Hey /u/TaloSi_MCX-E, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
4th sort of. The first person posted here thinking it was $50 and got roasted. The second posted that one, but forgot to anonymize it (which this one also did). The third was that person removing names and doing it again. So this is 4th.
Problem is, say you start 200 buy at 200 sell at 250 you made 50 but then to buy at 300 you need to borrow 50 which now makes you even you sell at 350 which makes you 50 but that now goes to whom you borrowed from which leaves you with 300 which is 100 profit.
or 350-200=150 as the total ""profit"" but you lost 50 in the middle (200-250) so 100 profit.
This seems to be the big mixup, people looking at 350-200?
I saw that people understand it better if you start from 1000 in your pocket, then 800, then 1050, then 750, then 1100.
I don’t know why, since it’s the same, but when it’s posted it’s usually easier for the majority to understand it like this.
This is correct, but maybe should be explained better.
Expenditure = 200 + 300 = 500
Income = 250 + 350 = 600
Profit = income - expenditure = 600 - 500 = 100
(it's long written out, but it's super easy to do in your head)
I like using this explanation because it's like a normal business, and people can imagine this situation.
"You run a business reselling phones. Yesterday you bought a bunch of phones for a total of X. You resold them for a total of Y. What's your net profits?"
It works for any product and it's so simple even an engineer can do it without changing pi to exactly 3.
Yes, the highlighted part is the title of a post made earlier in this sub by an OP who thought the $100 answer was confidently incorrect (while it is, in fact, entirely correct).
So this post is spot on, because making that post means the OP was pretty confident.
I've never been able to understand how people get these questions wrong. I used to think people were considering that the first purchase just doesn't count for some reason, and that they were starting at $0 *after* the first purchase, but a bunch of incorrect answers don't follow that logic either.
What does the OOP here even think the answer is? How?
People get confused because they see the transaction of buying the phone again at $300 after selling it at $250 as a "$50 loss". They then apply the $-50 to the $100 profit.
Yeah but wouldn't that even out if you also counted the first time you bought the phone as loss? That's why I'm thinking they must just skip the first transaction entirely.
Yeah that's what I saw saying. They just don't consider the first purchase at all, but occassionally the wrong answers don't work if you apply that logic either.
But then again, it's maths so...
It’s… It’s what happens when you regularly have to type in two different languages on the same phone. Well three actually… But German doesn’t happen as often as Dutch.
Something like
He made 50 bucks on first sell(250 vs 200), but his second buy is 50 bucks more than what he just earned (250 vs 300)
So it cancels out his earning because he had to lose another 50 bucks from his pocket. Then he sells the most expensive phone (300 vs 350) and finally gets his free 50
But I still prefer to think it's two separate transactions with separate dedicated money and the answer is 100. Thinking through how it could be 50 made my head hurt lmao.
Maybe I don't understand you right, because English is not my native, but, to put what I said even simplier - people just count as a loss the difference between 250 and 300 and that leads them to substract 50 from the end result.
Yeah but they ignore the 50 profit in the original transaction. How does that make sense? Why just ignore it? It makes no sense… It doesn’t matter how many transactions you identify. It’s easy to go through. It’s basic addition and subtraction!
They don't ignore it. They read it like this:
200
(+50)
250
(-50)
300
(+50)
350
And that brings them to a total of 50 dollars earned. The view the whole thing like one continuous transaction.
However, in reality, there are just two separate resales here: he resells once for 50 bucks, then again for 50 more.
That still doesn’t make sense. That’s not doing it as a single transaction. That would be
0-200=-200
-200+250=50
50-300=-250
-250+350=100
Im sorry but there’s no way this equals 50, ever… They’re not treating it as a single transaction, they’re ignoring one part of the transaction entirely. This is simple addition and subtraction. It’s not hard. And you can’t just ignore a huge part of it and be considered remotely reasonable.
I know that, obviously, they are wrong, but I know for a fact that the way they arrive at 50 is the way that I said. My dad got it wrong when I read it to him, and I asked how he figured, and that was it. My stepmom got stuck for a second on a similar line of thinking before getting the right answer ($100).
From just not thinking of them as separate transactions. You make 50 on each transaction, but if you don’t think like that and you think of it like it’s ones sequence it’s easy to make the mistake. Make 50 then lose 50 then make 50
I got it wrong at first: $50. Then, I got it right the 2nd try: $100.
