/biz/ - Business & Finance

C

>>8321150
bout tree fiddy LINKIES

>>8321150
B (or a little less considering his cost of the purchased goods)

100$

>>8321150
130

>>8321198
I meant A. I am retarded.gif

>>8321150
420

100. She got 70 of free crap + 30 cash.

>>8321150
70 in goods and 30 fiat

A hundy

A

>>8321150
Depends on the profit margin of the dress

>>8321150
60

>>8321150
How much did the owner pay for the goods?

It's $100. If she never stole and just paid with her own $100 bill, would the owner be losing anything? No. So his only loss is the bill she stole.

100.

200

>>8321150
30$

$100.

You could say 'well, it depends on how much money the restaurant is making, profit of said goods bought, amount tipped, etc....'
But in the end it would be the same as if the owner of the restaurant personally bought $100 worth of goods to give away.

>>8321182
>>8321198
>>8321209
>>8321234
>>8321234
>>8321266
>>8321296
>>8321315

>The absolute state of biz

Low IQ board confirmed.

Id write down 200 to the insurer and let them figure out the details

The fact it was his own 100 seems irrelevant

Guys don't over think it

Store money = x
1. x - 100
2. x - 100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = x - 100

C

>>8321360
Stolen dollars are funny money you fucking autist owner got a worthless piece of paper for $70 worth of goods and $30 real money.

She stole 100$, it's the first thing you mention you dumb pajeet.

Entirely depends on your metric of what a gain or a loss is.

Opportunity cost? Unknowable
Fiat loss? 30
Total asset loss? 30 plus whatever was purchased
Total asset loss at regularly used notions of market value? 100
Psychic loss? Over 100

>>8321150
140.

100 dollars she stole + 70 dollars she stole - 30 he gave back.

>>8321409
It's a trick question you fucking idiots. The answer is not on the list.

>>8321150
$100. The only actual loss was the theft of the $100 bill.

>>8321150
0, he has insurance

>>8321187
Kek b with you

press F to pay bogdanovs

>>8321437
No it wasn't, the $100 bill was given back. The loss was the value of the goods and the $30 change.

$100

She got 70$ goods and 30$ for free so it's c

>>8321409
Explain the $70 of the $100 he got back ya dumb cunt

Women walks in store steals $70 worth of items and $30 cash. $100.

He lost $100+ whatever he would have made in profit selling those goods to legitimate customer.

>>8321360
>everyone is an idiot but me
>doesn't answer question

>>8321409
>>8321430
she didn't steal an additional $70 worth of goods. she used the already stolen $100 to pay for them.

$100

Buys $70 worth of goods WORTH OF FUCKING GOODS KEYWORD IS WORTH

Gives $30 change

100 is stolen 100 is then exchanged for 70 worth of goods and 30. 70 + 30 = 100

There is no store.

>>8321437
>>8321401
>>8321379
>>8321348
>>8321268
>>8321266
>>8321296
>>8321315
>>8321258
>>8321249
>>8321248
>>8321240
>>8321234
>>8321209
>>8321215
>>8321215
>>8321182
The absolute state of biz

>>8321457
which still equals $100.

100 (bill)
+ 70 (goods)
- 70 (bill)
+ 30 (change)
= 130 (D)

>>8321409
You must be joking right? Nobody could possibly be this retarded?

>>8321360
>>8321501
hurdur

>>8321506
Yeah, but the loss wasn't a $100 bill.

>>8321501
>>8321360
It's C you fucking brainlets

>>8321150
WHAT THE FUCK
Replies to this thread really make you think.
Mongolian basketweaver IQ confirmed.

The answer is obviously C as long as we're not considering the price that owner had to pay for stolen products. In fact, he lost little less than $100.

Stupid question, the answer is 70$
He lost 100, then got it back and had to give away 30.

The question is stupid because the owner lost his goods, and the brainlet question does not care about that, it is just pointless and stupid. The question works only in its own little world, and everyone fails because they try to apply common sense in the everyday world, like thinking that the goods he had must have had estimated 70$ dollar value and he lost them, so he lost 70$, but it does not work so in that question.

Just dumb tricks.

>>8321482
>>8321464
Please tell me you're joking. nobody could be this retarded right?

>>8321360
>>8321501
>>8321555
Nice bait

$30 and book value of groceries

>>8321539
This
>mfw reading through the whole thread

>>8321555
The goods are worth 70 you stupid cunt, therfore he also lost the 70. The answer is 100

Fucking state of monkey biz

Come to think of it he proably lost even more than 200 due to inflation fiscal fuck up and taxes.

>>8321588
We know. Your brain is a hot air balloon.

here's the only correct answer:

$30 + the actual cost of the products.

> -100
> -70 = -170
> -170+100=-70
> -70-30

$100

>>8321360
I like how you just laugh at everyone without even posting what you believe the correct answer to be. It would have been funny to see how retarded your logic is. But this way you get to pretend you're right without anyone telling you otherwise.

>>8321556
LaQuandra steals the $100

Decides to bring it back out of the goodness of her heart

LaQuandra remembers she’s a thief and steals these $70 shoes and $30 cash out of the till.

How much did the owner lose you fucking brainlet?

