Can /b/ solve this simple puzzle?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Can /b/ solve this simple puzzle?
>>713960356
100 dollars, nigger who robbed the place got 30 dollars cash and 30 dollars of items without having any money/food stamps to begin with
130$ u cunt
>>713960356
>took a picture of a piece of paper/monitor
>>713960443
30 dollars cash and 70 dollars of items even, white trash spelling you see
>>713960356
170?
Grossly 100$
Depends of what the store owner paid for the items he sold and shit
you lose $100 aswell as $70 in merchandise
so he kind of loses $170 but he only lost $100 cash
>>713960356
u own a shop. u lost nothing. fuck u
>>713960537
>Depends of what the store owner paid for the items he sold and shit
this
>>713960356
200 you retarded faggots
>>713960356
> takes $100
> gives you $100 back in exchange for $70 of merch and $30 change
You're out $100, probably less, depending on what the markup for the $70 worth of merch is really worth.
>>713960356
100$ minus money earned because of the selling of your items.
he lost $60 you fucking kids. now goto bed
>>713960537
>>713960537
considering the average markup on items in mom and pop shops, he is out 30 dollars cash and whatever the cost of the items purchased. In all reality 60 dollars total or so imo
>>713960854
about fucking time
$30 + COGS
Funny how you plebs think when you don't own a business.
There's no solution because it's not given that the items are worth exactly as much money as you're selling them for.
dum fks he steals 100 then gives 100 back to buy 70 worth of items and gets 30 change thus shop keeper loses 100 or if you want to be retarded he lost 200
>>713960356
one hundred dollars, in merchandise.
>>713961085
the store items stolen are assets?
$70 dollars worth of assets doesnt change depending on whatever the fuck it is
If items were not stolen he would have sold them for $70 to someone else
>>713961085
shop keeper is selling them for 70$ you dumb fuck thus he lost 70$ it doesn't matter if the ite,s are worth less it means he loses more profit.
Anyone not saying $130 is retarded or trolling.
>>713960356
How the fuck do you know it was the same $100? Do you record all the serial numbers or something? If so, your life is pretty meaningless. Also you shouldn't be running a business because you're dumb as fuck and let's see what actually happened here:
a) You lose $100
- total loss so far = $100
b) You get it back again
- total loss so far = $0
c) You give nig $70 of stuff
- total loss so far = wholesale value of stuff
- assume 20% markup, value = 70 * 0.8
- value of goods = $56
- total loss so far = $56
d) You give nig $30 of change.
- total loss = $56 + $30 = $86
You have at least $100 on hand, so be thankful he didn't come back and rob you of the $100. Also learn math. Also stop being a dick and leaving the register unattended, if you own the fucking store.
But if it's not your store, the problem is worse. If it's not your store, you owe the owner the value of the goods you sold (if you're honest, but I wouldn't be in this situation). Instead, take $30 out of your own pocket, put it in the register, close that fucker up, and act dumb when the boss mentions $70 of stuff has been stolen. Suggest that your boss is an idiot for not putting better security in place. Make him feel like a complete loser. Bottle his tears and sell them for profit as some kind of fancy label mineral water with known aphrodisiac properties.
>>713961304
but he doesnt lose 70 because he sold the items to the guy for 70.
if the guy didnt come back and spend the 100 dollars on 70 dollars worth of items the owner has lost 170 HURRRRRR DURRRRRRRRR
>>713961269
OR, he could have soldn them for more or less to someone else depending on any future change in their value according to the how much of resource it do,.
>>713961304
no but whant if thge resource3 change in world
>>713961412
but if the guy didnt come back and buy $70 dollars the items wouldent have sold
The correct answer is 130$
I have a masters in mathematics
Fuck this thread already
>>713961506
but then the asset cant have a fixed price of $70 dollars therefor he never lost anything as we change the price of the asset to 0.
owner lost 60 bucks
>>713960356
$170
Let me spell this out for you fucking retards.
He stole $100. Then spent $70. Then got $30 back.