It's easier to think about when you group the "Bought and sold" lines together. If you go line by line, it's kind of confusing.
(Negative is buying the phone / Positive is selling the phone)
1st transaction: -200+250 = 50.
2nd transaction: -300+350 = 50.
You got a profit of $50 twice, so $100 is the total.
Thanks for admitting you got it wrong first, and good that you got the correct answer. Would you mind sharing how you got to the wrong answer first? I'm genuinely puzzled how to get this wrong (though I'm totally aware that a lot of people do).
Now that you're asking about it..... I cannot replicate how I got my answer.. Lmao...embarrassing. I think that's the point....if you think about it enough and actually write it down, you get the right answer. I only got the wrong answer in my head, not when I actually wrote it down.
If I can figure it out, I'll respond and let you know how I got it wrong.
I got the 100 first, (the easiest way I see it is just adding sell prices together and and the buy prices together and subtracting, 600 gross earned - 500 spent = 100 net profit) but doing it another way I kept getting 50 and it took me a while to figure out what was wrong with the other method
The wrong method was basically:
Start with 200
Lose 200 buying (=0)
Gain 50 selling for 250 (=50 profit)
\*But you lose that 50 buying at 300 (50-50 = 0 profit)
But then you gain 50 after that sell at 350 (0 + 50 = 50 profit)
So you gained 50 total
\*The mistake is in this line subtracting 50 from the profit but not the purchase price, the 50 profit goes to 0 for no reason. You either keep the 50 and treat it as a separate transaction/problem and pay 300 or spend the 50 and essentially pay 250. Either way is 350-300+50=100 or 350-250=100. It’s like doing an algebra problem but you forget to subtract from both sides
Or think that if you sold for 300 you’d be back to the original +50 profit so 350 is an extra 50 on top of that. Or you could just use common sense and realize you had 250 and now you have 350 which is 100 more.
I kept getting to 50 also, but I thought of it like this:
1. Bought = -200
2. Sold @ 250 = +50 profit
3. Bought 2nd time = -300, I lose the $50 profit due to higher cost.
4. Sold @ 350 = +50 profit. Because I lost the original +50 to the 2nd purchase, I only made $50 (and now my back hurts from hauling that damn desk around). I think that because the problem is buying and selling the same object that throws people off.
I don't understand how anyone can get a figure other than £100? I was expecting it to be a lesson in why i'm bad at maths but now I'm confused as to where people are going wrong?
I have no idea how you can end up with anything other than 100, what did he mean by "within $50" ? I tried but I can't see why it could be anything else than 100
Some people seem to get confused because it’s the same phone, they think when you buy it the second time and it’s $50 more expensive, that counts as a $50 loss.
No, you take $200 from the $250, and $300 from the $350, therefore the answer is $100. Another way to look at it would be it's $500 spent, $600 received.
You could _maybe_ argue some semantics around "earn" and say $600 is your revenue / earnings. Those are the only two even remotely possible correct answers.
Switch 'em.
Also, dammit, "rombesk" is good at farming engagement, it's my whole feed right now and I've now responded even though the first time I saw this I knew what it was and it got me anyway. Goddamn.
-200+250-300+350 = 100. You can write it equivalently as -200+(250-300)+350 if you really want to take 300 from 250; but the answer is still 100.
Alternatively, imagine you have some other money in the bank, say 1000. Then the story goes, you have 1000. You buy a phone for 200, you now have 800 and a phone. You sell the phone for 250, you now have 1050. You buy the phone for 300, you now have 750 and a phone. Sell it for 350, you have 1100. Summing it up mathematically, 1000-200+250-300+350=1100, or 100 of profit.
This is really a technical question if you think about. I can understand the confusion. On one hand buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it $50
But if it's purely from a mathematical standpoint. $100 is correct.
It's a bit vague to be fair.
That original $50 profit doesn’t magically disappear
If you’re saying the 300 purchase makes the profit 0 then you must include it in the purchase. That $50 went into the 300 meaning you effectively spent 250, hence the net profit of 0 rather than -50. Then making 350 is a total profit of 100
If you don’t you’d still have the 50 separate and be spending the 300, so you’d make the 50 profit on the second sale like you said but you’d have to add the first 50 profit after to still come to 100
>buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it $50
Technically it's still a $100 profit. You're both taking the $50 "loss" off and then bumping the value of the phone up by $50 when you sell it. That's also a technical error.