>>8321454
ok, I'm wrong assuming atomic swap between money and products then he lost 100.

>>8321649
$200

Fkkk bois this shouldn’t be so hard.

Down $100
- then she spends the $70 for goods (stays the same)
It’s $100 + the cost price of the goods

>>8321652
Exactly. If LaQuanda didn't steal those $70 Nikes, the owner would have been paid $70 for those Nikes. And LaQuandra walked away with $30 in her pocket. So the answer is $100

>>8321569
>>8321611
>stupid cunt
Haha.

I'm sure that the intended answer to that question is 100$, that is not the problem.

When you buy from store the store owner does not lose fiat, he loses the product, not dollars. You can put a 1000$ label on your dirty shirt and claim it is worth 1000$, that is irrelevant.

Yea sure, the author tries to tell "don't overthink it plz", but his comment is irrelevant, merely a suggestion.

Again, the question is just stupid.

>>8321457
>>8321555
If I have 2 $100 bills in my pocket, and one is stolen, which one did I pay the grocery store with?

Do you guys understand how an exchange of value works?

He lost $100 and you don't even have to think about the rest of that bullshit statement

>>8321714
>Again, the question is just stupid.
t. Brainlet

You're the type of moron that would start calculating friction in an acceleration problem

>>8321645
he loses out on a potential sale retard. The value is $100

he loses 130 retards

>>8321733
If you steal 100$ from me and pay me 100$ for my shitty t-shirt, I lost like 1$.

It is folly to think that a merchant sells his products at the same price he bought them. Yea i know, author says not to overthink it, bla bla, but there is another way of thinking about this too.

>>8321759
it's a store, nigger, not an antique shop, they buy more goods before they run out.

>>8321787
>doubling down on retardation
The bitch literally stole $100. ITS FUCKING IRRELEVANT WHAT SHE BOUGHT AT THE STORE

>>8321360

OKAY.

STEAL 100 dollar, take 70 dollars worth of things from store. THATS 170 DOLLARS. GIVE MAN 100 DOLLAR BACK, 170-100=70. STORE OWNER THEN GIVES 30 DOLLARS. 70+30= 100

THE ANSWE RIS C

RETARD

>>8321150
1. $100 was stolen from the store
2. $100 was given back to the store
3. $70 of goods were given away for free
4. $30 was given away for free

-100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = -100

>>8321830
If you assume that she would have made the purchase anyway.

Btw I admit that I'm in the wrong here overthinking this.

>>8321787
holy fuck this is a good point. the answer is either a or b.

>>8321150
This woman niggers. If the items true worth is indeed $70 then yeah the store lost $100 of worth. Unless if the store is ripping people off with those bags (goods) and the niggress would be better doing arbitrage at a different store for the same goods at a lower price.

In a perfect world where the owner uses BTC and all transactions are registered the owner lost 200+ dollars when the thief is ordered by the judge to return all stolen goods

>she sells back the goods
>owner gets dress back
>she gives him back BTC
>owner gets back BTC

>>8321787
>>8321821

are you guys just trolling? No one can actually be this stupid?

If someone steals from you you lost the total value of the thing stolen. Regardless of any further transactions. How is this that hard to understand?

A merchant wouldnt willingly buy his own good at market price, he loses out on the sale regardless of his total supply. I'm not even sure how you think him "buying more supply" negates the loss of stolen property? That is some retarded double think

Also, if you had $100 stolen and sold a shirt for $1, not only did you lose $100, but you sold a tshirt for below fair market value, and lost more because of it.

Jesus Christ /biz/, you're all fucking imbeciles

>>8321569
Forgot link. https://youtu.be/TJyC77k8d54

no wrong answers of /sci/ so far. Guess /biz/ really is the most brainlet board.
>>8321893
kek

>>8321930
>>>/sci/9584011

>>8321386
>>8321477
>>8321477
>>8321522
>>8321539
>>8321569
>>8321650
>>8321839

It's too ez

>>8321150
She stole $100.
Stole it. She was probably black too.

>>8321830
ok let me put this way for you maybe your retarded brain can understand it.

you have $1 million, someone stole it from you, then he came back and bought 1 million dollars from a shitcoin you just created with an infinite supply. how much money do you have now?

now to make the analogy more realistic, assume each single coin (unit) has a mining cost, but you can mine infinite amount ( you will never run out of coins to sell) and the mining rate exceeds the demand.

>>8321891
Actually in that scenario the owner lost 300 dollars because the market is bearish and the price of bitcoin crashes by 50% on that night.

she stole 100...then stole 70 dollars worth of goods... the answer is 170 you dumb, dumb, fucks.

>>8321976
*put it this way

*$1 million worth of a shitcoin

100 stolen bux
+70 in goods
+ 30 $ change

>>8321976
>then he came back and bought 1 million dollars from a shitcoin you just created with an infinite supply.

No wonder its so easy to scam this board

>>8321997
Who has $70 of that $100 now? Please share

>>8321997
no technically the store lost $130. i remember when i first learned to math too. idiot

>>8321930
Perhaps, but we're going to be (if not already) by far the wealthiest. Suck on that you fat kike.

