Serious question for those buying the switch at launch

Serious question for those buying the switch at launch

the xbox scorpio is going to drop in price soon with the S releasing in fall

PS4 is already down in price and the Pro will no doubt have a sale during the fall

my question is knowing all this wouldn't the smart thing to do be to wait? the launch line up is terrible , online service now has a fee and the games you get from it disappear after a month so you are just paying to use online and demo NES and SNES games for a month.


why buy it at launch?

$170

$100

Owner lost $70 worth of merchandise and the $30 change

Whoever responds to the picture is a retard no matter the answer.

Fuck off op.

This desu.

STOP TRYING TO KEEP THE XBOX RELEVANT YOU FUCJKING MICROSOFT SHILLS.

THE XBOX IS THE MOST SHIT CONSOLE IN EXISTENCE, IT LITERALLY HAS 1 FUCKING EXCLUSIVE GAME

1
FUCKING
GAME

THE SWITCH HAS MORE EXCLUSIVES RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

FUCK THE XBOX NIGGA FUCK YOU FUCK MICROSOFT

ZELDA BREATH OF THE WILD
XBOX BTFO
XENOBLADE 2
XBOX BTFO
SPLATOON 2
XBOX BTFO
NO MORE HEROS 3
XBOX BTFO
DRAGONQUEST X
XBOX BTFO

WE CAN KEEP GOING FAGGOT

>my question is knowing all this wouldn't the smart thing to do be to wait? the launch line up is terrible
Nintendo systems don't drop in price for a while, I want Zelda and may as well get it on the switch since I want a bunch of other games coming out in the future for it. Hoping the new bomberman is good too, been so long since there's been a good bomberman released.

I have more than enough money to buy a switch without consideration of finances, and already own every other system released in the past... couple generations at least. I have an XBone and never play it since it doesn't get exclusives that interest me, and I don't see enough benefit in getting a PS4 pro over my current PS4.

And 100$ merch previously paid for by another costumer

well he didn't lose the value of the merch because it was paid by the $100

so he lost $30

for all we know he may have lost time in terms of value for the merchandise because it could have been homemade

Because Xbox is a fucking joke and I already own a PS4.

>Why buy it at launch?
Because it's launching at the exact right moment for me to take advantage of my birthday to help subsidize the cost. I'll buy it now and populate the library later.

>paid by the $100
Which was stolen from him

>He didn't lose the value of the merch
>That was paid for by money stolen from him

>taking a photo of your pc screen instead of a screenshot

$130

the $100, he gave away $70 worth of goods for money he already wouldve had, plus the $30 in change

it was lent back to him money is only paper that is made by the trillion in a factory somewhere in DC

Paid for by $100 he already had earned

shit, $200

Im retarded

He did not turn a profit because the money he got from the sale was paid for by money stolen from him. He basically traded his own goods for his own stolen money, so he earned no profit from it.

She steals 100$.
She goes back in and buys 70$ with of shit, but cashes the whole 100$ and gets 30$ back.

So he lost 170$. She stole the 100$, got 70$ worth of shit basically for free, and still left with 30$ from the initial 100$.

He gained nothing from the purchase.

He lost $100 dollars from the initial theft. You wouldn't count any part of the normal business transaction as a loss.

>DO NOT OVER THINK IT!

>200

How?

If she didn't steal anything at all and just paid for the goods the normal way, how much would he have lost? Nothing.

Now, she steals 100$ and does the exact same thing mentioned above. Clearly he lost 100$.

It was right the first time. The $70 he got back from the thief cancels out the $70 worth of merchandise the thief got. So it's $130.

This, the part you are not supposed to overthink is the theft because she gave it back, treat it as if it never happened. So in the end, she got free goods AND free money which totaled $100.

Whats leaving the shop in the end? $70 of goods and $30. So total is $100 worth. Simple.

But he won't make any profit from the goods if she paid for it using money stolen from him. So he lost $70 worth of goods, she kept $70 worth of goods and $30 in cash.

This

thats $70 of goods he payed for earlier that he lost

Your post is considered a response to the image as well, user.

Look at answers
>A
>B
>C
>D
>E
>F
>D
This problem is dumb

Thank god most of you fucks never made it past highschool and sit at home living off parents and NEET bucks.

jokes on you, I got an A in my macroeconomics class

$100
She originally took $100, but "traded" it for $100 worth of goods and bills. Owner essentially still lost $100.

Lol stupid question we do not know how much the owner bought the goods. If we count with 30% less then:
30 + (70 * 0.7) = 79 dosh

Yes, but if she bought it without the stealing beforehand, the owner would've had an additional 100 bucks.

The question is wether or not the purchase would have happened if the woman hadn't stolen beforehand.

You're right in the end, but your logic is retarded. The purchase is the part you're not supposed to think about because why would a normal sale result in a loss? And there's not enough information to work out profit so you treat it as a wash.

