Why are central banks so bad at creating value?

...

They're awesome at creating value, just not for you.

Thats not how it works

Answer is C

But they don't create value. Creating new money, whether through printing or fractional reserve banking, has value but that value is removed/borrowed from existing money.

They create value for the rich scum who own the central bank.. No value for you.

Obviously $100. Why the fuck would you take a picture of this?

$170

$100

>implying that he took the picture

200.

100 dollar bill she took
70 worth of items
30 in change

=-200 in store loss

answer is clearly A

B since the sale included profit mark up.

top kek seriously?

its D you fuckin knucklehead

She gave him back the $100 bill when she bought the items. She only ended up with $30 cash and $70 worth of goods.

>Creating new money, whether through printing or fractional reserve banking, has value but that value is removed/borrowed from existing money.

That's right. And now (((they))) have the money they created for nothing, and you have the existing money that is now debased.

She gave him his 100$ bill back you fucking idiot so the answer is 100$

170

$70 of goods paid for with own money
$30 in change
$70 in missed sales

All depends on the mark up of the goods she purchased.

Cannot be answered without these facts.

Answer is D

They lost $30, and $70 worth of merchandise. They probably paid less than $70 for that merchandise so it's not quite as simple as saying they lost $100.

>Why are central banks so bad at creating value?
Their job isn't to "create value". They serve a different role in the economy.

Nah, 170 as he broke the bill she stole.

Because the currency they issue is backed by debt rather than assets (gold) or product (labor treasury certificates like Schachts approach)

Debt can be defaulted on (and often is) the other two represent value already there or imminently to be created.

S
I
H
T H I S

TH I S
TH I S
TH I S
TH I S
TH I S

T H I S
H
I
S

yeah the real answer is probably like $95 or something

the $70 for $70 worth of goods is not a loss, unless store is selling those goods at a loss
at this point the $100 is already stolen, and it can't be stolen again without being given back

(You)

>(You)

Thanks :D

this
If she took a 100 from the till, it's gone. She comes back buys $70 worth of goods with stolen money, so another 70 gone. She is then given 30 dollars in change. In cash and products, the store owner lost 200.

The owner lost 100 that she stole. The rest doesn't matter.

Which is theft, as far as I'm concerned.

the first 100 dollar she took off is independent transaction.LOST

second transaction is totally independent,your grandfather would have walked in with the very same 100 dollar,now its an even deal,70$ good + 30$ in return.

No wonder you guys are in so much debt.

1. loses 100
2. gains 100
3. loses 70
4. loses 30

70 + 30 = 100

Therefore the answer is C

And people don't give a fuck. They only care about buying new iPhone, posting on twitter while shitting and watching cats on youtube. Even here on Sup Forums where people are supposed to be redpilled don't talk about it, instead they pay more attention to niggers, muslims and retarded CNN news. So I say let them do it!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Nah.

100$ initially ($100tot)
Give it back ($0tot)
Gets 70$ worth of stuff ($70tot)
Gets 30 from the cuck owner ($100tot)

Answer is 100 senpai

From Owner's Perspective:
-100$ (stolen cash)
-70$ (item)
+70$ (pays)
EQUALS:
NET -100$ loss

Jews

this

The owner only loses $100 if they sell their goods at cost, in which case the store wouldn't be open for very long anyway.

The answer is 170,she sold that milk after the sudden inflation.

The answer is obviously B.

>$100 cash lose
>purchases $70 worth of items at retail price
>these items were ordered by the store at 50-60% of MSRP
>out of the initial $100 cash lose, $70 of it is spent to purchase items worth $40 to the store owner
>store owner loses $30 in cash and $40 in merchandise
>total loses for the owner are $70

Gas them all.

See

Nope

>Owner has $100 and an X worth $70.
The owner has total assets worth $170.

>Scenario 1 - question on the OP
-100 - 70 + 100 - 30 = -$100
He's left with $70.

>Scenario 2
Nothing gets stolen, customer comes in, buys X.
Total $170.


If his total assets end up being $70 from $170, he lost $100.

How much did the store owner pay for the 70 dollars worth of goods?