- $100
- 5 minutes
- $70
- $30

he lost $200 and 5 minutes
he gained $100

so answer is F

>>8321893
>sold a shirt for $1
The shirt was sold for 100$

>If someone steals from you you lost the total value of the thing stolen. Regardless of any further transactions. How is this that hard to understand?
The theft takes 100$ from you, yes, the deal gives you 70$ back. This is just a logic puzzle, so it does not account for "lost opportunity" or anything like that what happens in real life, just transactions. It also assumes that the "70$ worth of goods" is merely something with 70$ with a price tag and we don't know its true value.

The conclusion is made with these assumptions, of course you can change the assumptions and get a different result.

Again, the intended answer for that question is 100$, that is not up to debate. You are jumping to conclusions here.

>>8321930
>>8321944
sci is nowhere near as funny or entertaining

>>8321231
Yeah good save.

None of the above we don’t know how much BTC the owner has can’t answer the question

you bery dahm fahk. store lost 100 dollars, then 70 dollars worth of goods. If she had paid for the goods the store would have 100 + 70. instead she stole the goods nd paid w stolen money so store has 70. answer is 100. its 100!!

its 100 the 30 he gave her back is already counted you idiots saying 130 are counting it twice

>>8322038
Go be a nigger and steal a $100 dollar item from a store and then tell the police "b-but officers its only worth $5!"

In terms of money straight from the till? The jewish piano lost a total of $30
In terms of the owners pride and dignity lost because the Indian shop owner allowed a black woman free passage to loot the register? Much. He'll recover from this but it will take time. He'll never leave the place unattended ever again.
In terms of social degradation between Indian 7-11 franchisee owners and the nigger community? Innumerable damage. The social trust lost between these two groups is immense. May never recover.

>>8322096
That is actually a good example, and a interesting question to look at. What if I paint some crappy paintings and make an art store and label them all with million dollar price tags. One day some poor sob steals one of them, gets caught, but he had damaged the painting, can I now demand millions because I can prove that I intended to sell it for millions? What is a price tag anyway, just telling that I MIGHT sell that for you for that price... that's it.

gonna add to the chaos
my fucking god this board is either retarded or giving fake responses
it's C
she stole $100 in cash, and then exchanged $70 of that (ill-gotten) money for $70 in (voluntarily transacted) goods
she now has $30 cash, and $70 in goods

you're all either banglets, or you're doing a good job in fucking up a dataminer's scheme

>how much did the owner loose?

Come on /biz/, you can do it.

She takes $100, gives him back $70 in exchange for $70 worth of crap, then gets $30 back for stealing. She made out with a cool $60 + $70 worth of junk. He lost $130.

Mayne she lost 2 hundo. Slipped da cashier at da arab store fake hunnit chu kno

>>8322174
this is wrong, you're missing the fact that the original $100 is stolen at the start. it's 130.

>>8321150
$200

>>8322233
>>8321215
the only smart people in the thread

>>8321150
you can completely partition the two transactions - the second has nothing to do with the first. the second transaction was a normal sale and resulted in no loss for the store, the first transaction was a theft (100% loss) of $100 from the store.

-100

>>8322277
Fucking this. Why is /biz/ so retarded

>>8321150
He lost a real 70 but a potential 100, the dress was only really worth 40

>>8321261
rekt

>>8321997
Buying something with stolen money is not the same as stealing

>>8321379
x=x rekt and ded

Jesus, it's not that hard.


1. She steals $100 --> his loss: $100
2. She returns $100 --> his loss: $0
3. She gets a $70 dress --> his loss: $70
4. She gets $30 in "change" --> his loss: $100

>>8321261
Fucking smart. Witnessed.

30$ + value of goods

What is the value of the goods?
There are too many factors to consider.

Would the lady have bought the goods if she didn't steal the money?
Would he ever have sold the goods?
Will he refill the rack?
Will he refill the rack before it's empty and someone else wants to buy the goods?
Which value do the goods have to him or his shop?
Then, there's taxes and discounts.

>>8322259
get fukt you piece of wood

>>8322345
Opportunity cost = $70

Owner lost $100

DONT OVER THINK IT

The absolute state

Not as much as justin sun stole from the dec/jan noobfest.

>>8322233
she stole $100 then converted it into $70 of goods and $30 of cash. How the fuck does that add up to $130?

no shite. if she stole it he would be losing 170 in total. she paid for it in money she stole so it's basically null. 170 - 70 = 100

>>8322233
>>8322259
ok
despite being painful, this is actually pretty funny

>>8322313
we cannot take that into account; we can only go by the sale price of the goods

though, yes
it's an entirely valid factor, in a real-world scenario

Registers pov. Assume it starts with $500:
>woman steals $100
$400 in register. However, the register still records $500
>woman comes back and buys $70 worth of stuff
Register records $570 however there's only $470 in there
So the loss is $100 from the point of view of the assistant and the register.

>>8322345
the cost price of the goods are irrelevant

I am actually sickened that I've probably taken investment advice from some of you retards over the years

>>8322345
DO NOT OVERTHINK IT!

>>8322346
If no one else would have ever bought it, he didn't lose exactly 70$ opportunity costs.

Need to overthink it.

The absolute state.

