Are you cucks as smart as you think you are?

Are you cucks as smart as you think you are?

Spoiler; you're not

Spoiler #2; the answer isn't $100

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=N3bEh-PEk1g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

$200.

200. Anyone that doesn't have autism can answer easily.

it's obviously 300

When the guy brings the $100 back to the owner, they're now even. Then the owner gives him $100 worth of "cash and prizes" and now is out $100.

Explain to me how the fuck that money doubles.

You can't cause you're wrong.

Going by keystone pricing the owner lost $165.

> Depends how much items were worth . owner would get some back. \thread

Found the autists

Obviously 100, are yall retards?? OP included

This is the only correct one .

Obviously $30 + what the owner paid for the goods

Owner
Owner (-100)
Owner sells 70$item from stolen money... (-70)
Owner gives back 30 change from the stolen 100..

Answer is 170.

Less than $100.
The owner ultimately loses $30 and $70 worth of goods. $70 worth of goods is worth less than $70 to the owner, so the owner lost less than $100.

This duh

it's 170, ya'll

LOLWUT

He returned the money, so he didn't lose the 100$.

He still got the 100$ back to him, so it's just 100$ - 70$ he got, so he profitted 30$ and the owner lost 30$

wow math is hard

>buys $70 worth of goods

These fags are right

60

100

owner got stolen 100$

thief knows that 100$ he stole got him 70$+30$ in exchange thats still 100$

in real world owner would make profit of the items so he didnt lose full value but there is no such number stated so it cannot be answered in this way

gg ez

It's obvious who hasn't worked as a waiter or cashier before. If someone takes $100 from your register then uses that $100 to buy $70 worth of goods, your register isn't going to be short $30

Some random user steals $50 to you, then he goes to starbucks and takes a coffee. How much money did Starbucks lose? In fact, spend the stole money buying some goods doesn't change anything, the owner remains with his $100 lost

The issue here that confuses most people is they think that stealing $70 and then buying something worth $70 from the same place cancels out the theft (or 70% of it, at least)

If you steal $100, the business loses $100 from a prior sale. If you then buy something from the same place using $70 of that $100, you're not returning $70 to the owner, you're merely contributing a sale to the business that would already have took place with or without you. So technically speaking, the business falls behind because you took the money earned from a PRIOR sale of another customer.

Unless the loss of those goods prevents another sale, say if the goods were limited in quantity. Then the owner would have lost the full retail value of the goods, so $100

Sup Forums stands for braindead

START
Owner has: $100 cash, $30 cash, $70 worth of goods
Thief has: nothing

MIDDLE
Owner has: £30 cash, $70 worth of goods
Thief has: $100 cash

END
Owner has: $100 cash
Thief has: $30 cash, $70 worth of goods.


So the owner lost $30 of cash, plus $70 of goods.

No you're fucking stupid . he only loses what he paid for them and 30 on top of that. Is this site autistic

Restocking inventory, if they do that, which they usually don't. Bout to return hair clippers after cutting my hair

But he would have gotten $70 for those goods if not for the thief. So they were worth $70 to him

Because ofbthe items he bought you idiot. Cucksevante ye are

130 in actual money
200 if you include the cash value of goods
you people are stupid

Actually if you steal 100$ in goods from a store, the store does not lose 100$ because they bought It cheaper to being able to sell It at 100$ and generste profit.

So, the owner lost 100-(profit margin of goods valued 70$)

Yeah but that doesn't mean he lost 70 dollars... He could have made profit on them but instead lost his cost of the items plus 30 change

200 $ in cash money and 1,000,000$ in emotional damages

the owner got the 100 back, genius. would you like to try to sell me back the pubes you bought from me?

This is the only correct answer

"How much money did the owner lose" If he was going to make $70 off those goods, then he lost $70.

