- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Solve this problem: how much did the owner lose?
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:20 am to theunknownknight
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:20 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Total 100 dollars in value
Incorrect unless he does not operate for a profit.
1
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:22 am to theunknownknight
The thief left with $30 cash and $70 in merchandise. The owner doesn't sell his merchandise for cost otherwise he wouldn't make any money.
So the owner is out $30 cash and whatever he paid for the goods... which was less than $70.
LESS THAN $100, MFER.
So the owner is out $30 cash and whatever he paid for the goods... which was less than $70.
LESS THAN $100, MFER.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:23 am to terd ferguson
False - you aren’t considering opportunity costs
He lost the opportunity to make 70 dollars on anyone else
$30 cash
$60 cost of goods (for example)
$10 profit opportunity cost
He lost the opportunity to make 70 dollars on anyone else
$30 cash
$60 cost of goods (for example)
$10 profit opportunity cost
This post was edited on 8/20/18 at 8:26 am
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:24 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Incorrect unless he does not operate for a profit.
$100 is correct because he would have otherwise sold those goods to someone else. Saying it's less than $100 is overthinking the problem, and what you are sure to argue a million pages for. The answer is $100, don't overthink it.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:24 am to theunknownknight
quote:
1. Lost $100 cash = $100 value
2. Gained $70 cash - Lost $70 in goods = Net even value
3. Lost $30 cash = $30 value
$100 + $0 + $30 = $130
Without all the sales tax stuff, value versus price of goods, etc to consider it's really just:
1. Lost $30 cash
2. Lost $70 of goods
$30 + $70 = $100.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:24 am to theunknownknight
quote:
opportunity costs
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:25 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
$100 is correct because he would have otherwise sold those goods to someone else.
Disagree. It wouldn't cost him $70 to replace the goods.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:26 am to terd ferguson
quote:
Disagree. It wouldn't cost him $70 to replace the goods.
But he loses the profit he would have made on those goods.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:26 am to MorbidTheClown
If you don’t know what opportunity costs are then I guess I know why you are confused.
It’s an accounting term
It’s an accounting term
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:27 am to elposter
quote:
1. Lost $30 cash
2. Lost $70 of goods
$30 + $70 = $100.
No. The OP asks:
quote:
how much did the owner lose?
He did lose $30 cash... but he didn't lose $70 of goods bc he didn't pay $70 for them. How could he lose more than what he paid. You guys are acting like he can't replace the goods for cost.
Let's say the $70 worth of merchandise cost the owner $50 originally. That means he lost $50 worth of goods.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:28 am to theunknownknight
100 is stolen, than 70 dollars worth of merchandise is stolen, than the 30 the store owner gives back to the thief is stolen so 200.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:28 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
But he loses the profit he would have made on those goods.
He can replace the goods with new supply and still make the profit. He's only out his original cost.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:29 am to terd ferguson
quote:
He did lose $30 cash... but he didn't lose $70 of goods bc he didn't pay $70 for them. How could he lose more than what he paid. You guys are acting like he can't replace the goods for cost.
Let's say the $70 worth of merchandise cost the owner $50 originally. That means he lost $50 worth of goods.
If you're going to overthink the the wholesale price of the goods, you must also consider the profit. What kind of half arse logic only looks at half of it?
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:29 am to terd ferguson
$70 - $50 = $20 in opportunity costs still lost that he would have made on 100% of any of his other transactions
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:30 am to stelly1025
quote:
100 is stolen, than 70 dollars worth of merchandise is stolen, than the 30 the store owner gives back to the thief is stolen so 200.
Minus the $100 bill the thief gave back to the owner
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:31 am to terd ferguson
quote:
He did lose $30 cash... but he didn't lose $70 of goods bc he didn't pay $70 for them. How could he lose more than what he paid. You guys are acting like he can't replace the goods for cost.
Let's say the $70 worth of merchandise cost the owner $50 originally. That means he lost $50 worth of goods.
Yeah I said that you have to ignore the owner's cost of goods, profit margins, whether the goods are taxed, etc. because it's impossible to know from the problem. If you have to know all of that stuff to get an answer then it should be in the problem. Otherwise just answer the simple problem presented.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:32 am to theunknownknight
Opportunity cost has to do with how the owner spends his money. He chooses to by X instead of Z and how that affects his profits.
If you have $70 worth of merchandise and it cost you $50... if I steal it you're out $50. You spend another $50 to replace it and sell for $70 then you still made your $20 profit, but you're still out the $50 I stole from you.
The answer to how much the owner lost is $30 cash + his cost for the $70 in goods.
If you have $70 worth of merchandise and it cost you $50... if I steal it you're out $50. You spend another $50 to replace it and sell for $70 then you still made your $20 profit, but you're still out the $50 I stole from you.
The answer to how much the owner lost is $30 cash + his cost for the $70 in goods.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:34 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Minus the $100 bill the thief gave back to the owner
No cause you are not taking into account for the stolen merchandise that the owner pay for to put into his store... Actually when break it down it is more than 200. He lost the cash, his merchandise, profit margin, taxes, he has to pay workers. It is not a simple 100 that he lost.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:34 am to terd ferguson
quote:
but he didn't lose $70 of goods bc he didn't pay $70 for them.
How do you know what he paid for them? What if the item was marked down to cost to get rid of them? Are you the store owner? You should never assume facts that aren't in the problem.
Posted on 8/20/18 at 8:35 am to terd ferguson
quote:
The answer to how much the owner lost is $30 cash + his cost for the $70 in goods.
And the profit he would have sold it for. Why do you keep ignoring that part of the equation since you're introducing extra stuff to the mix?
If you bought a car for $10k but it was worth $30k, you're going to tell me that if it's stolen you only lost $10k worth of property and you'd only want $10k from insurance to replace it?
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News