>>8322277
bingo

>>8321150
its E you fucking retards
the shop owner lost $100 bill and $70 of goods

>>8322413
ITT chainlink shills are probably the ones guessing everything but $100

Another way to think of it is in a different order.

1. She buys everything as she normally would with her own money. What's the owner's loss? It's 0 obviously.

2. She then comes back and steals $100.

What's the owner's loss?

>>8322444
What if she bought it only because she had the money for it because she had just stolen the money?

>>8322469
outside the scope of the question. DO NOT OVER THINK IT

>>8322469
Not relevant.

$100, then $70, and finally $30
$200 was lost this day

>>8322469
What if a nigger robbed her?
What if she was arrested?
What if the store owner shot her?
What if
What it
What if

Kill yourself

>>8322485
I don't understand. Now, do I have do overthink it or not?

>>8322434
the bitch returned $70 this is why so many of you fags are poor

>>8322511
what don't you understand?

>>8322507
What if I've already done that?

Now I understand how you retards lost money during a fucking bull run.

>>8322534
Do I have to overthink it or not?

>>8322569
Did you even read the question? What does it say at the bottom?

>>8322585
I have to overthink it?

CREDIT DEBIT NOTE
[1] $0$100 theft

[2] $100 original $100 bill
$30 change
Goods $70 worth
------------------------------------------------------------
$100$100 + $30 + goods

NET: $100 – ($100 + $30 + goods) [NET = Credit - Debit]

The net effect is that the shopkeeper loses (debit) the $100, but in the sale, he gains $100 and loses(debit) $30 in change and loses $70 worth of goods. He is out $100 (the theft); the sale itself is legitimate

The answer is that you can't fucking know. Store owner loses $100. Then he makes some profit from selling the goods to a customer. The profit is dependent on variables that are not accounted for in the question, such as the price he bought the product for.

if someone walked up to you and took $100 dollars from you, walked back 5 seconds later and purchased the $70 bag of weed you intended to sell for $70 in 30 minutes. how much money did you lose? easy enough? holy fuck did any of you receive an education?

>>8321182
it would be $200 if she stole a $70 dress and $30 from the register and $100 from the register.

it would be E if she stole the 100 from register and dress

its D if she stole 100 from register and 30 more from register when she came back

it would be C if she stole 100 from the register then came back and decided that instead of the 100 she stole she would like a $70 dress and $30 from the register

it would be B if she just stole the dress.

it would be A if she just took 30 from the register

>>8322644
cost price of the goods is irrelevant in this question

>>8322644
Do not overthink it.

>>8322644
profit margin does not matter here

Everyone here is retarded.

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS C.

The owner lost $70 of goods + $30 in cash.

It's this simple.

She stole $100 dollars from him. What the fuck she did with the $100 doesn't change the fact she stole $100 from him.

Jesus biz

>>8322766
Well, I don't see another good answer for this. Option A assumes the product wasn't worth anything to the owner and option C assumes it was worth the market value for him, and both of these sound silly to me.

Is it really hard to picture...
A person walks into a store with nothing, leaves with 70$ goods + 30$.

The store had those goods + 30$ and lost it.

What were those 70$ worth of good + 30$ worth?
Uhhh 100$ worth if you factor what they would have sold for.
or whatever they spent to get those goods + 30$.

She never stole the 100$ if she gives it back idiots.

>>8322921
So if I keep stealing the shop owner's money and buying his stuff until he's sold out of everything, how much money has he made? According to you I'm returning the money I keep stealing from him, so everything is fine... Brainlet.

>>8321486
>KEYWORD IS WORTH
you think that would quiet the idiots ranting about pic related. but alas, here we are

$70 WORTH WORTH WORTH of goods means the goods have an intrinsic value of 70. fucking. dollars.

If you still want to argue muh COGS rationale, you could say that the owner lost the opportunity cost of selling $70 worth of the same goods to the next customer and the owner would still be down $100 total.

Answer is C. $100

Anyone arguing any other answer isn't going to make it

I'm never taking advice for coins on here ever again. The fucking state of /biz/
Good thread 10/10

>>8322966
If she did your method it would be a different problem. The solution will always be whatever she ended up walking out with.

>>8322815
>The owner lost $70 of goods + $30 in cash.

Yes, but she also took the $100 bill. So that's a total of $200

>>8321408
This. The question is hard to actually answer. Would she have bought the items even if she stole the money? If so the owner lost $100 in potential legitimate business. What did the goods cost the owner to buy before his markup? Etc etc.

0 dollars.
The store owner was a Jew and this is his night of broken glass.

he lost 200

/biz/ is retarded AF

>>8322020
I still don't think you ever really learned it

C obviously. But this is a bait thread so someone's either gonna call me a brainlet or replying with a retarded wojak reaction image.

Easiest way to think about it is think of the 70 bucks worth of goods as equal value in cash. The lady steals 100, she comes back, pays 70 bucks for a 70 bucks worth of goods. Basically the business gives 70 bucks and is returned 70 back. The lady didn't steal, or give any more money. So Its C, 100.

>>8323599
It is 100 bill lost. The goods are accounted for, the register is short

The business lost 100 dollars. Imagine the store only had two things in it, 100 dollars and one good worth 70 dollars.