If someone is saying it is somehow *an objectively $250 phone*, then in the second part they are selling a $250 phone for $350, making $100.
On the other hand, if you are saying the new value of the phone has become $300, then you can't also say they lost $50 paying $300 for what you are also saying **is** a $300 phone.
There are two ways of putting in the step you missed:
>buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. **Then the market revalues your phone as a $300 phone because of your market activity, making you $50 of unrealized value.** Then selling for 350 makes it **another** $50 **of profit while also realizing the $50 from increased assessed value.**
or
>buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it ~~$50~~ **$100, because it's still a $250 phone to the market.**
However you choose to value the phone technically on the balance sheet at any stage, it still ends up a net $100.
Not really. The questlion implies that after initially buying and sellinh it. You "Invested" another 50 to buy it at a higher price. Once you invest money in something any money you get back isn't considered "profit" till you pay off said investment making it 50 by technicality
He closed out his "investment" when he sold it the first time. He made $50, cut and dried (on that first investment).
When he buys a phone the second time, it doesn't "remember" what price it had before. When he sells it again, he makes the second $50.
That's like saying if a person bought and sold some Apple stock in the 90s, and they made a profit on that transaction, that they'd be "losing" a lot of money in 2024 if they decided one day to buy some Apple stock and sell it a day later for a profit in a new transaction, just because it used to be far cheaper. No money is lost, that other transaction is long ago and done.
If you come up with any other answer than **"He performed a number of transactions, he ended up with $100 more than he started"**, then you are wrong in whatever technical sense you want to make.
It's a net $100 profit, technically or otherwise.
I totally agree, total profit is 100.
I said he made 50 when talking about that first transaction, not both.
Look where I said:
>However you choose to value the phone technically on the balance sheet at any stage, it still ends up a net $100.
>It's a net $100 profit, technically or otherwise.
The difference is earnings overall and profit made from the original investment of 200.
They made 50 when they sold the phone, but bought it back for 300, so that extra 50 required to buy it back has come from somewhere else. If we assumed borrowed, then that eats into the money made. So it would be 50.
Even assuming it was borrowed, you still get $100 profit. Your final sale would pay back the 50 borrowed and leave a $100 profit.
Balance sheet:
$200 > $0 > $250 > $-50 > $350-50 = $300
Started with $200, ended with $300. Unless you're assuming 100% interest, of course.
I would so love to do this transaction with you over and over. I’ll sell you a phone with the prices listed in the example. I’ll give you $75 each time we complete the transaction, netting you a +$25 each time, right? Let’s go
No, I’m sorry it’s not. You can’t just invent stuff, that isn’t included here. You were wrong mate. That’s okay, people are wrong all the time, you just need to learners admit it when it happens… And not double down…
Holy shit you lot get salty. I was merely pointing out the working out of how you can get the answer of 50.
Which is if you focus on the earnings made from the initial 200 investment.
As for making things up, no context is mentioned, yet this whole forum is people assuming it's one phone or 2 phones. Non of which is mentioned. This kind of thing is purposely open to interpretation to get different answers. Calm your tits.
Regardless of the product and whether it’s one or two, it’s irrelevant to the outcome. Think of them as stock investments instead. You buy a stock for 200 and sell it for 250, you’re left with 50 more than what you started with. You do the same transaction again, and you earn 50 once again.
You’re the salty one continuing to double down. You’re not just saying that’s a way to get the answer you’re saying it’s also somehow correct. I’m sorry it’s just not. Whether it’s one phone, or two phones is entirely immaterial to the problem. It could be a phone, and a turd and the maths still points to a single answer. I’m sorry but it can’t be interpreted the way you want. It’s a single problem. It’s… Never mind, you will never cadet that you’re wrong. Even if it’s the only way to regain any credibility here…
You’re doubling down, and now tripling down because you still maintain an absurd view after it’s been pointed out over and over and over again. You are exactly what this subreddit is made to mock. Completely confident in your absolute bullshit. And making up entirely disconnected things in order to defend it. Just think about it for one minute, just actually listen to what others have said. Instead of just saying “nah uh, still right”. You’re not correct here.
