DrunkenNovice
Superstar
breakdown the events yallEven point: 0
Theft: -100
Purchase: +60 cash (40 in change dont matter because it was from the money stolen)
Purchase: -60 in merch.
Total loss $60 in merch, $40 cash
You run a shop and someone steals $100
- Thread starter sportscribe
- Start date
breakdown the events yallEven point: 0
Theft: -100
Purchase: +60 cash (40 in change dont matter because it was from the money stolen)
Purchase: -60 in merch.
Total loss $60 in merch, $40 cash
following your logic
what if the customer didn't steal 100 to begin with
storekeeper gets $60 cash for the product
loses $60 by giving the product in exchange
and gives back $40 in change
so +60-60-40
and he lost $40?
You'd be even except for the fact that he didn't use HIS money to make a purchase, he used YOUR money. When he came through with your $100 it's not like you were on $0, nah nikka you were already operating your business on -$100.
If he stole your money and then came to make a deal with you you're gonna have a transaction based on a loss.
Usually if I make a purchase with my money it goes like this:
Seller = $0
Me = $100
But in this case this is how the transaction ocurred:
Seller = -$100
Buyer = $100
buying the product and getting change back is a valid transaction you retard
if the storekeeper "loses" from that then he loses on every sale and he's a retard
the only theft is the $100 stolen
by buying the $60 worth of shyt the thief trades part of his stolen cash for product
the loss to the storekeeper is only $100 cuz the thief got $60 of product and $40 cash
the loss to storekeeper = amount stolen by the thief
coli retarded
DrunkenNovice
Superstar
following your logic
what if the customer didn't steal 100 to begin with
storekeeper gets $60 cash for the product
loses $60 by giving the product in exchange
and gives back $40 in change
so +60-60-40
and he lost $40?
Edit my bad breh...you understood
Coli brehs let me know when yall open a shop
-100 + 100 = 0
And If he used his own money we wouldn't be even.
fukk kinda logic is that.
"Guy gains 60 dollars back from the stolen money but loses 60 from giving away merchandise so it evens out back to the original -100."
you're assuming the storekeeper makes no money on sales?
"Guy gives 40 back in change so now it's at -140"
so what if the $100 was the customer's own money (not stolen)
by your logic, if he buys something worth $60 that's a zero sum transaction (+60-60 = 0)
then if you give him $40 in change back, you lost $40
nah
Fine, if he didn't steal our money and instead used his money I meant.If he used his own money we wouldn't be even.
fukk kinda logic is that.
-100 + 100 = 0
And If he used his own money we wouldn't be even.
fukk kinda logic is that.
Thinkin' about it hard enough, perhaps you're right in that you really just lost $100.
If
1. -100
2. -100+100-40
3. -100+100-40+60 = -100
Guess you're right.
Dap+Rep
Chain of events.
I lose $100
I gain $100
I give out 60 + 40
That's $100 lost, there is no extra $40
Thinkin' about it hard enough, perhaps you're right in that you really just lost $100.
If
1. -100
2. -100+100-40
3. -100+100-40+60 = -100
Guess you're right.
Dap+Rep
was starting to think you were retarded
i could understand saying 140 if u looking at it wrong
but 200 tho?
@TheRealfG
Nah nikka I just take my money seriously, fukk accurate math that'll make me feel slightly better. I'll expound on the "L" in order to get a higher return if I have to.