100-70=30
30+30=60
Class dismissed. Go back to being fucking retarded.
>>713960356
You had $70 retail value of merchandise stolen.
You had $30 in cash stolen.
You had some time stolen.
Typically in a retail environment your 'cost' on a good sold is 2/3 the sale price. So, 70*2/3=~$50 say. Then you gave the dude $30 cause you didn't know he took the hundy to begin with, but you got the hundy back. So, about $80 plus the wasted time. So, $100.
>>713961792
Wrong
>>713961304
you stupid prick
theif +100
shop
-100+70items
theif
-100+70items+30
shop
-70 and -100 = 170 so items do dictate loss u bellend
>>713961687
Wrong
>>713961792
Doesn't matter how much it was bought for. If the sticker price was $70 and it was stolen, $70 is lost.
30 you dumb fucks
$200
>>713961857
No, I'm not.
>>713961980
but banana 2 dolla
banana sit there go bad
flatmate eats banana
i lose 2 dolla (over banana i give no fucks about)
ask flatmate 2 dollar
he say buy me banana 2 dollar
flatmate buy banana for me
banana going bad
flatmate eats banana
ask flatmate banana
flatmate give me 2 dollar
i buy banana
banana going bad
flatmate eat banana
-$4
>>713961466
>>713961792
Anyone who says anything other than this is literally retarded.
>>713960356
$60 in cash and $70 in products
/thread
>>713961730
He stole $100.
He has $100.
He lost $100.
He now has $0.
He got $70 worth of goods.
He now has $70 worth of goods.
He got $30 in change.
He now has $30 plus $70 worth of goods.
Equals $100.
The thief walks away with $100 in combined cash and goods.
The shopkeeper is down $100 in combined cash and goods.
The shopkeeper lost $100.
>>713962006
>>713962167
no proof goods worth 70 dollars fuck u
>>713961269
They're only worth $70 after they're sold, not before. Before they're sold, they're worth their wholesale value (and in reality, not even that). The retail value is the value the seller thinks you'd be willing to pay for the item, not it's actual worth. Almost nothing is sold for what it's really worth. It doesn't matter if you could theoretically sell it to somebody else for $70, untill you actually do, it's not valued at $70. The moment the person who bought it opens the packaging, the value instantly drops to below $70 again. It's only valued at its retail price for a very short instance of time. Sometimes things can go up in value after they're sold, but it's rare. Happens though. Of course if there's a fire in the store, on the insurance report those items will be valued at $280.
>>713962258
The proof is in the fact that that's what they're being sold for
>>713962302
>>713962129
>ask flatmate banana
>flatmate give me 2 dollar
>i buy banana
>banana going bad
>flatmate eat banana
>-$4
>>713960443
Retard
>>713960458
Retard
>>713960494
Retard
>>713960507
Retard
>>713960537
Retard
>>713960539
Retard
>>713960698
Retard
>>713960699
Retard
>>713960712
Retard
>>713960815
Fucking thank you. Someone who got it right.
>>713961124
Retard
>>713961199
Retard
>>713961412
Retard
>>713961466
Autist
>>713961644
Retard
>>713961683
Winner again
>>713961687
Retard
>>713961730
Good job
>>713961792
Autist
>>713961845
Retard
>>713961971
Retard
>>713961980
Retard
>>713962156
Retard
>>713962167
Retard
>>713962394
Retard
>>713962130
>quotes two people who gave different answers
>hurr durr if u don't agree with this u r retarded
Ishiggydiggydo
>>713961939
You don't know what "lost" means.
If I put $10,000 sticker price on a car then sell it to you for $1,000 that doesn't mean I lost $9,000. It means it was only worth $1,000.
If I buy a car for $5000 and sell it to you for $4000, then I LOST $1000 because it was only worth $4000.
If I buy something for $10, then you steal $100 from me and come to me and go "hey, I'll buy that thing for $100" and I go "sure", then I MAY have gotten $80 back from you if it was only WORTH $20.