This woman walked in and took the 100 dollar bill. She then left the store, and the total store value was 70 dollars. She then came back in and gave the store owner the one hundred dollar bill, the store value was then 170. However, she took the good from him in exchange for the 100 dollar bill, and he then gave her thirty of the 100 dollars.

Now, after the woman is gone, the store owner has 70 of the original 100 dollar bill, and no item, which was worth 70 dollars. His total store value is now only 70, and it started at 170, so he lost 100 dollars. Not that fucking hard.

>customer buys $70 worth of goods for $70
>/biz/ thinks this is a loss somehow

literal retards

>>8323299
but she use that same $100 bill to pay for the stuff, he's getting that money back, what he's losing is the goods and the change money

$70 goods
$30 currency

All Felicia is left holding. Tyrone eating good tonight.

idiots

it $70

the owner lost $30 cash and lost a $70 item

however the $70 item does not cost the owner $70 for he has to make a profit....its probably cost the shop around $40 for the item

$40+$30= $70

owner lost a grand total of $70 to his bottom line

>>8321150
The. Absolute. State. Of. /Biz/.

If the goods cost 70 dollars and she got 30 in change, it totals 100. But doesn’t the owner have to re-stock those goods, which would incur a further loss?

1. Woman steals cash
Woman: 100
Store: -100

2. Woman walks back in and puts $70 worth of goods on the table
Woman: 100
Store: -100

3. Woman gives store $100
Woman: 0
Store: 0

4. Store gives $70 worth of goods to woman and $30
Woman: 100
Store: -100

C

>>8323694
no this is wrong, he is meant to have no item, he is missing 100 in cash

>>8321150
F. The store owner is a Jew well-versed in insurance law and knows to claims the full net value of all stolen assets as $200. In the same way, Felicia gained $200 because not only did she avoid spending $100 on groceries, she also walked away with $100 ($30 + $70 groceries).

>>8323934
this is wrong because the store didnt pay $70 for the goods

The correct answer is $30 + whatever the store paid for the goods

>>8324576
>owner gives 30 change
>is the juden

come on anon, the only jew in this story is the one buying shit with the goys own money

she 'returns' those 100$,dumbasses.....
because she buys 70$ worth of goods with that 100.... AND he gives her 30$...

(Steal 100) - (Returns 100) + (Gets 70$ goods) + (30$ change) = 100$

x - x + 70 + 30 = 100

answer is C

>>8321787
The only smart person here. If you find yourself disagreeing, the retard is in you.

>>8324673
>>8324770
see this

100
70 dollars of merchandise + the 30 dollar change

kek, are you retards seriously saying it's C or are you just fucking around?

>>8324795
it said 'do not overthink it'
you overthought it
you didnt follow instructions

answer is still c

>>8324795
also, owner lost 'potential revenue' of 70$

Simple answer would be D.$130, unless you account for what this genius out the box thinker includes.>>8321261 but that information is not given

>>8324673
the cost price of the goods is irrelevant

>>8324814
overthinking is subjective

to a brainlet it is difficult to comprehend that a store makes profit on things it sells

maybe its a commie store

>>8321787
except it's a multiple choice question. So the only logical answer is to assume fair market value of the goods. Any other answer is pure speculation .

>>8322444
Good logic, now follow these same steps less stupidly. When she buys with her own money, it’s more like a negative loss than 0, the owner wouldn’t be selling things if not to make a profit. Then she comes back and takes $100. What’s the total loss?

>>8321150
130$. He could have used it to buy link.

>>8324869
no its not

>>8321261
if that number was specified this would be a less debatable question. the owner lost his investment on the product plus $30. Obv the answer is C based on the phrasing of the question but realistically the answer is X+$30 with X=the investment in the product. he could go out of business or die before the product sells at $70

>>8324926
Yes it is. No goods were stolen

>>8324937
are you a brainlet?

the shop has a net loss of $30 + the goods

the goods were stolen, along with the $30 change.

>>8321150
1, you can only go off the information we are given here, so as it's states let's not over fucking think it. I'm going to say the shop keeper got everything for the price of $0

Ok women steal $100,
Comes back in gets $70 of good, which is $70 the shop keeper could have made
But she give back the $100 and gets $30 back.
Shop keeper has now lost $30 in cash and $70 in good which he could have sold to make that $70

So $100 yeah?

>>8324961
$100 cash was stolen. Buying something with stolen money isn't stealing.

explicitly within the confines of the question it can't be any answer but c

>>8324986
holy fucking shit you're retarded. the owner lost a total of $30.00

>>8324986

>>8325026
how? there isn't enough information given in the question to possibly proclaim that

$100. the transaction afterward is extra information that is meaningless.
this thread shows that average IQ on biz is pretty low.

>>8325030
You were told to not over think it and you over thought it

>>8325102
maybe for a brainlet it is overthinking.

the question needs a conditional qualifier to say that the shop is commie and paid 70$ to stock the goods.

