $100 worth though, $30 cash and the potential $70 profit from selling the products to a actual customer. I think you guys are overthinking it a bit.

>>8602487
Fucking finally

>>8601762

Well, the question is dumb on multiple levels.


The net loss for the owner:

1. $30 of cash
2. $70 of merchandise


That's all we know. Reading into and interpreting, "how much...lose" further is pointless.

>>8602741
You forgot the value of the goods.

>>8601776
>Do not overthink it
>/sci/'s autism goes through the roof
this is why no one talks to you.