But that's assuming that the $70 worth of merchandise purchase with stolen money is worth that to the shop owner. As I said, shops buy items at around half of their retail price and that wholesale price is what the shop owner lost.

Nah markup is probably like 50% or more.

So? Markup is considered part of the worth of the assets. Accounting 101 bitch

Because central bank's function is to manage and regulate, not create value.

But the question is asking what the owners lose is. He can easily reorder the items bought for less than the price he sold them for.

And if that's true, a person could double the worth of their assets by buying wholesale and claiming it at a retail value.

>Which is theft, as far as I'm concerned.

Then punish the thieves.

(By the way it's $100 and anyone who answers otherwise is a complete idiot)

Well if that's the case, then...

>someone goes to a store and gives $70 to a store clerk for $70 worth of merchandise. How much money did the store make? $0 of course!

I guess stores can't make money then.

why the FUCK isn't 300 an answer?


100 dollar bill she took
70 worth of items
30 in change
100 dollar bill in missed sales

Nope. I see your point now but looking at it that way, you do have to take into account missed sales.
Let's say the item costs $10 and is sold at $70.

Assets: $100 bill + X worth $10

Assets after expected sales: $170

Loss before adjusting for missed sale:
-100 - 10 + 100 - 30 = -$40

Lost after adjusting for missed sale:
-100 - 70 + 100 - 30 = -$100


The missed sale adjustment that people were mentioning is already taking into account by everyone answering $100. If you calculate the loss without the markup, then you have to add that extra loss, being

>Price of sale - Original price
In my example $60.

No matter what the loss is $100.

I hate to agree with a leaf, but this one is correct.

The owner first loses 100 dollars because thief, then that same thief buys 70 dollars worth from the owner and the thief gets 30 dollars back; so in total the thief has 70 dollars worth in goods + 30 dollars from the stolen 100 dollars. He thus still has in principal 100 dollars. The owner however, lost much more. 100 dollars from his own money/register that was his to begin with and 70 dollars in goods. Because the thief bought the stuff with his money to begin with, implying double loss.

>A lady walks in the store and steals $100 bill from the register without the owners knowledge. A completely different person 5 minutes later buys $70 worth of goods with a completely different $100 bill. The owner gives the completely different person $30 in change, how much did the owner lose????

100 out of the till.
70 worth of items missing.
30 in change.

I steal 100 from you.
I then buy 70 dollars worth of your stuff with your 100. You just lost 70 dollars in goods. Then gave me 30 in change. Off your money.

I gain 70 dollars in goods and 30 dollars in cash.

You lost 100 in cash, 70 dollars in goods, and 30 in change.

I stole 100 dollars worth in the end. You lost 200.

This is true. If we were as redoubled as we say we wouldn't be on here arguing with strangers

Less than 100. Depends what the true cost of the goods were.

$170.

As the till is effectively short $100 dollars and he's now short the sale value of the product.

Whifff... its C

E.

As normally a transaction is considered a zero sum as the sale value of the product is deducted (it's kikery but also true as you can always sell it later). So the till will be $100 short compared to how the normal transaction takes place and the store will be 'short' the sale value of the product.

He lost $30 from that one customer, if you view her as creating a "tab".

He lost $100 from her due to theft. That is the only time he lost money in an illegitimate way, so it's impossible for the answer to be higher than $100, no matter how you look at the question.

He lost $100 and the lady leaves. She has $100 of his money that she can spend on whatever she wants. If she never returns to the store then he will remain at -$100.

She comes back into the store, and makes a legitimate transaction. This doesn't get subtracted from the tab because it's a legitimate transaction, she spent money in his store.

$200
Lost $100 from the person who gave him the $100 first then another $100 when she gave the $100 back to him for the items and $30

$100
Think of it like this, instead of the thief coming back and spending the stolen money another customer spends $70.

>when the image is more interesting than the post

Try arguing about it and you are swarmed in ancap strawman ball memes. Fighting the banking shenanigans has been the number one issue of the libertarian (not that faggot Johnson in the US) platforms.

The store's books would show a $100 discrepancy

Depends on the profit margins of what she bought.

Effectively it's like her stealing $70 or store credit and $30 cash. Store credit is worth less than cash.

>or

*of

Depends on the margins.