You run a shop and someone steals $100

GoPro

EscoBeard Season Has Returned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
12,814
Reputation
2,314
Daps
32,759
Reppin
#CertLife #ITGang
"$35,220 dollars cuz now he gotta hire a security guard :dame:"

:pachaha::pachaha::pachaha:
f1iq11.jpg
 

NoMayo15

All Star
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
4,511
Reputation
315
Daps
6,496
Because it's his cash (the shopkeepers), he's paying with his own money for a product he already owns :why:



If the thief stole $100 and then stole $60 worth of merchandise it would be the same loss of $160.

Yeah, but aren't you forgetting the owner paid ~$60 to buy the merch, so isn't he really down $220?
 

badhat

Pro
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
602
Reputation
238
Daps
1,898
C'mon, @BocaRear, we can get through this together.

You agreed that after
  1. Thief steals $100
  2. Thief steals $60 in goods
the total loss is $160.

Now, after
  1. Thief steals $100
  2. Thief steals $60 in goods
  3. Storekeeper accidentally "returns" $40
what's the total loss?
 

Egomaniacal1

Director of the Federal Bureau of Instigation
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
7,412
Reputation
1,065
Daps
19,375
Reppin
Martin, TN
I have been laughing at this thread for the past half hour.

nikka you...i'm laughing so hard cuz i done explained what i'm laughing at to my girl and she over hear sounding as dumb as @BocaRear ...got me rethinking my choice in women and shyt. :ohhh::notsureifserious:
 

Bobby Reds

Banned
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
694
Reputation
-495
Daps
1,158
80

he took 100 = -£100

then 'put 60 back' =£-40

You gave him 40 in change = £-40

which mean you down £80
 

25YOUTHS!!

Superstar
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,879
Reputation
3,110
Daps
14,563
Reppin
NULL
Because it's his cash (the shopkeepers), he's paying with his own money for a product he already owns :why:



If the thief stole $100 and then stole $60 worth of merchandise it would be the same loss of $160.
Aii lets start with the bolded. So at that point the shop keeper is out $160 right? Now lets say instead of stealing the $60 of merchandise the thief paid for it from the original $100 he stole (WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED). So now the shopkeeper is out the $60 of merchandise and the original $100....BUT he got $60 of his money back for the merchandise.

Lets say (for some reason) you subtract the $60 you got for the merchandise from the original $100 you lost. Now you're out $40 cash (100-60 merch) PLUS the cost of the merch (60).
 

The Fire

way more chemical than political
Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
33,770
Reputation
10,470
Daps
139,255
Reppin
brooklyn
80

he took 100 = -£100

then 'put 60 back' =£-40

You gave him 40 in change = £-40

which mean you down £80
The thief didn't keep 80 in cash :snoop:
Bought a $60 item with $100 he gets 40 in change that's it
 

LV Koopa

Jester from Hell
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
9,454
Reputation
1,998
Daps
29,302
Reppin
NYC
You're forgetting the fact that the thief gave the shopkeeper $100, he didn't steal the the product after the original $100 theft
Shopkeeper only lost $100

Nikka are you retarded

the thief essentially traded that $100 bill for a $60 product and $40 in cash where tha fukk are you getting the extra money from


BINGO. This is why I posted the counterfeiting money example. God damn cats don't even know basic finance.
 

BocaRear

The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
13,740
Reputation
6,525
Daps
78,735
C'mon, @BocaRear, we can get through this together.

You agreed that after
  1. Thief steals $100
  2. Thief steals $60 in goods
the total loss is $160.

Now, after
  1. Thief steals $100
  2. Thief steals $60 in goods
  3. Storekeeper accidentally "returns" $40
what's the total loss?

Breh :snoop:

You're looking at it from the perspective of the thief.

The shopkeeper loses more than just the $100 due to HIS money being used to pay for the merchendise again.

So the shopkeeper loses approx -$160 but add the profit, which is just less than $160.

You fail to realise that the shopkeeper has MOST likely paid for his product already from a supplier.
 

badhat

Pro
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
602
Reputation
238
Daps
1,898
Breh :snoop:

You're looking at it from the perspective of the thief.

The shopkeeper loses more than just the $100 due to HIS money being used to pay for the merchendise again.

So the shopkeeper loses approx -$160 but add the profit, which is just less than $160.

You fail to realise that the shopkeeper has MOST likely paid for his product already from a supplier.
So why did you say the total loss was $160 when I asked the first question?
 
Top