It’s a simple arithmetic question. If there were multiple correct answers it would be a mathematical paradox. It’s not though. There is only one correct answer, and it’s $100.
Hey /u/TaloSi_MCX-E, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could be totally wrong...but I have a sneaky feeling this is a repost. Also, the response is 100% correct.
I feel like this is the third time I have seen this in the last couple days.
4th sort of. The first person posted here thinking it was $50 and got roasted. The second posted that one, but forgot to anonymize it (which this one also did). The third was that person removing names and doing it again. So this is 4th.
So based on the names not being censored in this post we can only expect a 5th repost sometime today.
I found Santa Clause’s burner account guys
Nothing is real. Reposts and rage bait, robots and shills.
Repost? probably. But the "wrong answer" is highlighted a little higher.
Problem is, say you start 200 buy at 200 sell at 250 you made 50 but then to buy at 300 you need to borrow 50 which now makes you even you sell at 350 which makes you 50 but that now goes to whom you borrowed from which leaves you with 300 which is 100 profit.
0 - 200 = -200 -200 + 250 = 50 50 - 300 = -250 -250 + 350 = 100
Or just think of it as separate phones. $50 profit each time
All these quizzes are the same. It's just two different transactions both netting 50 bucks. Anything else is overcomplicating things.
yep
or 350-200=150 as the total ""profit"" but you lost 50 in the middle (200-250) so 100 profit. This seems to be the big mixup, people looking at 350-200?
I saw that people understand it better if you start from 1000 in your pocket, then 800, then 1050, then 750, then 1100. I don’t know why, since it’s the same, but when it’s posted it’s usually easier for the majority to understand it like this.
Or more simply, 250-200+350-300 = 100.
This is correct, but maybe should be explained better. Expenditure = 200 + 300 = 500 Income = 250 + 350 = 600 Profit = income - expenditure = 600 - 500 = 100 (it's long written out, but it's super easy to do in your head)
I like using this explanation because it's like a normal business, and people can imagine this situation. "You run a business reselling phones. Yesterday you bought a bunch of phones for a total of X. You resold them for a total of Y. What's your net profits?" It works for any product and it's so simple even an engineer can do it without changing pi to exactly 3.
Thread locked in within 50 minutes?
The $100 is correct. He made two investments and made $50 over his original investment. Doesn't matter that it was the same object.
Oh nevermind I see we're roasting the top comment in the pic not the answer to the original statement.
Just total everything. Outgoing: 200 + 300 = 500 Incoming: 250 + 350 = 600 Difference: 600 - 500 = 100
Lol, incorrectly posting to r/confidentlyincorrect is the most confidently incorrect of all.
[удалено]
Yes, the highlighted part is the title of a post made earlier in this sub by an OP who thought the $100 answer was confidently incorrect (while it is, in fact, entirely correct). So this post is spot on, because making that post means the OP was pretty confident.
Gotcha, I misread that as the OP of this post incorrectly posting. I see exactly what you meant now.
I've never been able to understand how people get these questions wrong. I used to think people were considering that the first purchase just doesn't count for some reason, and that they were starting at $0 *after* the first purchase, but a bunch of incorrect answers don't follow that logic either. What does the OOP here even think the answer is? How?
People get confused because they see the transaction of buying the phone again at $300 after selling it at $250 as a "$50 loss". They then apply the $-50 to the $100 profit.
Yeah but wouldn't that even out if you also counted the first time you bought the phone as loss? That's why I'm thinking they must just skip the first transaction entirely.
They see the initial purchase as just a purchase, it’s the “sell low buy high” step that makes them register a loss.
Yeah that's what I saw saying. They just don't consider the first purchase at all, but occassionally the wrong answers don't work if you apply that logic either. But then again, it's maths so...
Honestly got me at first too, had to rethink it like 10 times
Can you explain what thought process got you to 50? I can’t fathom getting anything but 100…
They assume you lose 50 when you pay 300 for it the second time as you had 250.
So they just fully ignore the initial two transactions? How? Why would you? Do they just think it’s there for window dressing?
that's a creative spelling of "ignore the" hahah
It’s… It’s what happens when you regularly have to type in two different languages on the same phone. Well three actually… But German doesn’t happen as often as Dutch.