The only thing relevant to a loss is the 100 dollars initially stolen. Nothing after that matters unless she had stolen more or freely given some back.

$100

No, the collected loss is 100$ from the register and 70$ worth of shit purchased with his own stolen money. The 30$ she got back doesn't change the amount stolen because she already stole it, he just didn't know and gave it back.

She stole 100$, then got 70$ worth of shit essentially for free because she bought it with the store's own money.

So there's 170$ of capital/merchandise gone, with no gain for the store.

Let me break this down for you... for some reason

Net = 0
Lose $100
Net = -$100
Customer buys 70 dollars in groceries
Net = -$30
Owner loses the value of the groceries
Net = -$100

-100
the till starts at 0
removing the 100 puts it at -100. she gives it back, putting the till at 0. but the till should be +70 not 0 when she "buys" the merch, making the till show -30 when he gives her change. and then the stock accounts for the rest.

$100 minus the profit margin on those goods.

no he also lost the value of the goods 2 sence they were purchased with the money stolen from him. so wouldent he have lost 200?

no

he loses 100 dollars
>-100

she gives him 100
>0

he gives her 70 dollars of merchandise
>-70

he gives her 30 dollars in change
>-100

Last couple generations of home consoles have been lack luster.

PS1 > PS2 > PS3 > ???

NES > SNES > N64 > GC > ???

XBOX > XBOX 360 > ???

Everything as of late has been a marginal improvement, at best, with a higher price tag to play.

No dude, she stole $100 dollars, everything else is completely irrelevant. The sale is a diversion from the problem which has no bearing on the question.

70 dollars of groceries was paid for with 70 dollars, that doesn't. 100 dollars was stolen, 100 dollars is missing.

What the fuck does this have to do with groceries?

No, any store transaction does not involve any profit for the consumer or seller. She just traded the $100 bill for $100 worth of bills and goods.

She steals $100.
Store: -$100

She comes back and "buys" $70 worth of goods which in a normal situation would be +$70 for the store except she pays with the $100 bill that is from the store.
Store: $0 in cash, -$70 in goods

The store owner, not knowing she gave him a $100 that belong to the store in the first place gives her back $30 in change
Store: -$30 in cash -$70 in goods

C. $100

doesn't matter*

$70 of HIS money

he gets the 100 back, but he already had it, so he essentially gave her $70 for free, plus the 30

No you fucking moron that's not how money works. She steals $100 so therefore the owner loses $100, its literally that simple.

the free market would fix it

>THE SWITCH HAS MORE EXCLUSIVES RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.
12 switch and bomberman?

Cause nothing else at launch is exclusive.

$0 because money and ownership are outdated concepts in a post-scarcity society.

>Steals $100

-100

>Buys $70 worth of stuff

-70

>$30 change

irrelevant, coming out of the original $100


Lady is +$30 and items bought ($70 value), lady is currently +$100

The register at the end of the night will be -$30, plus the $70 in merchandise. Markup prices ignored, he is -$100

Where do you live, I'll room with you so I don't have to pay rent.

delet your opinion

You're all forgetting that the store sells goods for a profit so $70 in goods doesn't mean a $70 loss for the owner

He lost $200.

t. lawyer

how did he get those goods? for free?

You can't assume it because you aren't told that. As far as anyone knows, the goods are, at worst, worth the price they are listed at.

The fuck are you talking about, the Scorpio isn't out.

>this fucking thread.

FOR THE GOOD OF ALL HUMANITY PLEASE DON'T REPRODUCE AND LET YOUR BLOOD LINE END WIITH YOU. I AM ACTUALLY TILTED.

FUCK YOU ALL.

taxes included they both lose money so assuming they live in california and the women bought greens and other food she would pay a 10% tax so overall she spent $70 in goods plus $10 in taxes

therefore the owner lost $80 plus the $100
$180

Yes it does.

Initial money to purchase the good in question. Selling it includes the cost of the product and also the profit.

The owner loses the product, AND the money. Therefore they are out the initial cost AND the profit of the good in question.

Therefore the owner lost $70 in goods and $100 from the stealing.

+$$$$ for emotional damages
+$$$$ for theft insurance claim

I already own an Xbone and PS4 and wanna get the switch as well. I could wait but eh, i'm really hyped for the portable console titles on it.

the 70 paid for goods includes the profit margin, you dolt

if you claim on insurance for damages you claim for profit loss as well, holy shit

>Sup Forums
>reproduce

kek.

While the person who wrote the question is retarded for not understanding the difference between wholesale and retail pricing, we must assume they meant for the goods to be worth the same for the owner and the thief or the problem would not be solvable.

A more accurate answer is the owner is out $30 and whatever it costs to replace the purchased goods.