Apparently Sup Forums needs to think about themselves to actually use their brain. I will give you short fantasy of yours that all of you idiots here, judging from many threads, masturbate to:

>black dude beats the shit out of you, takes your wallet with 100$
>he unzips his pants
>he pays you 100$ for fucking you in the ass
>you agree, because hey, why not, you have already been masturbating to neko futa furry undead tentacle Bugs Bunny amateur cosplay
>you give him 30$ back, since you have no dignity left

Now tell me why the fuck you would lose only 30$ or 100$ or whatever stupid answer you guys keep giving

easy the owner went bankrupt

How can he not remember the guy who just stole $100 5 min ago, this story doesn't add up ;)

30 bucks + [(inventory sell price) - (inventory bought price)]. If the answer is meant to give both these values. It's either $30, $100, or can't be answered.

Owner lost none of his money. it was stolen!

in this situation the owner only actually lost money when the thief stole from him, because whatever happened next was fair exchange if you read carefully

in a realistic scenario the owner would have lost slightly less than 100 bucks but since there's no other numbers he lost 100$

What is opportunity cost

70 dollars worth of goods is worth 70 dollars.

Because he bought 70 worth of items meaning the owner got back a markup on that 70 dollars . so he didn't lose the full 70.

You are a fucking retArd. I capitalized that a for a reason. The thief would have never spent this $100 back in the store for $70 in goods and $30 of cash. The sale would have never happened had he lost the $100 bill.

How much new physical money has come in from the customer = 0

how much money is the customer walking away with = 30 in cash and 70 worth of goods
So the store owner lost 30 cash of 70 worth of food, now if you include what he paid for the goods, and what he expected to earn from it, that´s different, also this whole thing wasted alot of the owners time

That's not how math works friend .

hundo plus however much he bought the merchandise for and maybe some kind of opportunity cost

>70=70
>that's not how math works

>OP said it's not $100
>ppl start bringing random answers

OK then, he lost $30 + what owner paid for $70 of goods + what owner has to pay in ?trading taxes? of $70 in goods sold. It's less of $100

the owner purchased the merchandise for an amount unknown to us so if you go by this idiots way of thinking then the answer is 30

Owner is at -$100
Thief is at $100

Then thief buys $70 worth of stuff and then gets $30 change from the $100.

Owner should be at -$100 if

-$100(stolen)+$100(used to buy)-$70(stuff purchased with stolen money)-$30(change from stolen money)

is correct.

If the $70 worth of stuff isn't considered actual money, then the owner should be at -$30. (the question is asking how much money the owner lost, not how much money + goods he lost)

Its $100; $30 in cash and $70 in goods

Starts at 0

-$100 stolen

-$70 of goods

now -$170

+$100 back the dude used to pay

now -$70

-$30 in change

$100

the owner lost 130$

But the goods are worth money. Your logic is flawed

7

After stealing from register:
Thief: $100 Cash, $0 goods
Store: -$100 Cash, $0 goods

After coming back:
Thief: $30 Cash, $70 goods
Store: -$30 Cash, -$70 goods

this guy's got it

HE STOLE:
$30 CASH
$70 WORTH OF GOODS

But the goods aren't physical cash....

Owner has
>$130 and $70 of goods for $200 total

theft happens
thief has
>$100
owner has
>$30 and $70 worth of goods for $100 total
owner has lost $100

thief comes back and makes a purchase
thief has
>$30 and $70 worth of goods for $100 total
owner has
>$100
owner has lost $100

it could be argued that the owner only lost what he paid wholesale for the goods and his labor in the exchange
but that is only a viable argument if the goods sold were perishable, near it expiration, and the owner would not have sold it before it expired
but that answer can only be reached by adding it to the original conditions of the problem

He didn't lose money he could have potentially made he lost what he already paid are you stuopd as fuck

shop lost around less than 100$ worth of Money + Goods. All of you saying otherwise are autists.

One hundred dollar

The don't need to be for the owner to lose money on them??

Doesn't matter what he paid for the goods.
Owner loses (wholesale cost of goods)+(the profit on those goods that he won't make because the goods are gone)+(30 dollars change)
100 bucks

>Hey faggots, are you as smart as you think you are?
>What's 2+2?
>Spoiler alert: It's not 4

it's a simple equation really
-100 + 100 - (x + 30) where x = the value of the goods
the hundreds cancel out
thus we end up with
-(x + 30)
you can consider the value of the goods as $70 if you want
-(70 + 30)
-100

You cant know because you dont know what the shopowner pays for the products..

