POLL: MAN STEALS $100 FROM a STORE'S REGISTER. THEN HE BUYS $70 OF GOODS FROM THAT STORE & GETS $30 CHANGE. HOW MUCH DID THE STORE LOSE?

Not sure about the store, but Bitch DeFool is certainly a loser

You said the store regained $70 and you counted it as "+$70".

That's not how it works. It was a loss to begin with and having it returned to the register in trade for $70 worth of goods is not a profit.

Correct, except we were told, a couple posts from the start, that we were to consider $70 as the cost of the goods. IE no profit. That being the case its $100.

Lol... LOL... L O freakin L

OMG my belly hurts from laughing. I need to leave this thread before I keel over.... haha

70% mark-up
70% of 70 is 49
Subtract from the price 0f 70
70-49=21

The man walks away with $30 and 21 worth of merchandise.

The store lost $51

Commie found

$200

Translation: muh head hurtsez tryin to do simple maf

envision he walked out after the cash theft and handed the dosh to another person who walked back in to purchase....

imagine he walked across the street to buy from another.... business

store will be short 100muhttbux always at reconciliation

You're derailing the thread to a NASA hoax tard thread.

Therefore by REASON, you are a troll. I suspect that basic logic is beyond your comprehension.

maf hard ya?

The only question is, did the thief steal the stores profit or not when he walked out of the store? This profit never existed, it was potential profit. A significantly large part of the original 100 dollars was profit, in fact, but the store had already realized those profits.

This is NOT "does a thief steal from a thief when he steals from him" problem, this is a logical calculation of the stores actual LOSSES. 30 dollars cash + 70 dollars RETAIL PRICE of the goods the thief bought and walked out of the store with minus the amount the store would have made in profit off of those 70 dollars retail prices

For you common core retards, you can break the problem apart. Assuming no margin on sold goods then....

Robber enters store and swipes 70 dollars of tampons and condoms for his girlboyfriend. On his way out he points a tampon at the register clerk and demands 30 bucks. He leaves store.

He has taken 100 out of the store and the store has lost 100.

Robber comes back and points another tampon at clerk and demands a crisp 100 bill. Robber's mom calls to say his sheets and hotpockets are ready so robber gives clerk back the 100 dollar bill and leaves. No change to the register on the second visit.

Actually it was YOU who did that. I simply said you are dumber than a box of NASA's moonrocks, to which you falsely insinuated I thought the earth was flat, effectively derailing the thread.. Does saying you are dumber than "A bag of hammers" count for a derailment , or an insult?

These idiots are the people telling us to worship putin and trump...

You have to ask?

Suppose the thief were a time traveler. After stealing $100 from the cash register, he goes back in time one hour and puts the $100 back into the register, so that the store has an extra $100.

Then the thief goes forward in time by two hours and steals the $100 again.

How much does the thief now have? How much did the store lose?

Is the man Amish?

$130 would be true if the thief took another $30 out of the register after getting the $30 in change back from the store.

Stole $100 but received $70 in goods and $30 in change = $100 store's total loss.

Then stick his hand in the till and took another $30 out.

$130 Total loss

will open a thred on this....

Last Edited by PsihoLog on 01/25/2023 01:50 PM

You've got to look at it this way;

A guy steals $100 cash from the store register. = Store loss is $100.

The next transaction when the guy walks in with $100 cash in hand to make a purchase of $70 or whatever amount, is a legit transaction.= Legitimate transaction for the store and not a loss there. Could have been anybody holding that $100 bill.

In the end, the store's loss is $100 which was stolen at the beginning.

Actually I gave the only correct answer because I realize unrealized profits cannot be stolen.


I explained my reasoning succinctly.

I'm just happy the man was able to feed his children and maybe save up a little for a new pair of Jordans.

Losses include the market value of the store's products. When the thief stole them, he didn't just steal their cost to stock the products but he stole the profits they would have made.

Supply and demand, Laissez-Fair of the market. No criminal or "average Joe" gets to walk into a shop and demand the product at cost the shop paid for it. You want milk or eggs? Then buy some land and grown your own cows and chickens, if you feel it's unfair to pay the shop owner any profit.

I made no insult to any specific poster, you picked the fight. That also by reason makes you the troll.

Now collect your $3.50 and run along.

You CANNOT steal unrealized profits
PERIOD

lol

right, the robber also spends $30 by giving the bill, so the 30s cancel each other out, so it's just $100.