Brains and Gains

no its E

$100.

are you a brainlet? The 70 dollars means nothing, cause it was paid by what she stole, which was 100. In the end, the owner still lost $100.00, regardless of the profit made from the 70$ item, since it was the owners own money

Attached: 1509014772329.png (403x448, 53K)

Yes but those products still cost the owner something.

But that answer is not there so $100 is closest.

where the fuck is the 30 in change

Attached: 1515205861675.png (734x414, 113K)

70 in groceries and 30 in cash

$100

Attached: 1521588142345m.jpg (655x1024, 155K)

The owner loses 100$. The owner also gains whatever profit he makes from selling those 70$ of goods. Whether the goods are bought with the same bill or the same person that stole is irrelevant

lmao that pic. Any connection between the company and the quotes?

Owner's balance: 0
-100
-70
+100
-30

= -100
Idiots

he loses 30$ in change, and gives away 70$ dollars worth of goods. what if he was selling ink carttridges which cost like .22 cents to make and are sold for 60$? without taking item markup into account that means he lost 30.26$ total... am i wrong??????????

FIDDY BUCKS

I assume the problem just takes into account the potential revenue from the goods rather than the cost of the goods bought wholesale.

same, just did a ledger thing

Accountant here, C is correct not including profit margin and taxes

Attached: IMG_20180321_170101349.jpg (3120x4160, 3.17M)

Its $200 because you lost the money from a previous transaction and the money from this one is from yourself.

nothing because capitalism is a lie

Attached: 993.gif (800x667, 1.23M)

without getting autistic about profit margins its $100.
if you do want to get autistic its $30+cost of goods.

$100 + whatever the owner paid wholesale for the dress

You're dumb
Jej

Wrong, because that original $100 went back to the cashier

that initial 100$ was acquired selling product the owner now lost tho

Dummies. It's $100 less whatever profit he made off of the goods that he sold.

Look at what the owner has at the end of the day VS before the money was stolen. Only $30 cash and $70 of goods left the business

The store sold the item(s) for $70. That's not the same as the store paying $70 for what was purchased, because the store would break even and make no profits. The net loss is likely none of those answers unless the item(s) were sold at cost

This.

Jesus, people. Get your shit together.

no, Veeky Forums doesn't have the mental gains because there are hardly any mental gains threads

> Doesnt account for the opportunity cost of selling the item to another customer who would use their own money and not money stolen from the store

Attached: 1517858706760.jpg (238x192, 14K)

30 dollars + the goods purchased by the lady

E.
Lost 100 dollars + lost 70 dollars worth of value at the store

>everyone tries to answer the image question instead of the OP
I was gonna say yes because apparently we’re all engineers from MIT, but this thread made me change my mind

Did the woman buy the goods BUT FOR her stealing the bill?

1. She steals $100
2. She buys $70 in items

1. $100 loss
2. Store gains $70-(cost of goods sold)=profit

Does 1 have to happen for 2 to happen? If 2 would have happened anyways then the loss is just $100.

If 2 happened only because of 1, then the store lost $100 but gains back whatever profit it made. So $100 minus profit. But there's not enough information here to know profit, and assuming this question must be solvable, then we assume 2 would have happened anyways. Therefore $100, C.

you didnt get autistic enough apparently

it's $100

but if we want to include the owner's gain from the goods sold into the equation it's:

100 - (owner's net profit from sale of $70 of goods) = owner's loss

$0.00.

The money was made from selling his store's goods but those goods belong to the workers who produce them, as they are the rightful owners of the means of production. This was two people who do not have righful claims of ownership exchanging paper tools of the capitalist by which the beguile the proletariat. Nothing more.

Attached: marx-pepe.jpg (499x499, 44K)

>being a factory worker
>car and doors come
>install doors on car
>yesss car is mine now

>lose 100
>get 70 back while losing 70, in effect a zero sum change
>down 30 dollars and 70 dollars of merchandise for a total of 100 dollars

"no"

moneybox:
0 - 100 + 100 - 30 = -30
shelves:
0 - 70 = -70

170. 100 for the stolen bill and 70 for the opportunity cost lost.

>caring about faggot op

Those were the workers that designed the bridge. Scares the hell out of me, I drive for a living

It's probably actually closer to 70 since the goods didn't actually cost him $70. So its the 30 he gave + whatever he bought the merchandise at to sell.

a thousand cocks

> there is an opportunity cost account

"duplicate file exists"
I need to start creating my own brainlet pics

Do to markup on the goods he lost less than $100 but most likely more than $70. There is no correct answer.

Attached: mathematical explanation.gif (1307x734, 804K)

What is the Lagrangian of an object of mass m moving in the positive x direction with a velocity of v? There are no forces in the system.

Not a trick question either, just want to see if anyone has the knowledge to do this without looking it up on google.

$70

The $30 he gave back to the woman
plus the wholesale cost of the $70 (probably around $40).

200$

she takes 100

comes back and gets 100$ worth of stuff+change

the store owner is out 200$

????

depends on the markup

Civil Engineer here

70 dollars

C

No wonder you're in CIVIL engineering

Attached: 1516888672914.jpg (600x600, 30K)

Consider the events separetely, if the lady comes in and buys 70$ worth of merchandise using a 100$ bill, the store owner has no net loss and we don't care where the 100$ comes from, for all we know it could be stolen just like it could be obtained legitimately. Now consider the theft, the owner has a net loss of 100$. Combine the two events and you have a total net loss of 100$