'overthinking' is subjective

the answer is $100 but only because it is multiple choice, not because it logically fits to be $100.

question is retarded and was developed by a brainlet, most likely a liberal arts professor

>>8321150
you fucking autistics hs dropouts
the answer is obviously not provided.
The owner did not lose $70 worth of goods, the cost of the goods is only $50, markup of $20
Hench owner only lost $50 in cost

>>8321150
$100 - mark up on the item bough = loss

If the store paid $60.. .
100 stolen + 60 paid - 70 revenue = 90

If you think otherwise you're retarded and should probably just kys. We don't have the required info to answer and the question assumes that you're all brainlet enough to think the store sells things at cost meaning C is "correct".

>>8325147
No shit you fucking aspie. We are answering the fucking question withing the constraints of the information given and the available options.
Using ANYTHING outside of what is given is overthinking

>>8325176
it takes a different kind of brain to follow orders compared to understanding why the orders are retarded

>>8325156
They lost cash. They didn't lose any goods.
The goods were purchased legally and is irrelevant.

>>8321150
F

>>8325200
You are a special kind of narcissist.

>>8325234
you dont have to be a narcissist to recognize retardation

$100

>>8321150
The correct answer would probably be somewhere around 80 dollars since he probably profited around 20 dollars for the sale and had 100 dollars stolen.

$170 if you don't know why your not going to make it

>>8321150
200.
opportunity cost

>>8325371
The retardation lies in you over complicating the question. At the end of the day, when someone goes to count up the till, how much will be missing?

>>8321379
This is correct

>>8321150
1K

>>8323361
Also what that person can do with it in terms of resale value

The owner lost 100, the fact she bought him something is irrelevant.

>>8321261
according to the question, the goods are "worth" 70 dollars, regaurdless if the store owner is selling them for a penny or a billion dollars, but apparently he is selling them for 70 dollars.

>>8321460
Best explanation. Everyone is trying to explain it is socially challenged

>>8324875
True.

>these are the people shilling link

170.
he bought her the goods, gave her 30 dollars, and then lost a potential sale to someone else.

$100.01

All these fucking brainlets LMAO

It's 170 you dumb motherfuckers

She stole 100 and got 70 worth of products for free too

>>8324770
>>8324673
idiot retards
she didn't "return" anything. She paid for goods with stolen money aka 170 worth of products for free

The owner lost:

>100 dollar bill
>70 dollars of product (although they probably paid less for it but still)

= 170

How are you people even on this board?

>>8326249
U retard . She gave the 100 back.

Answer = 100 minus the profit margin on the $70 worth of goods. Flip

>>8326304
she used that $100 bill to buy the $70 worth of product and got $30 change
she still only has $100 of value

>>8326342
>>8326332
Lmao no you utter brainlets
She stole 100 bucks and then bought items with stolen profits totalling 170 bucks stolen

The owner lost 100 and a product that can be sold for 70, so 170

Are you retards trolling?

>>8326387
buying shit with stolen money isn't stealing

>>8326387
U Moron. Where does the stolen $100 .... the shop owners $100, end up. In the shop owners till. She didnt STEAL the products. Ate u al retarded pajeets?

>>8326387
I am quite concerned that you don't seem to grasp how money works

>>8326415
>>8326424
>>8326426
Are you retards genuinely braindead? READ OPS POST AGAIN.

THE QUESTION WAS HOW MUCH DOES THE OWNER LOSE?

>STEALS 100
>BUYS 70 DOLLARS WORTH OF PRODUCTS
NOW YOU CAN SAY "HURR DURR THE OWNER PROBABLY PAID LESS FOR THE PRODUCT" BUT THEY ALREADY COVERED THAT WITH DONT THINK TO HARD, AND BY GIVING A SELECTION OF ANSWERS

THE ANSWER IS 170. ITS NOT 100 PLUS THE PROFIT MAGRHIN BRO HURR DUR


HOW ARE YOU FUCKERS IN FINANCE?

> Thief steal shit
Owner is out $100
> Thief pays owner $100
Owner is out $0
> Owner hands over $70 worth of avocado
Owner is out $70
> Owner hands over $30 of change
Owner is out $100

Anyone who couldn't do this will never amount to anything in life.

>>8321150
>>>/facebook/

>>8326446
Is buying goods the same as stealing goods?

If i steal 100 then buy 50 worth of good do i magically recieve 150 net benefit. Think about it dopey.

>>8326446
Calm down and think for a second. The thief paid for the product so, at the end of the day when a worker goes to count up the cash register, how much money will be missing?

>>8321508
She paid with the $100 bill so it would be
+100 bill
+70 goods
-100 bill (she paid with the bill)
+30 change

100

Woman steals 100
>owner is -100 dollars
Woman buys 70 dollars worth of goods
>owner gets 70 dollars but loses 70 dollars worth of goods
Still down 100 dollars
>owner gives 30 bucks in change but has the 100 dollar bill
Owner is down 100 dollars

100 - whatever profit he would have made on the products

>>8326485
No but the owner lost 150 you dumb ass
How are you even here?

>>8326496
And the discrepancy will show up on the books if they didn't have a waste/lost item budget for 100 dollars and a product missing worth 70 dollars

You're a brainlet

100 + the dress

>>8326576
how did product go missing?

>>8326576
Oh wow. Thanks for giving me an insight to the potential retardation that exists on /biz. I was blind, but now i see.