Three words:
Cost
Value
Loss
>>713960356
$170. The store owner paid for 70 dollars of his own merchandise
>>713962502
Learn to read. Same fucking answer. Each person factored in for unknowns and got slightly different answers using the same method. Same fucking answer.
It's $100. Came to that conclusion myself. Looked up online elsewhere and that is confirmed the answer. Bye
$30
>how much money
>money
Retards ITT.
>>713961644
Then you need to give that masters back. I only have a minor and this is easy. Assuming the $70 of supply cost him $70 to get. Then a stolen $100 bill is the first stage.
He comes back he hands the guy the $100 bill and takes $70 of supply and $30 of cash. This is a 1 to 1 ratio in trade so still a $100 trade.
The store owner now needs to go spend $70 to go buy $70 of supply. He is out the $30 he gave the guy and the $70 he gave the supplier. So in net he will have lost $100.
The question does not say how many dollars were stolen cause that would be a $100 bill which was returned and then given a $30 bill (arguably not stolen) that would be a $130 stolen
>>713960458
to be this stupid... oh lord
>loose
The question was a trick the whole time.
>>713960356
$30, minus whatever profit you made off the items he bought, right?
OKAY LEMME BREAK IT DOWN REAL SIMPLE LIKE FOR YALL
SHOPKEEP HAS $100 PLUS $70 OF GOODS
THIEF HAS $0 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF STEAL $100
SHOPKEEP HAS $0 PLUS $70 GOODS
THIEF HAS $100 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF PICK UP $70 GOODS AND PUT IN CART
SHOPKEEP HAS $0 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $100 PLUS $70 GOODS
THIEF PAY FOR GOODS WITH $100 BILL
SHOPKEEP HAS $100 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $0 PLUS $70 GOODS
SHOPKEEP GIVE BACK $30 CHANGE
SHOPKEEP HAS $70 PLUS $0 GOODS
THIEF HAS $30 PLUS $70 GOODS
INITIALLY SHOPKEEP HAD $100 PLUS $70 GOODS = $170
SHOPKEEP NOW HAS $70 PLUS $0 GOODS = $70
$170 - $70 = $100
SHOPKEEP LOST $100
IT REALLY NOT AN HARD
>>713962526
If something is being sold for $5 and someone steals that item, in lie of paying the price, they stole $5.
No one can be this stupid. Except maybe for OP who doesn't know the difference between "lose" and "loose" (like his mother's pussy).
>>713960356
not counting the benefit mark up and such.
he lost 100 in cash
then
70 in merchandise
30 in cash because this idiot gave back change
so the dumb fuck lost 200 $ worth
130 $ in cold hard cash and 70 in items
>>713962759
kek
>>713960356
Who gave him back 30 change?? The picture is cut off.
>>713962394
Double retard because:
1. Totally fucking wrong; and
2. Actually took the time to make that post.
>>713962759
The only nigga who caught it.
>>713962746
Well, you can't assume $100...that would assume he's running a not for profit. That's stupid.
Anything slightly less than $100 would be a viable answer except that it then comes back to your definition of what is a loss vs what is worth of the product and value of the time etc.
owener can claim insurance on stolen money and goods owner loses nothing gains 170 bucks
>>713962863
basically at the end of the day, the shopkeeper lost 200$ because of his fuckery.
Without the thief ruining his day, the shopkeeper would have had 200 $ more in his till.
>>713960356
>loose
wat
>>713960356
>loose
U wot m8
>>713962829
This is the only correct answer
>>713960356
>How much money did I loose???
YOU SHIT MONEY?! :O
>>713962832
I would like to buy your insurance.
I have many valuable objects for sale. I live in a very low crime area.
$60
70-30=40
began with -100
-100+40=-60
Lost 60 dollars
>>713962829
God bless you, Logic Man
>>713963138
Yeah, maybe if you're retarded.