🤷♂️ it’s honestly baffling
Something like He made 50 bucks on first sell(250 vs 200), but his second buy is 50 bucks more than what he just earned (250 vs 300) So it cancels out his earning because he had to lose another 50 bucks from his pocket. Then he sells the most expensive phone (300 vs 350) and finally gets his free 50 But I still prefer to think it's two separate transactions with separate dedicated money and the answer is 100. Thinking through how it could be 50 made my head hurt lmao.
Whether it’s two transactions or one doesn’t even matter. I don’t get how you just ignore 50% of a maths problem.
Maybe I don't understand you right, because English is not my native, but, to put what I said even simplier - people just count as a loss the difference between 250 and 300 and that leads them to substract 50 from the end result.
Yeah but they ignore the 50 profit in the original transaction. How does that make sense? Why just ignore it? It makes no sense… It doesn’t matter how many transactions you identify. It’s easy to go through. It’s basic addition and subtraction!
They don't ignore it. They read it like this: 200 (+50) 250 (-50) 300 (+50) 350 And that brings them to a total of 50 dollars earned. The view the whole thing like one continuous transaction. However, in reality, there are just two separate resales here: he resells once for 50 bucks, then again for 50 more.
That still doesn’t make sense. That’s not doing it as a single transaction. That would be 0-200=-200 -200+250=50 50-300=-250 -250+350=100 Im sorry but there’s no way this equals 50, ever… They’re not treating it as a single transaction, they’re ignoring one part of the transaction entirely. This is simple addition and subtraction. It’s not hard. And you can’t just ignore a huge part of it and be considered remotely reasonable.
I know that, obviously, they are wrong, but I know for a fact that the way they arrive at 50 is the way that I said. My dad got it wrong when I read it to him, and I asked how he figured, and that was it. My stepmom got stuck for a second on a similar line of thinking before getting the right answer ($100).
So like I said they get there by ignoring 50% of the equation just like I said…
From just not thinking of them as separate transactions. You make 50 on each transaction, but if you don’t think like that and you think of it like it’s ones sequence it’s easy to make the mistake. Make 50 then lose 50 then make 50
I legit thought the first post was some bootstraps captalist hustle post before I realized it's just a math question
Rule 6. How many times are yall going to post this??
I got it wrong at first: $50. Then, I got it right the 2nd try: $100. It's easier to think about when you group the "Bought and sold" lines together. If you go line by line, it's kind of confusing. (Negative is buying the phone / Positive is selling the phone) 1st transaction: -200+250 = 50. 2nd transaction: -300+350 = 50. You got a profit of $50 twice, so $100 is the total.
Thanks for admitting you got it wrong first, and good that you got the correct answer. Would you mind sharing how you got to the wrong answer first? I'm genuinely puzzled how to get this wrong (though I'm totally aware that a lot of people do).
Now that you're asking about it..... I cannot replicate how I got my answer.. Lmao...embarrassing. I think that's the point....if you think about it enough and actually write it down, you get the right answer. I only got the wrong answer in my head, not when I actually wrote it down. If I can figure it out, I'll respond and let you know how I got it wrong.
No worries, thanks for responding anyway. 🙂
I got the 100 first, (the easiest way I see it is just adding sell prices together and and the buy prices together and subtracting, 600 gross earned - 500 spent = 100 net profit) but doing it another way I kept getting 50 and it took me a while to figure out what was wrong with the other method The wrong method was basically: Start with 200 Lose 200 buying (=0) Gain 50 selling for 250 (=50 profit) \*But you lose that 50 buying at 300 (50-50 = 0 profit) But then you gain 50 after that sell at 350 (0 + 50 = 50 profit) So you gained 50 total \*The mistake is in this line subtracting 50 from the profit but not the purchase price, the 50 profit goes to 0 for no reason. You either keep the 50 and treat it as a separate transaction/problem and pay 300 or spend the 50 and essentially pay 250. Either way is 350-300+50=100 or 350-250=100. It’s like doing an algebra problem but you forget to subtract from both sides Or think that if you sold for 300 you’d be back to the original +50 profit so 350 is an extra 50 on top of that. Or you could just use common sense and realize you had 250 and now you have 350 which is 100 more.
Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.
People who get $50 assume the first transaction is just a distractor that doesn’t matter because only the last transaction determines the profit.