When the owner does his receipts for the day, he will see that he sold $70 of stuff, but the money in his register isn't there, he's even down 30 in cash for some reason.
Now he's wondering if his wife came in and took money to go shopping the dumb can't, so he closes the shop and goes home and bashes he face into the dinner table

>>8326623
he's down $100 in cash

>>8326595
>>8326605
Question: How much did the owner lose?

Answer: 100 dollar bill and a product worth 70 dollars.

>>8326668
the product was payed for. why is that so hard for you to understand?

>>8321266
You're an enby

>>8326668
100 minus the profit margin on the 70 dollars worth of good. Honestly go ask your nearest 100+iq pajeet irl.

Man I'm so bad at logic

Anyway had to google it and the answer is 100$

>>8326729
Yeah, read the post again. There is no option given for 100 + unspecified margin, is there?

It's 170 assuming they bought the product for 70 and are selling it break even

>>8326424
Owner sells $100 worth of products to a customer. She steals that $100, owner is at net -$100. Then she comes back and gives him $70 for $70 worth of product, essentially getting it for free. So owner has lost $170 worth in product.

>>8326749
She didn't get it for free. she payed for it with stolen money. Two very different things

The fact she came back and bought something doesn't change how much money the store lost

>>8326749
>takes $100 from him
>gives him $70
Look above. How much money does he have?

Note: he let go of $70 worth of goods.

I am running out of ways to put this.

>>8326852
I think they gotta be fucking with us

Some bitch walks in and steals $100...that's all you need to know.

The rest is her buying shit so it is irrelevent what happens afterwards.

Answer is $100...

>>8326864
Yeah i figured ... but im too invested to let it go. I cant escape this hell.

the owner literally gets the $100 bill back by the end.
he's only missing the $30 cash and the $70 worth of goods for which the lady has given him none of her actual money.

30 + 70 = ??

>>8326957
>t. brainlet

I can't believe you are all this stupid. As usual when maths questions are formed by retards, this has no answer because we do not know the price the goods were bought for by the store owner. It is not uncommon for stores to sell products as loss-leaders to bait consumers in, the store owner lost ($30 + $x) where x is the cost of product that was bought with the stolen $100. This bait shows that /biz/ have no idea of the difference between cost price and sale price, and should stick to buying invisible internet money.

>>8321150

He lost his homeland to multiculturalism

>>8326957
he loses the food nigger

>>8321508
wh.... what.... are you acutally retarded? LOL its 100... wtf is -70 bill

>>8321150
She steals $100 and buys $70 worth of goods with it. That means the owner gets back $70 of the stolen money, but also loses $70 in goods, his loss stays at $100. Anyone who doesn't get this should consider staying out of crypto.

>>8327076
>t. aspie who can't answer a simple question within a scope

130 what else would it be?

>>8321150

-100 money
- 30 money
- 70 goods
----
-200 total

+70 back

The answer is C. She just exchanged the $100 bill for $70 item and $30 cash. Still stole $100 from the store.

>>8323361
>this
no dipshit. The question clearly states do not fucking overthink it
the answer is 100. This board is fucking retarded if they argue about such an obvious question

to all 100 idiots

>>8322083

you dum dum ...

-100 stolen
-70 goods "bought"
-30 change "given back"
+70 "paid"
------
do the math what you got at the end of the transactions

>>8328714
It's +100 paid - 30 change, though

>>8328714
She walked out with 70$ worth of goods and 30$ in money at the end of the day when she got home that she didn't have in the first place.
...the owner lost $100...

70 dollars worth of items and 30 worth in FIAT cash.


Dumb cunts.

264 reply to this thread, ayy lmao, biz really has nothing better than to do than crypto and, well, that's temporarily dead.

>>8328808
Wrong. the answer is $130.

>>8328808
He also lost the initial $100 bill
So it's that plus the $30 he gave her as change

>>8328845
She gave it back in exchange for $70 of goods and $30 change. Net change of $0.
The only loss he incurs is the initial theft.

It’s $200 you sub 80 IQ coons!

>>8328739
Guys guys guys. This is embarrassing. Let's end this.

Rephrase the question.

Lady steals $100
Lady spends it at mcdonalds
Lady comes back 2 weeks later and buys stuff as a paying customer

Store owner only lost $100

>>8328887
I hope you're trolling. He lost the $70 in goods then 30 beside the $100.

The answer is $130. How hard is it?

>>8328913
Let's go through the transactions.
-100 Stolen
+100 Paid
-70 Goods
-30 Change

Now balance those values.

>>8328948
Are you sure? Better check those numbers again cause you're way off.

>>8321150
100 - (the profit margin on the dress)

>>8321150
The answer is D - $130. Dumb niggers.

Loses $100
Then un-loses the $100
Then loses $70 in merch plus $30
The loss is $100

Now, the owner may only be able to claim for insurance the wholesale price of the goods, let’s say there’s a 40% markup so let’s call it $50. $20 is missed profit, so really, to be made whole, D’Nequá would have to pay the owner $80.