Steals $100
Gets $70 worth of merchandise
Pays cashier
Receives $30
100-70+30 will always = 60 dumbass
The answer is $60
>>713962526
Finally, somone else in this fucking place understand economics. All these idiots make me feel worried for the future. Fucking 4chan... dumbing down the world, one faggot at a time.
count the money the register has at each event
A: money stolen: -$100
B: guy buys a $70 item and hands the clerk $100: +0
C: change is handed back to the thief: -$30
the question is how much money did he lose (meaning the clerk): -$30.
>>713963004
This is a math game not real world application since we have no idea what country he works in we could not determine how much he paid for the goods. Maybe he grows them himself or he robs someone everyday for these goods. The variable is unknown but if it was known then you could input it easily.
>>713960356
>he bought $70 in items and gave him back $30 change.
Nigger tipped $30?
>>713963040
pfft. Clearly you're 12.
Deductible on theft would probably be $1,000, then there's premiums, time spent dealing with police reports and paperwork, going over security camera footage of the incident, tracing receipts, maybe an audit associated with this theft by the insurance company...
This would cost literally THOUSANDS of dollars literally and in unaccountable money. You have to have your shit STOLE to file with insurance.
>>713963250
Thank Christ someone ITT isn't a complete retard.
>>713962829
only correct answer, the rest of you are shit trolls
>>713963311
They were already dumb. They just come here to repost facebook and jerk off to traps.
>>713960356
$100
>>713960356
$170
The original 100 was stolen from the store, which is a symbolic paper money loss. Then the 70 dollars in goods was stolen with that stolen 100, so now the total is $170.
This is simple economics here. The other 30 was part of the original 100 and thus is still part of that 100.
What we need to ask ourselves is "How much in value did they overall lose?" That would be a 100 dollar bill, and 70 in items. $170.
Also, OP misspelled "lose" wrong.
>>713960356
ITT - idiots.
He lost less than 100$
A normal stores makes 70%-200% on every item they sell, 70$ worth of items actually cost him as much as 40$, which means he would normally make 30$ on the deal.
BUT, we do not no how the items are priced, ergo ;
Less than 100$ but we cannot know the exact amount.
He lost 100 dollars.
>>713960356
you guys are stupid , there is no formula, he lost 100$ , the 30$ cancels itself out and the items sold were at value. This is putting it simple.
add a table of contents or some shit otherwise.
>>713960356
Technically he lost only $30 in money because goods are not money
>>713960356
>lose $100
>gain $70 back
>less $70 merchandise
So you're out 70 dollars, plus the 30 dollars in change... so, you're out $100 again.
Whatever was stolen is what you lost.
Doesn't matter wtf he brought back.
This is the most idiotic post.
>>713963338
I understand that...but if you run a shop, regardless of whether you are the shop keeper or working for the shopkeeper, if a can of soup is sitting on the shelf it was purchased for a minimum of .00000001% less than the sticker price. They MUST make SOME kind of profit on it. Theft of the object itself cannot be assumed to be theft of the dollar amount equal to it's sale cost. That is foolish on its face. It must be assumed to be inherently less or they would close their doors.
In the US it is actually illegal to run a business w/o generating a profit for more than 3 years (12 quarters) without generating a profit. It essentially implies that you're doing something sketchy with your books. I can only assume that pretty much any other respectable country would have similar laws. If you run at 0% or -% profit for 5-10 years you're just up to something. (drugs, stock shill, laundering, some kind of front, tax shelter, etc).
>100$ in goods
>200$ in register
300 in total beginning of the day.
>someone steals 100$
Situation now :
>100$ in goods
>100$ In register
200$ in total
He comes back and picks up stuff worth 70$, gives me the same 100.
Situation now
>30$ Im goofs
>200$ In register
I give him 30
Situation now:
>30$ in goofs
>170$ in register
200$ In total.
300-200=100
He lost 100$.
>>713962746
So, uh. where can I get me one of them $30 bills? Also why does the store owner restock the items that were stolen? That is not guaranteed at all. Also, it's strange he's selling at cost. He'd already be making a loss if he sells at cost because that won't cover the rent, the utilities, the labor cost, the monthly bribe to the cops, and the monthly protection money to the mob. Sorry dude, you need to give back that minor degree or study more.