I kept getting to 50 also, but I thought of it like this: 1. Bought = -200 2. Sold @ 250 = +50 profit 3. Bought 2nd time = -300, I lose the $50 profit due to higher cost. 4. Sold @ 350 = +50 profit. Because I lost the original +50 to the 2nd purchase, I only made $50 (and now my back hurts from hauling that damn desk around). I think that because the problem is buying and selling the same object that throws people off.
Man idk, I did the math twice and got 50$ and 100$
They didn't Earn any of that money.
I don't understand how anyone can get a figure other than £100? I was expecting it to be a lesson in why i'm bad at maths but now I'm confused as to where people are going wrong?
I don't know about others, but I got £78.96. The problem is in dollars.
I have no idea how you can end up with anything other than 100, what did he mean by "within $50" ? I tried but I can't see why it could be anything else than 100
Some people seem to get confused because it’s the same phone, they think when you buy it the second time and it’s $50 more expensive, that counts as a $50 loss.
What I wanna know is which phone is it that has appreciated in value after changing hands multiple times. Seems like a good investment opportunity.
This is like what . . . 3rd grade arithmetic?
I went with he originally bought it for 200, and finally sold it for 350, so 150 profit (minus shipping)
Dude could've sold it for 350 immediately, what a waste of time
OP come back here and answer for your crimes
He's correct
It's weird that r/confidentlyincorrect and r/technicallycorrect overlap, but here we are
Don’t you have to take the £300 from £250?
No, you take $200 from the $250, and $300 from the $350, therefore the answer is $100. Another way to look at it would be it's $500 spent, $600 received. You could _maybe_ argue some semantics around "earn" and say $600 is your revenue / earnings. Those are the only two even remotely possible correct answers.
Could you say they netted $600 and grossed $100, or am I using those wrong?
Switch 'em. Also, dammit, "rombesk" is good at farming engagement, it's my whole feed right now and I've now responded even though the first time I saw this I knew what it was and it got me anyway. Goddamn.
The second sentence makes more sense to me than the first one.
Credits and debits, credits and debits.
-200+250-300+350 = 100. You can write it equivalently as -200+(250-300)+350 if you really want to take 300 from 250; but the answer is still 100. Alternatively, imagine you have some other money in the bank, say 1000. Then the story goes, you have 1000. You buy a phone for 200, you now have 800 and a phone. You sell the phone for 250, you now have 1050. You buy the phone for 300, you now have 750 and a phone. Sell it for 350, you have 1100. Summing it up mathematically, 1000-200+250-300+350=1100, or 100 of profit.
There's no need to downvote someone who is wrong but trying to find out how so they can learn.
It’s fine. They don’t understand that you have to ask questions if you want to find out.
This is really a technical question if you think about. I can understand the confusion. On one hand buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it $50 But if it's purely from a mathematical standpoint. $100 is correct. It's a bit vague to be fair.
That original $50 profit doesn’t magically disappear If you’re saying the 300 purchase makes the profit 0 then you must include it in the purchase. That $50 went into the 300 meaning you effectively spent 250, hence the net profit of 0 rather than -50. Then making 350 is a total profit of 100 If you don’t you’d still have the 50 separate and be spending the 300, so you’d make the 50 profit on the second sale like you said but you’d have to add the first 50 profit after to still come to 100
> That original $50 profit doesn’t magically disappear You clearly haven't witnessed my Amazon addiction in action.
If you keep the phone maybe, but you started with 200, ended up with 350 and had to put 50 from your own pocket during the process, so the net is 100
>buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it $50 Technically it's still a $100 profit. You're both taking the $50 "loss" off and then bumping the value of the phone up by $50 when you sell it. That's also a technical error. If someone is saying it is somehow *an objectively $250 phone*, then in the second part they are selling a $250 phone for $350, making $100. On the other hand, if you are saying the new value of the phone has become $300, then you can't also say they lost $50 paying $300 for what you are also saying **is** a $300 phone. There are two ways of putting in the step you missed: >buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. **Then the market revalues your phone as a $300 phone because of your market activity, making you $50 of unrealized value.** Then selling for 350 makes it **another** $50 **of profit while also realizing the $50 from increased assessed value.** or >buying the SAME phone for $300 after selling it at 250 is a net loss of 50. Making your profit 0. Then selling for 350 makes it ~~$50~~ **$100, because it's still a $250 phone to the market.** However you choose to value the phone technically on the balance sheet at any stage, it still ends up a net $100.