>>8328913

its only difficult because language makes it and the thought process ... maths tries to be a precise language

ways to think of it:

loss: -100 money, -70 goods, -30 m.change
gain: +70 money

loss: -100 money, -30 m.change
transaction: -70good +70money (0)

... being able to cough up the correct answer doesn't make anyone smart in particular, but it sure as shit bamboozles many

>>8323103
>C

abolsute state of /boz/

>>8328832
Explain; how is the bitch UP $130? She has $30 plus the $70 in Goods. The hundie she stole is gone

THE ANSWER IS 200$ YOU ABSOLUTE IDIOTS
SHE STOLE THE PRODUCT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY CHANGE

>>8329061
Oh boy you guys are retarded. She stole the hundred right, then she came back and traded $70 worth of goods then received $30.

No what is 100 plus 30. Surely you can work that out brainlet.

>>8329043
No U tard the gain is +100 in money.

>>8329093
From the thief’s perspective: how the f is she $130 richer? She doesn’t have 100+30 she has 70+30

>>8321150
He lost 100 bucks.

30 and 70 dollar is not lost due do it being an action of trade.

>>8328335
If the people setting the questions weren't on the same mental level as Otto Warmbier, then I wouldn't have to point out their failure to understand what they are asking. Remember that substitution equation a week ago where everyone assumed the value of an unknown because of how much like a known substitution it looked? Unwarranted assumption. Fuck's sake, same shit different OP.

>>8329043
What aren't ye a smart one. So clever.

Some guy wasted 30 minutes of my time pretending to be a retard - consider the favor passed on to you friend. Now its your turn to be an idiot - if your ego can handle it.

>>8329138
HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE OR IS EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD FUCKING TROLLING? THE STORE LOST A PRODUCT WORTH 70$

100$ STOLEN+70$ OF MERCHANDISE STOLEN+30$ OF CHANGE

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF BIZTARDS

>>8329125
Why are you yelling?

>>8329183
Answer the question you unbathed autist

>>8329138
this

how can the answer be $130????

she now has 70$ worth of goods + $30 in change

where did the other $30 go?

>>8329202
Welcome to hell newfag.

>>8329202
90 percent of people here are trolling you absolute brainlet.

>>8321150
Loses 100$
Then 70$ worth of assets
Then 30$ change

Owner loses $100 bill
Stolen $100 bill used to buy $70 product + $30 change
Owner loses total of $100+$70+$30=$200.

>>8329169

Being this retarded...baka

So let me break this down for your simple brain with simple math.

You have 100 dollars. Someone steals from you and now you have 0 dollars (-100). Then someone comes back and it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER who it is and gives you a 100 dollar bill. Maybe it's the same fucker who stole your dollars or maybe not, it doesn't matter. You're given 100 dollar bill for the 70 dollar product and you give away 30 dollar change. You lose $70 product in exchange for 70 bucks so in this example you get -70+70=0 Adding 0 to -100 gives you -100 brainlet.
Of course this is a simplified example that doesn't take profit margins into account but let's skip that since it's unimportant in this exercise. Now you might think that cash is dirty and therefore it has negative value or some shit but think again, it's cash so nobody gives a fuck. The store owner got 70 in the end and it doens't matter who touched that 70 before and why. To sum it up, you're retarded and before you claim you were "only pretending", no you're still fucking retarded.

ok had enough fun ... its 100


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJyC77k8d54

>>8321150
it's D

$100 stolen
-100
$70 worth of goods purchased, gains $70 back, but loses $70 worth of goods so
-100+70-70=-100
Gives $30 change so minus another 30
-100-30=-$130

>>8329481
EDIT it's C $100

the second line should be
-100+100-70= -70

-70-30=-100

>>8329504
The question clearly asks how much did the owner LOSE

>>8329464
Yeah it was a good one. Now time for the bonus question. How many replies in this thread were not trolling?

>>8329433
Wow, someone slept through every fucking math class he took.

-$100 from till
-$70 product
-$30 change
+$100 bill

Shop owner is out $100.

You got the right answer, but holy fucking waterheads, the...I guess it could be called "reasoning" for how you got there...I hope to fucking god you're larping, because I don't want to believe someone as fucked up like you exists.

>>8329523
My answer clearly answers how much did the owner LOSE

is this a meme or what?

He lost 100.

If the answer has to take in consideration the cost of the raw product it isn't 100. Its the cost of that product for the owner plus the 30 in change.

>>8329525

i know mine wasn't sciencey math is confusing as hell

why do these threads get so many replies?

>>8329671

because language bamboozles you
thought process bamboozles you
math bamboozles you

>>8329318
Yea, but she gave back the $100

The answer can only be $100 or $170 depending on how you look at it. He lost $30 and $70 worth of goods, so $100.
You can also say that he shouldn't have been robbed of his $100 in the first place, so that plus the potential money he would have received from the goods would make $170. Saying that potential income doesn't count is not really fair to say, because he can never even get that money back. The fact that thief wanted it, is enough indication that there is at least some demand for it.

>>8329718
Sure buddy. Even if I was a brainlet I wouldn't want to be found out

Listen up niggers, before the sale he's down 100 bucks. The 70 bucks stolen get swapped for 70 bucks of goods. On top of that he gives 30 bucks.

It is clear as day that this poor man lost 130 bucks.