You run a shop and someone steals $100
- Thread starter sportscribe
- Start date
BocaRear
The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion
The total loss is Approx $160 because the price at which the shopkeeper purchased the goods from a supplier is not stated.
Exactly breh you only take into account what you're given, you're just admitting here that you used numbers you pulled out your azz
Because he assumes the shopkeeper paid $60 for the products even though it isn't included in the question. Even if the shopkeeper did pay $60 for the products it would be silly because he would never gain money. I think this is just some next level trolling.
they can do simple math but they caint read or think straight...them word problems will get you...i bet a 4th grader could figure this out in her head...
BocaRear
The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion
Numbers I pulled out my ass?
Just because your feeble mind cannot think outside the limitations of the question and grasp the concept that this is a SHOP, you resort to this bullshyt
It's clear you and many other mental midgets cannot understand that a shop is run on a profit/loss system where the shopkeeper at his neutral point is already at a loss as he's previously paid the supplier for the product in order to break even and then gain a profit.
The shopkeeper paying for his own merchendise twice doesn't make him break even. It means he's paid out of his own pocket for the goods he already paid for initially.
The $60 is a presumed value because the initial price of the product prior to the profit margin being added on is not defined.
U mad as shyt that you're mind is limited af.
lolNumbers I pulled out my ass?
Just because your feeble mind cannot think outside the limitations of the question and grasp the concept that this is a SHOP, you resort to this bullshyt
It's clear you and many other mental midgets cannot understand that a shop is run on a profit/loss system where the shopkeeper at his neutral point is already at a loss as he's previously paid the supplier for the product in order to break even and then gain a profit.
The shopkeeper paying for his own merchendise twice doesn't make him break even. It means he's paid out of his own pocket for the goods he already paid for initially.
The $60 is a presumed value because the initial price of the product prior to the profit margin being added on is not defined.
U mad as shyt that you're mind is limited af.
this is why they say common sense isn't so commonthis isn't as much arithmetic as it is logic
Breh
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.
I don't understand this concept of it being HIS money. He has it until he doesn't anymore. He loss $100, which is later returned in exchange for $60 worth of goods, and $40 worth of cash. That's it. Anything else about how much the shopkeeper originally spent is speculation, and you don't solve math problems by speculating extra info.
- Customer chooses $60 worth of goods.
- Customer hands $100 to shopkeeper.
- Shopkeeper hands $40 in change to customer.
This idiot even crossed out the word "bought" in his explanation when it's at the very center of the math
technically it's stealing but ok
BocaRear
The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion
His money, if the shopkeeper is a sole trader and not a limited liability company, him and the shop are the same legal entity (which is usually the case for shopkeepers). Therefore all the money in the shop's register and on the shopkeepers person and the assets he owns are his money.
The money he LOSES are the assets and the cash he lost.
I thought this at first too, but in looking at it like this "put 60 back" accounts for the change already (he put back 100, then got 40 in change.)
So you're -40 in cash, then you subtract the price of the goods you had to give him, -40-60 = -100.
I swear this thread has to go to the rafters, this shyt is pure epic comedy 
This shyt needs a hubie brown narrative
The OP did not tell us for how much did the shopkeeper buy the goods. Let's assume he bought that shyt for 60 and selling for 60 meaning he is a dumbass and selling goods for literally nothing.
A guy comes to his store and robs his cashier machine by taking 100 dollars which means he is now -100
The same thief comes back tomorrow and uses the same 100 dollars to shop in your stores. Now take a look at this, he gives away those 100 dollars and the shopkeeper puts the money back into the cashier machine meaning that at this point he is now back into 0.
But here is the critical point, he proceeds to give the thief the goods, for which he paid 60 dollars and on top of that he proceeds to take the 40 dollars out of the cashier and give them to the thief....meaning that he is now back into losing 100 dollars
This shyt needs a hubie brown narrative
The OP did not tell us for how much did the shopkeeper buy the goods. Let's assume he bought that shyt for 60 and selling for 60 meaning he is a dumbass and selling goods for literally nothing.
A guy comes to his store and robs his cashier machine by taking 100 dollars which means he is now -100
The same thief comes back tomorrow and uses the same 100 dollars to shop in your stores. Now take a look at this, he gives away those 100 dollars and the shopkeeper puts the money back into the cashier machine meaning that at this point he is now back into 0.
But here is the critical point, he proceeds to give the thief the goods, for which he paid 60 dollars and on top of that he proceeds to take the 40 dollars out of the cashier and give them to the thief....meaning that he is now back into losing 100 dollars
The irony in this
Look yall, the spelling police got me...now while we concerning ourselves with what others have typed in this thread, tell me something. Did you really say this...