No you moron. Think of it this way. She took $100 dollars. All she did was then turn $70 dollars of it into the goods, she kept the other $30 in cash.
If she had stolen the goods, then it'd be $170 in total. If she would have let him keep the change, then she only took $70. If she never stole anything, the owner would have made $70 dollars.
You don't count the POTENTIAL profit he would have made.
He only lost $100 dollars. $70 in goods, $30 in cash

It's more like 70$ lost, 70$ MSRP isn't worth much from the warehouse.

No, he paid less for them and is selling them for a profit

Of course you can assume that, it's a store.

But the owner of the store didn't buy those products for $70, he bought them for less money and is selling for more money.
For instance let's assume he bought those products for $60 and is selling them for $70.
He indeed lost $60 but he still has the $10 that he would have earned normally if this was a normal purchase

he's still out the amount he paid

Yes, but in my example he's down $90, not $100.

I'll help by trying to elaborate.

Before theft, the till is
>$0
After theft, the till is
>-$100
After groceries are rung up but before she pays
>-$170
After she pays the total with the stolen money
>-$70
But because the transaction is operating under the assumption that the till is balanced, she is owed her change.
>-$100

The problem is that though the till is short, it's not the next customer's responsibility to bring it to 0.

Otherwise you would see in stores:
>Sorry ma'am, I know you are expecting change for overpaying but the till says it's negative so we're using the rest to bring it to balance.

And for those that say the owner recovers their loss when she hands him the money back.

By that logic, the next customer in line has already contributed to the loss by handing money over.

I don't understand how you people manage to be this fucking retarded every single time, this is like a middle school question. The thread isn't even worth the replies.

oh the irony

> The $70 he got back from the thief cancels out the $70 worth of merchandise the thief got.
Dude, did you just discover how purchasing something from a store works?

This.

lost $100

she first takes 100 bucks, making him lose 100 and then she exchanges those 100 bucks for 70 worth of goods and 30 worth of cash

Alternatively (and I think the proper way to explain, since they did say 'don't overthink') all she did wrong was steal 100 bucks. Anything else she did was perfectly legal so it couldn't have generated loss. I would actually say that she didn't pay with 'the bill' but with a credit card or something, to confuse more people. It doesn't matter with what she paid

>You don't count the POTENTIAL profit he would have made.
But isn't that exactly what they do against pirates

Theft is a legal concept. The fact that there was a loss in profit would be taken into account when considering the owner's losses. Otherwise, why would he be selling at all, right?

...

What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm just saying he didn't lose $70, he lost less because he's selling those goods at a profit.

what kind of business sells their goods at cost? bullshit.

$100.

Stolen 100 used to "purchase" $70 items, given $30. $100 is back in register but they lost $70 worth of item and additional $30 from change.

Smart way to thunk of this is how much moneg wohld she have spent witbot stealing n $70

more like t. retard

There are businesses that actually pay you to take their shit, newbie.

This question is referencing the amount he lost to the theft in question. Theft takes into account the potential profit that he could have made.

He initially lost 100
He both gains and loses 70 as the money was orignally his and he loses 70 worth of goods to get it back so no net gain/loss
Then he loses an aditional 30 giving change
The man lost 130

That's just my opinion though.

>Smart way to thunk of this is how much moneg wohld she have spent witbot stealing n
Well when you put it like that

>Theft takes into account the potential profit that he could have made.

No it doesn't.

>Don't over think it
>89 replies

Never change Sup Forums

The answer is B. A would imply his profit from a $70 sale is $70, which is impossible considering he has to pay for the merch and his own wage/employees.

Answer C implies he makes no money off his $70 sale, which again is not how a business works.

B implies $70 of merch nets him a $30 profit, which is a pretty standard profit margin for consumer goods.

t. actually get a job you fucking neckbeards

Your opinion is wrong, my man.

what is she had paid with her own money? nobody would lose or gain anything, since he would get 100$ in cash and she would also get 100$, 70$ in goods and 30$ in cash. so net profit/loss is 0

but she first stole 100 bucks so that caused him to lose 100 bucks. that's all, the rest of the case doesn't matter.

>why buy it at launch?
because only retards buy consoles at launch

Really makes tou think

So I suppose we were all expected to come to one answer on irc or something and then designate 1 person to type out the answer here?

what the fuck are you trying to prove with your retarded meme image?

Except it does. When you steal a product from a store, the judge doesn't ask how much the owner paid for the product. The key here is that the woman was aware that the products totaled to $70 during the theft.

He loses $100.

>minus 100 from theft
>minus 70 from sold goods
>minus 30 from change given
>plus 100 from money received
-100 - 70 - 30 + 100 = ????

You got it.

>The answer is B. A would imply his profit from a $70 sale is $70, which is impossible considering he has to pay for the merch and his own wage/employees.

storing goods costs him a lot so he wants to get rid of all his shit at the minimum price he can, without incurring a loss.

so at their value.

Also, it said 'don't overthink' you ragining autist, don't act tought shit because you've read an article on Forbes or something, you don't know shit and lack imagination