A question suited for only the peak intellects of the world

I have a question I have been pondering. I heard that the so called "alt-right" is the most intelligent community around, so surely, you guys will have no trouble solving this problem

>a thief steals 100$ from a store
>he later returns to the store and picks up 70$ worth of groceries
>at the cash, he pays the cashier using the stolen 100$ bill
>she gives him his 30$ in change and the thief leaves the store

the question: how much money has the store lost?

feel free to answer, as different viewpoints expand our world view

100$

explain your reasoning

200$

The store lost $100.

$70 worth of groceries and $30 in currency.

>Our

Meaning who's?

so is your answer 30, 70, or 100?

I solved your Moms problem last night.

>how much money has the store lost
none, it all came out of the cashiers paycheck

100 dollars this is a closed system and their are no donations money is transferred and changed in form he starts by stealing 100 and changes 70 of that into 70 dollars worth of grocery assets and is returned 30 of the stolen money in this situation money can't be created or destroyed so now he has 30 from the store in cash and 70 from the store in groceries

>steal 100$ from store income
>with said money acquire 70$ worth of goods
>then he gets another 30$ as change

The 100$ won't cover the 70$ of goods and 30$ of change because it came from the store pocket.

$70 stock and $30 cash

$100
He stole $100
Not hard

14,88$

$100, I'm not playing your game and separating the value of currency from the value of the goods.

You trade money for goods. $70 in groceries and $70 in paper money are in essence the same thing.

100 dollars.

The dollar sign goes in front of the numbers you faggot e.g $100.

this

Its a pretty retarded thing to ask, you should do as your pic and hang yourself for being a moron.

100$, since the groceries are of value, too.

The store lost 100 dollars.

By paying for 70 dollars of goods with stolen money he essentially just stole 70 dollars worth of goods.

100$ minus the margin the store put on the groceries

None at all. The thief was actually the Jewish owner making a insurance fraud. So he only gained!

The store lost everything because the jews took it all.

but what if they expired and the store had to throw them away

>The store lost $100.
>"WICH WUN UR FINAL ASNSWER??"
Come on man, you can read

>nobody is even bothering to ask why the cashier would do business with the dude who just stole one hundred dollars from them

the store bought the groceries for lower price, than it sells that shit.
lets say this particular store has stuff, that was bought for 150$. the thief will come and steal a 100$ bill from cash register. than comes back and buys groceries for 70 bucks, but the store bought that amount of stuff for like 57 or something. that means, that the store, in this particular example, lost 13 dollars (70- 57) less, than it would seem

If you knew anything about accounting youd know the cost of good bought and the cost of goods sold is very important to a balanced book. I thought the alt right were smart?

what does he care

it seems as if everyone is arriving at the same answer which proves the point that this place is nothing more than a hivemind echochamber

let's see some original thought in here

a 100$ was stolen from the store, what other reasoning do you need?

>being such a bad thief that you only manange to swipe a single $100 bill

...

don't forget about VAT

i forgot to say, that the stuff, which was bought for 150 sells the store for 200

>the guy walked up to the till
>"Mornin lads just here to pick up 100 stollen USD"
>"Sure thing pal"
He was probably never identified

The grocery loses 30 dolla plus what they paid for the groceries ( an unknown percentage of 70 )

The 70 dollars they got back cannot cover the groceries price cause they already covered the price of other groceries when they were received at start, before being stolen.

Praise Kek.

Jesus christ are you guy fucking retarded:

>Steals so -100
>Comes and buys good worth 70 bucks
>Lets just think that they are woth 70 bucks because i dont know what the store is selling

The Store lost 170 dollars

>thief steals 100$ from a store
Yeah, don't care what nogs do

Also $100 dollars, $30 + $70 in goods

>Provide base information and ask a basic question
>Expect a detailed answer taking into account multiple variables that would have to be assumed

Don't be retards, obviously the whole thing is dumbed down to make a point.

now this is the kind of original thinking I was hoping for from the alt right

>ask brainlet questions
>expect brainlet answers

just fuck off to then

>it seems as if everyone is arriving at the same answer which proves the point that this place is nothing more than a hivemind echochamber

thats also what i told my teacher when everybody thought 2+2 was 4

be sure to cherrypick when you post this on ledid

>straightforward question with obvious answer
>ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE THE SAME OMG ECHO CHAMBER

fucking kill yourself
>but the goods are only worth X so resale value is a lie
fucking kill yourself twice

I don't think anyone has ever said the alt right is smart.

