Tell me why it is not 200

Tell me why it is not 200

he lost $30 and lost the profit of the goods the guy bought

But the register is still short and she stole $70 worth of goods.

He lost 100.
30 from the change and 70 from the value of the goods.

Tell you why it's not 200? really? How about tell you why it isn't 30...

The answer is the owner is short 30 bucks and the cost of whatever the goods were. However you should probably also factor in some other costs of sale to those goods because you need premises and employees to sell the shit. So the answer is 30 bucks and fuck off.

>american education

>leaf

$170

Are you retarded?

he lost $30 dollars plus the cost to the sotre owner of the items of the stuff in the store he bought for $70

>70 from the value of the goods
but he's making profit from selling overpriced goods (thats how stores work), so he wouldnt have lost the full 70$, just a smaller percentage, depending on how much he rips his normal costumers off.

for example if he buys at half the price he sellfs, he only lost 70$*0.5 + 30$, ie 65$

And I consider myself bad with numbers

1512.87403 SEK

He lost 100 minus the profit from the goods he sold.

>has 100 stolen from him
>trades 100 worth of goods and bills for 100 worth of bills
the second transaction is irrelevant

I stwal a 100. The register is short of a 100. I buy goods of 70 using the 100 i stole. I get 30 in change. 130 less in the register 70 less in cogs

It's 100, 30 in cash and 70 in product.

ORIGINAL TOTAL
>-$100 (money stolen)
>+$100 (money returned in $70 purchase)
>-$30 (change for $100 bill)
>-$70 (worth of goods)

He lost $100, including the price of the goods. $30 if you ignore them.

100>loss>30

>A guy walks into a store and steals a $100 bill from the register without the owners knowledge. Five minutes later a completely different person comes in and buys $70 worth of goods with a different $100 bill. The owner gives him $30 in change, how much money did the owner lose?

This poor shop keep keeps getting robbed

$100

$130.

the answer is 30 you faggots

$270 you fucking morons.

Ok, this is stupid.

Heil Hitler. REMOVE ALL NUMBERS

Eighty seven cents for the shotgun shell it takes to put the fucker on the ground.

You have no way of knowing what the owner lost except that it's over $30. He lost $30 and stock to an unknown value.

/thread

because change isn't a loss are you dumb?

Forget the retail price how much was the product per unit at store cost?

THIS
Unless the shop owner is retarded and is selling at cost

Assuming the thief goes back to the same store he stole the $100 from...

The $100 goes back into the store's register so there's no loss from the theft, but the $70 dollars cost of the goods along with the $30 in change have led to a $100 dollar deficit for the store owner. Thus the store is down $100.

Because George Bush hates black people

Holy shit burger education, its $30

He initially loses $100, then the same person gives him a $100 bill for $70 worth of goods. So right now, hes lost nor gained nothing. Then, because it was $70 of goods, he has to give $30 of change. Not counting the $70 worth of goods, he lost $30.

HE STOLE 100 $
HE BOUGHT 70$ WORTH OF GOODS
HE RETURNS 30$ as change
100+70-30 = 140$ WORTH OF GOODS STOLEN

what the fuck does this have to do with Sup Forums

sage

It's not 30, it was always 100, and it remains 100. 70 dollars in goods and 30 dollars in cash.

100 u cucks

He lost $30.

However, because it's unknown how much the owner paid for the good s-- in terms of how much he actually lost in terms of shrinkage is unknowable based on the information in this post. It could be anywhere between $30 and $100 worth in value.

But he only lost $30 in MONEY.

$200 is completely incorrect.

How is buying something with stolen money not shoplifting?

Owner lost $30 plus whatever the owner paid for the $70 worth of retail goods.

the $100 was stolen from the owner.

the later transaction makes no difference if you assume that the owner sells things for however much they are "worth", which will be more than the amount he paid for them so that he can make a profit.

if you assume that goods are really only worth what the owner paid for them, then $100 minus the amount of profit the owner makes on the goods. if you assume that you're also probably a Marxist though.

The problem is we don't know how much potential profit he wouldve made from the $70 worth of goods.

THE ANSWER IS 100 YOU FUCKING BRAINKEKS

SEE

nope. The actual cost to the owner is unknown. It could be anywhere between $30 and $100.

But based on the information we know concretely, he lost $30 in MONEY.

/thread

>takes 100
>gives 100 back (=0)
>recieves 100 worth of cash and goods
He lost 100 (30 cash/70 goods), you subhuman leaf.

Joke's on you, the different $100 bill was actually the original stolen $100. This new information completely changes the answer, somehow!

You're still retarded.

He essentially traded the 100 he stole for the 70 dollar product + thirty in change

So the store is out the cost of the product + the dudes change
Why is this difficult, and why is this on Sup Forums?

sage

Owner loses $100

I tried to phrase it in a general way, maybe by phrasing wasnt correct but my point that he lost $30 plus whatever profit from he would've usually made from the $70 worth of goods is correct.

100 you thick cunts. Just because the nigger bought some stuff with the 100 dollars he stole doesn't mean the owner didn't lose 100 dollars. Spastics.

the expected price of the goods he would get is 70 dollars. 70 dollars is what was stolen from him. The profit you stole from him was his labor. it's still 100.

1,000,000 for violating the NAP.

Paper money has no value

The owner is short $130 plus the cost of the goods from the supplier

That's not what was asked.

The question is how much money did he LOSE.

He definitely lost $30, and he lost whatever the cost of the goods was to him which is unknowable but somewhere between $0 and $70. So the total is $30 +-35 error. But for our answer, he only lost concretely $30.

why is this even a problem? are people fucking stupid? am I being an aspie falling for the troll?

if the 100 bucks wasn't stolen, the owner would've gotten 70 for the goods, that's 70 in revenue

instead he got 100 stolen, which is a loss of 100 even if the thief comes back to pay for 70 worth of goods, because instead of 70 in cash he just loses 70 in goods, makes no difference to the bottom line

he's down 100 from the moment the 100 was stolen

Walks in with nothing
Walks out with 30 dollars from the register and 70 dollars of goods

Here's another way to put it

>Nigger steals $100 dollars
>Decides he doesnt want the $100 dollars, puts it back in the register, decides to steal a $70 dollar subwoofer for his niggermobile and $30 dollars from the register

How much did the owner lose?

Short $100 idiots