When was the last time a movie activated your almond? I'd say it was Annihilation for me

When was the last time a movie activated your almond? I'd say it was Annihilation for me.

Attached: 1520992049053-sci.jpg (480x480, 51K)

$100. The transaction is irrelevant. Sup Forums is the most retarded board. Enough.

170 her buying stuff isn’t her giving back the money at all

How smart are you?
A city slicker steals £100 from sneeds feed and seed store(formerly chucks)
He then returns and buys £70 worth of feed and seed(formerly fuck and suck)
Sneed gives the city slicker £30 back
How many fuck and sucks did Sneed lose???

None. Sneed doesn’t sell sucks and fucks.

> -100 dollars
> swap 100 dollars of paper money for 70 dollars worth of goods and 30 dollars
He lost 100 dollars in total

100
>takes 100, store is down 100
>buys 70, person now has $70 worth of goods and gets $30 change
>therefore owner has lost $100

$100 cash out...$100 cash in...$70 of merchandise out...$30 cash out. $100 out.

A store owner buys the goods for less he sells them for though.
So he lost less than that.
30$ + whatever he paid for the wares the lady bought.

The transaction is irrelevant you stupid piece of shit. Learn reading comprehension

>pays less
Yes but he lost the income an honest sale of those goods would have generated.

>DO NOT OVER THINK IT

Depends on the value of the goods. What was the markup?

-100 + 70 = -30

You can't answer this question unless you know what his margins are.

Attached: 1516988067536.png (1280x1263, 733K)

>b-but the owner buys for less
God. These are the type of retards that always failed questions when they were bloated with useless information.

No it's not? In the end he lost 30 and 70 worth of wares for which he paid less than 70.

>$200
How would you even justify that answer?
>She stole 100
>She stole 70 in produce
>She stole 30 in change
Jesus fuck.

It's $170

Yes it is you fucking moron. It doesn't if the lady buys shit or some random guy. Its fucking irrelevant. What was STOLEN was $100

Prove it

So the store won 30 bucks? Nice. Gonna start doing bidness like that.

Absolute failures

actually he lost nothing of value, because fiat currency has no inherently worth nothing

Attached: wojak_06.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg (710x515, 39K)

The question was how much he lost, not how much was stolen.
If the transaction occurred with a non stolen 100$ he would have made a profit.

What you're missing is potential value.
The money he already paid for the goods is a sunk cost, don't worry about it.
The worth of the goods is what people are willing to pay for it.
By using the stolen money, she robbed the man of the potential sale which would have been for 70 dollars regardless of what he paid for them.

Take an economics class

>She stole 100
>She stole 70 in produce
>She stole 30 in change
Except she returned 100 didn't she, by paying with it. So she just stole 100

In the end he is left with 30 dollars and wares worth 70 dollars though.
So assuming he bought the wares for a discount, it's less.

>Brainlet

The question is not “what was stolen” but “what was lost”.

That's assuming he would have sold those wares to a different customer though.

It's not returning it.

I always pray that people in threads like these are baiting. It’s $100. What anin said about potential value is the key

You can't even follow a simple question and you're calling others brainlets. The answer is online you pea-brained glue-sniffer.

No, you dip. I was trying to justify having $200 as a response option and how you would even think to justify answering $200.

Now we're getting into budgeted sales and other shit. You assume that the products on your shelves will be sold at some point in the future.
Otherwise you'd never stock up ahead of time.
Clearly there's a demand for the products, so we can assume he would have sold them.

hey guys, what are some movies haha

This, value is amplified at resale by labor and convenience

And here's the dolt I guess it does make sense to have $200 as a response option.

>for less he sells them for
exactly
he sells it for $70 so he lost $70 (+ the other $30)

$30 + $70 worth of goods = $100
we have to assume he was going to sell that thing at full price, NOT the discounted price he got it for. So he lost $70 worth of goods.

She steals 100 dollars

Owner is out 100 dollars

She returns 100 dollars but keeps 70 dollars in goods

Owner is out 70 sollars

Owner gives her 30 dollars change

Owner is out 100 dollars

Can someone cap this thread?
I want proof that Sup Forums couldn't run a small business.

Arrival

No brainlet it's $100 of cash stolen and $70 of potential goods sold.

a glance at the board presents mountains of irrefutable proof that Sup Forums couldn't run a bath let alone a business of some kind

$100