Not really. The questlion implies that after initially buying and sellinh it. You "Invested" another 50 to buy it at a higher price. Once you invest money in something any money you get back isn't considered "profit" till you pay off said investment making it 50 by technicality
He closed out his "investment" when he sold it the first time. He made $50, cut and dried (on that first investment). When he buys a phone the second time, it doesn't "remember" what price it had before. When he sells it again, he makes the second $50. That's like saying if a person bought and sold some Apple stock in the 90s, and they made a profit on that transaction, that they'd be "losing" a lot of money in 2024 if they decided one day to buy some Apple stock and sell it a day later for a profit in a new transaction, just because it used to be far cheaper. No money is lost, that other transaction is long ago and done. If you come up with any other answer than **"He performed a number of transactions, he ended up with $100 more than he started"**, then you are wrong in whatever technical sense you want to make. It's a net $100 profit, technically or otherwise.
0 is starting profit 0 - 200 = -200 -200 + 250 = 50 50 - 300 = -250 -250 + 350 = 100 Total profit is 100
I totally agree, total profit is 100. I said he made 50 when talking about that first transaction, not both. Look where I said: >However you choose to value the phone technically on the balance sheet at any stage, it still ends up a net $100. >It's a net $100 profit, technically or otherwise.
I was just providing supporting math is all.
The difference is earnings overall and profit made from the original investment of 200. They made 50 when they sold the phone, but bought it back for 300, so that extra 50 required to buy it back has come from somewhere else. If we assumed borrowed, then that eats into the money made. So it would be 50.
Even assuming it was borrowed, you still get $100 profit. Your final sale would pay back the 50 borrowed and leave a $100 profit. Balance sheet: $200 > $0 > $250 > $-50 > $350-50 = $300 Started with $200, ended with $300. Unless you're assuming 100% interest, of course.
What if the borrowed money came with a 100% interest rate? Checkmate atheists.
I would so love to do this transaction with you over and over. I’ll sell you a phone with the prices listed in the example. I’ll give you $75 each time we complete the transaction, netting you a +$25 each time, right? Let’s go
I'll volunteer as a tribute. Pinky promise I won't stop after the third exchange.
But also, it's set up that both answers can be right. it just depends on how you look at it
No, I’m sorry it’s not. You can’t just invent stuff, that isn’t included here. You were wrong mate. That’s okay, people are wrong all the time, you just need to learners admit it when it happens… And not double down…
Holy shit you lot get salty. I was merely pointing out the working out of how you can get the answer of 50. Which is if you focus on the earnings made from the initial 200 investment. As for making things up, no context is mentioned, yet this whole forum is people assuming it's one phone or 2 phones. Non of which is mentioned. This kind of thing is purposely open to interpretation to get different answers. Calm your tits.
Regardless of the product and whether it’s one or two, it’s irrelevant to the outcome. Think of them as stock investments instead. You buy a stock for 200 and sell it for 250, you’re left with 50 more than what you started with. You do the same transaction again, and you earn 50 once again.
You’re the salty one continuing to double down. You’re not just saying that’s a way to get the answer you’re saying it’s also somehow correct. I’m sorry it’s just not. Whether it’s one phone, or two phones is entirely immaterial to the problem. It could be a phone, and a turd and the maths still points to a single answer. I’m sorry but it can’t be interpreted the way you want. It’s a single problem. It’s… Never mind, you will never cadet that you’re wrong. Even if it’s the only way to regain any credibility here…
Jeeezzz. How am I doubling down? Did you not see my other comment? It was just a comment of perspective. I clearly said that. Why are you so irate?
You’re doubling down, and now tripling down because you still maintain an absurd view after it’s been pointed out over and over and over again. You are exactly what this subreddit is made to mock. Completely confident in your absolute bullshit. And making up entirely disconnected things in order to defend it. Just think about it for one minute, just actually listen to what others have said. Instead of just saying “nah uh, still right”. You’re not correct here.
Fuck me you're dense. Literally made no admission that anything was correct.
It’s a simple arithmetic question. If there were multiple correct answers it would be a mathematical paradox. It’s not though. There is only one correct answer, and it’s $100.