You run a shop and someone steals $100

[Reflected]

Taking down names, anyone that tries to argue with me is going to have their post quoted.

edit: The people that dapped on the first page too.

 

[BocaRear]

the shopkeeper gets his original $100 back cuz the thief pays with it

why the fukk else would he give away $60 in product and $40 cash? is it for free?

Coli Mental midgets coming out today in full swing

Lemme break this down

1) Shopkeeper loses $100

2) Thief spends your $60 of the $100 to buy your goods,
and you give him $40 change so you're at -100

3) keep in mind however, the shopkeeper has already paid for his merch
And is selling it. Technically he pays for his merch TWICE, give or take
The price he buys the merch at. Which is approx $60.

So you come to approx -$160

fukk you're stupid.

Let's say the thief spends the money elsewhere. Then walks in with his own $100 bill.

How much does the owner lose then?

If the thief goes to another shop then the shopkeeper only loses $100, if he goes to the same shop he stole the $100 the shopkeeper loses $100 + the cost of the merchandise

 

[MeachTheMonster]

If the thief goes to another shop then the shopkeeper only loses $100, if he goes to the same shop he stole the $100 the shopkeeper loses $100 + the cost of the merchandise

So in a normal transaction the owner loses money?

 

[Zach Lowe]

Coli Mental midgets coming out today in full swing

Lemme break this down

1) Shopkeeper loses $100

2) Thief spends your $60 of the $100 to buy your goods,
and you give him $40 change so you're at -100

3) keep in mind however, the shopkeeper has already paid for his merch
And is selling it. Technically he pays for his merch TWICE, give or take
The price he buys the merch at.

1 and 2 is where it ends

so we agree the owner is down 100

idk what the fukk #3 is

why is it a loss to the owner if the thief would rather have some of his stolen money in merchandise instead? merch is cheaper to the owner than it is on the shelf price

 

[BocaRear]

So in a normal transaction the owner loses money?

This is not a NORMAL transaction


the thief is using the shopkeepers money to steal the shopkeepers goods.

Technically the shopkeeper is paying for his own goods TWICE

Think harder.

 

[Reflected]

This is not a NORMAL transaction


the thief is using the shopkeepers money to steal the shopkeepers goods.

Technically the shopkeeper is paying for his own goods TWICE

Think harder.

I understand what you are saying but that's not the answer to the question asked. You are adding variables. Your answer would be correct if in the question, it stated "assuming the shopkeeper paid x amount for the merchandise."

 

[MeachTheMonster]

This is not a NORMAL transaction


the thief is using the shopkeepers money to steal the shopkeepers goods.

Technically the shopkeeper is paying for his own goods TWICE

Think harder.

Follow along.

The thief throws the money in the garbage. Then goes back to the store and uses his own $100.

How much does the shop lose?

 

[BocaRear]

1 and 2 is where it ends

so we agree the owner is down 100

idk what the fukk #3 is

why is it a loss to the owner if the thief would rather have some of his stolen money in merchandise instead? merch is cheaper to the owner than it is on the shelf price

That's why I said its approx $60 loss in merch, give or take what the shopkeeper purchases it at.

It's a loss for the shopkeeper as the shopkeeper already owns the goods, they are his goods he already purchased at a loss.The thief uses the $60 of the shopkeeper's money to purchase goods that the shopkeeper already owns.

The entire premise of a shop is that you buy merchandise at your own cost (so a shopkeeper is already in the hole) and sell it for a greater price

 

[Zach Lowe]

this could be an interview question at the worst strategy consulting firm in the world

to weed out the truly retarded candidates

 

[Orange cream shake]

You run a shop and someone came in and stole $100 without your attention.

The person came back and used the same money to buy $60 worth of items from your shop and you gave him a change of $40.

How much money have you lost?

Explain your answer so we know you didn't do ya googles.

140

 

[BocaRear]

I understand what you are saying but that's not the answer to the question asked. You are adding variables. Your answer would be correct if in the question, it stated "assuming the shopkeeper paid x amount for the merchandise."

The question is how much money the Shopkeeper lost and the answer is approx $160

Follow along.

The thief throws the money in the garbage. Then goes back to the store and uses his own $100.

How much does the shop lose?

If the thief throws the money in the garbage then the shopkeeper has only lost $100.
And if the thief goes on to spend his own $100 then the shopkeeper would only lose -$40

BUT he uses the same SHOPKEEPERS money to purchase the SHOPKEEPERS goods so this is a moot point.

 

[NoMayo15]

I don't know what's more sad: The idiots arguing any dollar amount other than $100, or the morons trying to convince them.

 

[Skooby]

BUT he uses the same SHOPKEEPERS money to purchase the SHOPKEEPERS goods so this is a moot point.

:saywhat?:

Which is why the shopkeer is out $100 and not $160.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The question is how much money the Shopkeeper lost and the answer is approx $160



If the thief throws the money in the garbage then the shopkeeper has only lost $100.
And if the thief goes on to spend his own $100 then the shopkeeper would only lose -$40

BUT he uses the same SHOPKEEPERS money to purchase the SHOPKEEPERS goods so this is a moot point.

Why does it matter whether he uses the stolen money or his own?

 

[zerozero]

BUT he uses the same SHOPKEEPERS money to purchase the SHOPPERS goods so this is a moot point.

Okay... let's say the shopkeeper used his OWN $100 from the register to purchase his OWN goods, worth $60. Just picked it out of the register and put it back down again. Then? He'd be out $60 in goods that he took off the shelf and took home. If he gave himself $40 change and pocketed that as well he'd be out $100.