>>713963845
Finally, we have a winrar.
She has 100$
>>713963968
I'd say that it's people misunderstanding "how much did the shopkeep lose" vs "how much did the thief abscond with" and finding odd net changes rather than focusing on what matters
I'd say that, but the important part of the question is misspelled, so if anyone is to blame it's the mental midget that wrote this shit
>>713963631
Autism
Look here boy
>>713963978
>>713962829
>>713960356
The person asking the question lost nothing. Company that controls the store lost money
>>713962805
THIS.
$30 - ($x-$y) if x= profit and y= money used to purchase item from supplier
>>713962759
>>713962946
>>713962973
Hey, man, I'm slingin' mad volume an' fat-stackin' Benjies, y'know what I'm sayin'? I can't be all about, like, spellin' an' shit.
>>713964139
winner winner chicken dinner
>>713960356
>[-$100]
>(The stolen money)
>[+$70]
>(Intake from items purchased, regardless of the source)
>[-$wholesale cost of items]
>(Decrease in stock)
The store owner is down $30 as well as the wholesale cost of the items purchased.
For example if those $70 items the thief bought cost $50 for the retailer, he is down $80 from this.
>>713964011
youre assuming outside variables this is a math problem not a real world problem the only things that exist are the goods and the currency. In math something costs what it is. You can not know what country he is from so you do not know how much it costs to get the $70 of goods so you have to assume it is the $70 value it has. Why would a store owner restock the items that were stolen? Because he has inventory(# of goods) he always needs to have. and its not called a minor degree maybe you should go college some more.
ITT: Dumb idiots trying to be smart.
>>713963845
>>713964045
Wrong, anything with value is seen as currency. Doesn't matter what it is; be it gold or livestock or items.
If you calculate this at market-value he lost a 100, as it's a 1:1 ratio exchange and he's still out a 100.
If however you calculate it with wholesale values it can't be calculated as we don't know the value the items were originally, but we can easily guess the shopkeeper didn't pay more than his asking price. In this case he lost 30+wholesale value of the items.
This equation is hard because it's unfinished and doesn't give us all the elements. If we know which value we're suppose to calculate we can make a final solution. Otherwise both answers can be seen as correct.
This autism needs to stop.
HOW LOOSE IS OP?
so effectively the thief stole $30 and a product retailing for $70
answer 1: $30 + the price the shopkeep paid for the product (unknown)
answer 2: $30 + the price the shopkeep could have sold the item for, $70
>>713962353
finally someone who gets it
>>713964616
pretty much what I meant with >>713964468
>>713964468
money
ˈmʌni/
noun
a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.
Try again dummy.
Lost $100 bill
Received $100 bill for $70 of goods
Gives $30 back to customer
Net loss $30
Say the drawer had $200 in it to begin with. Guy steals $100 now it has $100 in it. He buys $70 of stuff but hands you $100. Drawer has $200 in it again but you owe him $30 in change. You take out $30 in five dollar bills and give it back to him so the drawer now has $170 in it. Net loss $30.
/thread
>>713963321
what is the significance of the picture? who the fuck is she? what was the kitchen nightmare? and why is the interview before the reopening such a big deal?
>>713964746
Holy shit you're dumb
>>713964823
your*
>>713964746
what about the goods valued at $70 that he no longer has?
he lost $30 from the till, and $70 worth of goods.
>>713964716
>current
>current
livestock was the old currency when bills and coins wasn't invented. Afterwards anything can be used as currency.
If you buy something with money, that product becomes an intermediary between two places. You can buy it at place x and sell it at place y without actually having any money during the trip.
I hope you get what I mean.
>>713964905
>>713964905
>>713964936
>medium of exchange
>>713961683
Samefagging to prove some stupid point. God do you have no life?
