You run a shop and someone steals $100

[Mirin4rmfar]

This was my thought process.

would be correct but it is still a lost! He does not gain 60 dollar, if the money was not stole that is 100 + 60. The money he gets from selling the goods doesn't count.

 

[NobodyReally]

40 dollars

 

[It is a mystery]

I hope a lot of you guys aren't accountants

 

[TRFG]

No it's not. If it was only money involved it would be.. But the inclusion of his future purchase makes things confusing

/thread

This man gets it

 

[Family Man]

Either y'all dumb as fukk or I'm dumb as fukk. I don't know what's what anymore so I'm out.

 

[player611]

As the shopkeeper, you never break even in this situation. Breaking even is the guy giving you the $100 back that he took in the first place, then leaving. He doesn't do this though. He uses the free cash to buy goods from you. At the start of the transaction, you're at -$100. Now he buys $60 worth of merchandise with the free $100 he took from you. Because you didn't break even before the transaction, you're now at -$160. You then give him another $40 as "change". Now you're at -$200.

At no point during or before the transaction does he ever give you back the money he originally took from you. -100-40-60=-200. You lose $200.

I can see why some people are saying $100 because its easy to think you broke even when he gives you the $100 back, but its IN EXCHANGE for another $100 ($60 in merchandise+$40 in change)

 

[Supercoolmayo]

So OP ain't gonna answer the question

 

[Loop Ba$eCrawler]

300,000 dollars.

It was his whore wife's boyfriend that came in to buy lighter fluid and axes. The whore wife and boyfriend proceeded to smash the shop owners house, rape his cat and burn the house down before he could get home to brag about his 60 dollar sell. They bashed his head in with axes as he arrived home.

 

[45123]

At no point during or before the transaction does he ever give you back the money he originally took from you. -100-40-60=-200. You lose $200.

He pays for the 60 in merch with the 100 he stole from you. The question says "he uses the same money".

 

[TillWeDie]

Subs lol

 

[45123]

$200

because he stole $100 cash from the store then came back and bought took $60 of goods and got $40 in change from the store . In total the store lost $100 cash (the first time) and another $60 in goods and $40 in cash (second time). Therefore, the shop keeper lost $200

at these responses.

The 'American' Education system y'all

You get back 60 of your dollars though. You lose 60 in merch, and then 40 out of change. Why would you account for the 40 a second time? The shopkeeper is paying the 40 in change out of the 100 stolen from him that is given back to him. In the end, the shopkeeper has lost 40 from his register, and missed out on an extra 60 he could have in his register.

But that lost merch is a sunk cost he already paid for anyways, so that's a loss accounted for regardless of whether or not anybody stole shyt from his store, and you can't even say he lost 60 in merch because the shopkeeper paid less than 60 for it but charges it for 60 so as to make profit. The robber basically stole 60 in merch, yes, but that's an implicit cost. The shopkeeper already paid for that merch, he just ain't recoup.

So the answer to the question is that, explicitly, he actually loses some amount less than 100. The 40 in cash, and whatever amount he paid to stock the merch. Implicitly, he would lose 40 in cash + amount he paid to stock + the profit he could have gotten if the merch wasn't stolen.

 

[Zach Lowe]

As the shopkeeper, you never break even in this situation. Breaking even is the guy giving you the $100 back that he took in the first place, then leaving. He doesn't do this though. He uses the free cash to buy goods from you. At the start of the transaction, you're at -$100. Now he buys $60 worth of merchandise with the free $100 he took from you. Because you didn't break even before the transaction, you're now at -$160. You then give him another $40 as "change". Now you're at -$200.

At no point during or before the transaction does he ever give you back the money he originally took from you. -100-40-60=-200. You lose $200.

I can see why some people are saying $100 because its easy to think you broke even when he gives you the $100 back, but its IN EXCHANGE for another $100 ($60 in merchandise+$40 in change)

you're forgetting to add $100 for what he paid you

he stole it in the first place yes, but he gave the $100 bill back to you

so you lost 100 to start with (-100)
he pays you for the goods with $100 (-100+100=0)
you give him 40 in change and 60 worth of goods (-100+100-40-60 = -100)

it's not a 200 loss it's 100

 

[TRFG]

You get back 60 of your dollars though. You lose 60 in merch, and then 40 out of change. Why would you account for the 40 a second time? The shopkeeper is paying the 40 in change out of the 100 stolen from him that is given back to him. In the end, the shopkeeper has lost 40 from his register, and missed out on 60 he could have in his register.

But that lost merch is a sunk cost he already paid for anyways, so that's a loss accounted for regardless of whether or not anybody stole shyt from his store, and you can't even say he lost 60 in merch because the shopkeeper paid less than 60 for it but charges it for 60 so as to make profit. The robber basically stole 60 in merch, yes, but that's an implicit cost. The shopkeeper already paid for that merch, he just ain't recoup.

So the answer to the question is that, explicitly, he actually loses some amount less than 100. The 40 in cash, and whatever amount he paid to stock the merch. Implicitly, he would lose 40 in cash + amount he paid to stock + the profit he could have gotten if the merch wasn't stolen

Because it's money

and that's what you do in accounting

 

[It is a mystery]

As the shopkeeper, you never break even in this situation. Breaking even is the guy giving you the $100 back that he took in the first place, then leaving. He doesn't do this though. He uses the free cash to buy goods from you. At the start of the transaction, you're at -$100. Now he buys $60 worth of merchandise with the free $100 he took from you. Because you didn't break even before the transaction, you're now at -$160.You then give him another $40 as "change". Now you're at -$200.

At no point during or before the transaction does he ever give you back the money he originally took from you. -100-40-60=-200. You lose $200.

I can see why some people are saying $100 because its easy to think you broke even when he gives you the $100 back, but its IN EXCHANGE for another $100 ($60 in merchandise+$40 in change)

People aren't saying he broke even with 100. They are saying he ended with net -100 instead of -200
tldr version; the answer is his net loss is $100

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

you lost $100 in total

this nikka took 100

with that 100 he buys 60 dollars worth of shyt and on top of that got back $40 in change

nikka did some kind runescape scam exchange on your ass, he gave you back the shyt he stole in exchange for stealing some other shyt of the same value