You run a shop and someone steals $100

[BocaRear]

Pretend this is the only question on a math test. You can't take off points based on a variable you didn't include in the question. At this point, it doesn't matter what amount the shopkeeper paid for the items because it isn't included in the question.

But it is included in the question as we are working on the premise that this is a shopkeeper,

This is the most simple explanation:

A shop buys goods and sells them at a profit.

A shopkeeper is already at a loss before he sells his products.

The shopkeeper already owns the products he sells as he already paid for them.

The shopkeeper sells the products at the price at which he purchased them plus an additional profit margin

The shopkeeper LOST the money at which he purchased the goods from his supplier. As well as the $100.

It's like the product never existed or was destroyed.

 

[zerozero]

Someone's finally thinking outside the box here

But yet again breh, we have to take into account that the shopkeeper is already at -$60 (approx subtract profit margin at which he sells goods) because he purchased his goods from a supplier. So him taking $60 out of his own pocket is him paying $120 (approx) as he's paying for his goods twice.

This is why you don't get high on your own supply, you're paying double.

The change is irrelevant.

But the -$60 is true regardless of whether the goods are on the shelf, bought by himself, or by the thief, or by a random customer... so if you want to count it you'd count it in all outcomes and it would be irrelevant to the theft and purchase in question here

BTW As far as I know, most people interpret Biggie's "never get high on your own supply" as "don't get high at all" breh, not some accounting thing

 

[sanityovar8ted]

nicca i gained hell u mean cuz im the 1 who stole the $100 n came back n spent it......in reality i get over on the dopebois like this quite often, sometimes w/ counterfeit $100 bills

 

[BocaRear]

But the -$60 is true regardless of whether the goods are on the shelf, bought by himself, or by the thief, or by a random customer... so if you want to count it you'd count it in all outcomes and it would be irrelevant to the theft and purchase in question here

BTW As far as I know, most people interpret Biggie's "never get high on your own supply" as "don't get high at all" breh, not some accounting thing

No,

It is only true in the case that it is the shopkeeper's money purchasing his own goods.

 

[NoMayo15]

Ugh, alright guess I'm jumping into this fukkery

But yet again breh, we have to take into account that the shopkeeper is already at -$60 (approx subtract profit margin at which he sells goods) because he purchased his goods from a supplier. So him taking $60 out of his own pocket is him paying $120 (approx) as he's paying for his goods twice.

This is why you don't get high on your own supply, you're paying double.

The change is irrelevant.

Over-thinking, and assuming things is why so many disagree on this question. If you do that, you could just as easily assume the shopkeeper got the items to sell for free....maybe he stole them himself or inherited them in some way. You can come up with dozens of different scenarios that would impact the amount lost for the shopkeeper, so why not just stick with the facts given in the first place?

If we're bringing in other variables, who sells an item for roughly the same amount they bought it for? Why even be in business if you're profit margin is so low?

That would assume that any transaction would result in this shopkeeper making ~$0...what sense does that make?

 

[I'llBeLate4That]

It's 100 dollars. Think about it from the thief's perspective

He steals 100 dollars (+100)
He gives a 100 dollars to the shop owner (-100 back to 0)
He receives 60 in merch and 40 in cash (+100)

The only way the shop owner is out of 200 is that if the thief steals the money from him (100) and the merch +40 dollars.

 

[str8up]

He lost $100

at dudes conjuring money out of thin air

 

[BocaRear]

Buying merchandise is not a loss.

It is if you're buying your own merchandise,

It's like owning a hot dog stand and paying for the ingredients and then paying to eat the damn hot dog

 

[Tenchi Ryu]

I love how damn near 30 nikkas dapped the most wrong answer in this thread?

And had the nerve to be sassy with the shyt too

 

[The Fire]

I love how damn near 30 nikkas dapped the most wrong answer in this thread?

And had the nerve to be sassy with the shyt too

 

[zerozero]

No,

It is only true in the case that it is the shopkeeper's money purchasing his own goods.

you said,
we have to take into account that the shopkeeper is already at -$60 (approx subtract profit margin at which he sells goods) because he purchased his goods from a supplier.

This would be true even if the goods were still sitting on the shelf. This would be true even if a random customer came in and bought the item. The -$60 you're referring to here applies in all cases.

 

[BocaRear]

Ugh, alright guess I'm jumping into this fukkery



Over-thinking, and assuming things is why so many disagree on this question. If you do that, you could just as easily assume the shopkeeper got the items to sell for free....maybe he stole them himself or inherited them in some way. You can come up with dozens of different scenarios that would impact the amount lost for the shopkeeper, so why not just stick with the facts given in the first place?

If we're bringing in other variables, who sells an item for roughly the same amount they bought it for? Why even be in business if you're profit margin is so low?

That would assume that any transaction would result in this shopkeeper making ~$0...what sense does that make?

Breh, the premise of a shop is buying goods from a supplier (meaning you're already -$)
And then selling it to a customer to recuperate your loss (break even) and gain a profit.

It's not like I'm pulling this assumption out of thin air.

And that's why I said the shopkeeper has lost APPROX $160 give or take the original costs of product.

 

[LV Koopa]

god damn this thread is comedy

 

[MeachTheMonster]

It is if you're buying your own merchandise,

It's like owning a hot dog stand and paying for the ingredients and then paying to eat the damn hot dog

Be dumb as fukk brehs.

I'm out

 

[BocaRear]

you said,
we have to take into account that the shopkeeper is already at -$60 (approx subtract profit margin at which he sells goods) because he purchased his goods from a supplier.

This would be true even if the goods were still sitting on the shelf. This would be true even if a random customer came in and bought the item. The -$60 you're referring to here applies in all cases.

now it's getting a bit over complicated breh,

It's simply: the shopkeeper paid for his merchandise twice