They lost 30$ and 70$ worth of groceries, which might be equal to slightly less then 70$ because stores can order food and other goods from distributing companies for cheap prices.
They also loss whatever interest that 100$ could have possibly made had it been place somewhere useful.
So how much did they lose?
Between 50$ to 110$ realistically.

>the store bought the groceries for lower price, than it sells that shit.
It's irrelevant. It's a store's goal to make profit. The unrealized profit is still a loss to be added to the effective prejudice.

An incommensurable amount. The store lost face by being tricked by the thief. They will never be able to buy back respect. Honorable sudoku is the only option left.

> hivemind echochamber
Is math an echo chamber? Is logic an echo chamber?

The trade you engaged afterwards doesn't matter. Anyone could've gotten any groceries with any hundred dollar bill for $70 and gotten $30 in return.

>-100
>-170
>-70
>-100

Less than $100 of actual money spent, the store didn't pay $70 for the groceries purchased with stolen money, however they did lose $30 dollars of liquid currency and $70 of (earning potential + cost of merchandise). So yes there are several ways of looking at this. Happy merchant is indeed pic related.

He stole 100

Used 70 stolen to steal another 70.

The 30 in change doesn't change anything.

Almost 200$ worth he stole.

Put me in the screenshot I want lots of upboats.

Also you're a nigger, so include me calling you that too, demonize me.

>money
>$
federal reserve notes isn't real money

100 dollars, 70 dollars worth of goods and labour and 30 dollars of currency, depending on inflation and deflation that money could be worth more or less.

$170 plus the wage per hour of the person ringing him up.

$170 plus the wage per hour of the person ringing him up, security staff to discover he stole to begin with, management to explain this to superiors and superiors to explain to corporate or the owner.

Thousands of dollars.

Are you fucking retarded.

Also bait.

The 30 in change doesn't change anything for the equation. Do any of you know how change works?

He used 100 stolen on a purchase of 70$. He got 30 stolen back. He didn't steal another 30. Only another 70 in groceries did he steal. Y'all are fucking dumb as fuck.

This isn't some retarded trick you try to use to justify the common core, r-right?

Without considering the price of producing goods and selling them or other weird variables.
Lets rephrase:
>Imagine the cashier gave away $70 in goods and $30 because he is a good guy and hates his job too.
So the store loses $100 here.
>You then steal $100 because you are a cunt.
The store has lost $200 here.

>You see a documentary about niggers stealing so you decide to go back to the store and give the $100 you stole back because you are not a nigger.
The store wins $100 and has now only lost $100
Caching!

kill yourself

The right answers. This isn't so much about math than it is about word problems.

Nice political thread leaf. Really impressive.

Answer is you need to wipe my ass.

Nice. Keep thinking so.

it would be the first time an Indian has ever wiped their ass

meant to reply to

not all of the 70$ is profit. shops have to pay for goods too, so your riddle is uncertain and gay

He stole jailtime nigga!

100

Also. Alt-right is just a MSM meme and it doesnt exist. Shu shu shil!

Shit how is it going there bro?

Pheww.
I was intrigued by that answer, just about to type "What did he mean by this?"

Okay well lets make the numbers smaller so even a monkey can understand what i'm going to write down:

You have a friend ( he is black ).
He comes to your house and steals your 3 Dollars,
So you had 3 dollars and he had 0 dollars so now you have 0 Dollars and the negro has 3.

He cmes back after some time and wants to buy a watermelon from you.
The watermelon is worth 1 dollar,

So you give him the watermelon and he gives you 1 dollar.

In other words looking what changes is:


You Nigger
3 $ + 1W 0
0$ + 1W 3$
1$ + 0W 2$ + 1W

You lost 2 Dollars and 1 Watermelon


Same applies to the market

100 + 70 0
0 100
70 + 0 30 + 70

$130

there i think i got it

> how much money has the store lost?

Not as much as you've lost on your worthless philosophy degree leaf.

Under standard accounting rules, and assuming the store is a retail enterprise and not a manufacturer, the store lost $30 dollars plus the cost of the sold merchandise. (Not the market price at which it was sold)

Forgot to mention...

t. Accountant

Also, if this is a big retail chain they might just write off the whole thing as these chains just dismiss a fixed percentage of merchandise as "stolen or lost merchandise" every month.

x = -r is wrong

What stupid nigger only steals $100, plus if the store only had $100 in the drawer it would be in multiple denominations and the kike wouldn't have to give the nigger any change ffs

That's not correct at all you fucking retard. He didn't make $70 appear out of
thin air. It went back to the store, so they probably lost around $75 ($30 that he kept, and the $70 in goods he purchased that probably only cost the store around $45).