>>713964746
your not accounting for the goods purchased with stolen money. that would cost him as well
>>713964905
you're* dumb fuck.
Your dumb doesn't make sense.
>>713965010
>your
>>713960356
$100 minus whatever profit he made on the items
>>713965038
your are
your are faggot
>>713964996
YOU KNOW GODDAMN WELL WHAT I MEANT
why are you trying to trigger me anon.
>>713965126
Stop trying. At this point i'll assume you're trying to bait me.
Anon out.
>>713960356
100 - 70 in goods, 30 in money
>>713965235
>taking money this litteral.
jesus you are dumb.
>>713960356
You didn't "loose" any money, dumb ass.
>>713965235
Goods equals money. It's not free.
>>713965217
>>713963631
You know how this would make sense. If he takes the $100 out of the register and puts it in his pocket. Then when he calls the cops to report the loss, he can say "Uh, huh, yes officer. Some dude stole $130 out of the register and they also took $70 worth of goods." But actually in fact the $70 worth of goods isn't really worth $70 it's worth $70 minus it's wholesale cost. And in this scenario he loses nothing if it's not his store, he gains $100, unless the owner is a dick and makes him pay for it. But technically he shouldn't have to pay for it because first it's a crime event perpetrated by somebody else (under law you can't punish somebody for something done by another person unless there was collusion), second because the loss can be written off in taxes, and third because it's not a significant enough amount for a rich shop owner to punish a poor clerk. We're not in the 1800s.
>>713965374
You never know dear anon, I've seen some bottom-pit level stupidity on here.
>>713965321
says a cunt, who cant spell "literal"
>>713965370
thats why its summed up to 100
>>713960356
You lost $30 plus the difference between the retail price of the items he "bought" and the wholesale prices you paid for them.
>>713964762
https://youtu.be/7uPOGxUtZvk
watch it. it is funny and scary
>>713960356
easy you bunch of niggers.
He didn't lose any money, it was stolen by niggers.
/thread
theif will lose 130 points of good karma
gain 70 points bad karma
shop owner is granted -70 points to bad karma
also recieves 130 points good karma.
>>713965038
>hurr durr look at me i like to correct people to make myself look smarter
>>713966030
>hurr durr look at me I like to comment on people correcting other people because I feel irrelevant.
Do you see how stupid it looks? now shut the fuck up and sit in your corner.
>>713960356
You can't tell how much money you lost, because you don't know what profit you would have made from the goods. I.e. how much you are charging for them ($70) minus how much you paid for them (unknown).
So, assuming you are not selling the goods for less than you bought them for, you don't know how much you are losing unless you know the protential profit you would have made by selling them for $70.
>>713964410
hey cockbreath... that dude who I replied to called it a minor degree so I used his terminology. Not all stores have inventory, not all inventory gets restocked, the items also may have been promotional items or on special or who knows what they fuck. Who gives a fuck if the question is hypothetical or a real scenario? Why assume the goods are valued at $70 just because some rich jew is selling them for that much? Also I graduated at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, I know perfectly well what the right words are, but we don't know what country that other cock-gargling faggot is from. What do you say to that, cockbreath? I bet when you're finished swallowing all the cum, you faithfully bend down and lick any stray drops that leaked down to his ass crack, don't you. I bet you love slurping that crack alllll the way along it's length, you limp-wristed handy dandy hoity toity mincing queen of a homosexual queer faggot.
net cash is 30$
he lost 100$
>>713965487
thanks... better than wondering about it all night.
He lost $100, and then the other guy bought $70 worth of shit and got $30 back, but the $100 was returned to the register, making it as if the guy stole $70 worth of shit and $30 bucks.
So the owner lost $70+$30 = $100 in total.
>>713960356
100 dollars duh
It's 170 wtf guys
Anyone who says 60 bucks is a complete retard.
>>713960356
Actually the question just asks "how much money did I lose?"
Take this to mean: money = cash
Cash loss = $30 only.
It's not asking about the total value that was lost, only how much cash. So the answer is $30 which is the change that was given.