> the awnser is you can't know

It's called opportunity cost.
If you make 100 dollars a day at your job, and you call in for an unpaid sick day, you just lost 100 dollars. You didn't "break even".

The owner lost $30 + what he paid for the goods

UNLESS

Losing those goods prevented another sale, due to limited quantity. In which case, those goods were worth retail value to the owner, he would have lost $30 + $70, or $100

$70 worth of product means different things to a customer than it does to the owner either at expected sale or at wholesale cost.
Its $70 including profit for the owner, thus they are losing less than $70 in this example.

When the owner balances at the end of the day he will be short $100

the owner loses $30 since he wasnt supposed to get any change whatsoever since its change from stolen money.

$140

What kind of backwards-ass understanding is that?
You may as well be saying "if you have two hundred-dollar-bills and I take one, you didn't lose any money because you still have another 100 dollar bill"

He's short one item from his inventory, he's not making money off something he purchased for sale. It doesn't have to be his last one.

>he wasnt supposed to get any change whatsoever since its change from stolen money.
I'll remember that the next time I need to give change
>you owe me $26.15 in change
>the money was stolen. prove it wasn't if you want that change.

None because the cops were waiting outside to riddle that nigger with bullets and give the owner's shit back.

/thread

$100

Spoiler: Your bait is shit.

140$

100$ stolen at the start, thief came back and bought 70$ worth of goodies with the stolen money. That money was supposed to belong to the owner already so thief also stole a 70$ worth of item by using stolen money and owner gave him 30$ for return.
At the end of the deal owner is at loss for 100 dollars, but also at the loss because potential gain. At the end of a normal deal owner would have gain 70$ more but since he gave the 30$ return it's doubled as a loss.

Problem is the same as the thief using counterfeit money to buy stuff from the owner, but stealing 100$ changes everything.

30 dollars

Guy leaves with 30$ and 70$ worth of stuff, essentially the owner gave him $100 for free without gaining anything.

So the balance is -100

anyone who started thinking about changes, potential gains, value of items and shit are over-thinking it, and therefore autists.

$170

Everyone else is a fucking idiot

Owner has purchased goods for $x

After theft, owner has lost $100 (-100)

At point of sale, owner receives $70 (+70) but relinquishes goods worth $x (-x).

Running total = -100 +70 -x

Loss = $(30 + x)

no, just you

You have 5 bottles of wine from 1840, the only 5 left in existence. You sell each of those bottles for $70, for a total of $350, and you know you are going to sell them. But the thief buys one with your money, now you only have 4. You remain having lost $70 when he bought the wine, in addition to the $30 he already stole.

the buying price doesn't matter as the others said, the owner lost profit+the price he bought the product for. So he lost 70$ exactly in that regard, then the $30 change.

>but nobody talks about profits just the wholesale price

you can argue that he expects the profit as it is included in his business costs balance.

OK I work for a company that makes retail till software (EPOS) and deal with questions like this pretty often..

The till at the end of the day when they do their zread will be $100 down.

Simple as that.

Stop thinking about cost prices etc. And yes you could say that since the owner is possibly paying tax on the items then it could be that hes more down but since the question doesnt state it, we can assume that the items sold were tax exempt.

So theres the fecking answer

not really. goods that seller sells to him didn't cost him 70$ but lets say 35$. So the seller lost in fact around 65$

>all them mad mathfags trying to fix each other
Sup Forums doesn't have to be /sci/, you know?

nobody asked about that you retard

how did you pass math class?

170 dollas...the 100 stolen 30 back in change but the 70dolla lost is added aswell

Wow you people are really stupid. Why the fuck do you need math to solve this simple ass riddle. The thief took $100 and came back to exchange a portion of it to goods, it's still $100 whatsoever lol

youtube.com/watch?v=N3bEh-PEk1g

people in this thread

100+value of goods

30 dollars in change... what a cunt