A logic question for you (math related).. straightforward
 

John buys a set of speakers for $20 from a garage sale. Realizing that the speakers were not exactly what he wanted, he resells the speakers to Mike for $10. John has known Mike for a long time, and has developed some trust with him. Mike tells John that he does not have the money at the moment but will pay him the $10 at a later date, but he needs the speakers right now. John lets him take the speakers. Mike however never pays the $10 owed.

How much did John lose in these transactions?

Lose? If he can lose Mike for a set of $20 speakers, I think he has profited.

He just bought the speakers to Mike as a gift. That's all he lost.

How can one measure the value of trust in another individual?

I agree with baddog.

I should have been more clear. I mean capital losses. Mike and John are not friends per se, but Mike did trust John at the time.

My answer still stands. :)

$30

.......

Why would it matter if Mike trusted John? John's the one that got shafted.

Known assets at beginning of story. $20
Known assets at end of story $0
Loss = $20

He both gained and lost the speakers. It is a wash.

Who cares what John has....what Mike should have gotten is an ass whipping

John is convinced he lost $20. That is the amount of money he took out of his pocket, that is all that belonged to him that he lost.

Johns wife is convinced he lost $30. He lost the $20 in buying the TV (John had believed the TV was worth $20 at the time) and $10 later (John attributed a value of $10 to the TV later that he lost)

Johns brother thinks he lost $40. $20 originally, $10 in the worth of the TV, $10 that was not paid to him.

Depends on your definition of lost though. Net loss or "gains and losses"

Now its a damn TV?

There was no damned TV. You've LOST your mind, :1orglaugh

John is convinced he lost $20. That is the amount of money he took out of his pocket, that is all that belonged to him that he lost.

Johns wife is convinced he lost $30. He lost the $20 in buying the speakers (John had believed the speakers was worth $20 at the time) and $10 later (John attributed a value of $10 to the speakers later that he lost)

Johns brother thinks he lost $40. $20 originally, $10 in the worth of the speakers, $10 that was not paid to him.

Edit: can you tell its 4am? lol

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh Maybe he forgot to change the text from the site he pulled it from?

There is a fourth possibility.
John lost $10. The first transaction was a transaction where John valued the speakers as $20, there was no net gain/loss in this transaction. John devalued the speakers to $10 a little while later, and thats what he lost.

Let me know what you guys think.. Im gonna hit the sack lol

Those must be some pretty fucking awful speakers to only cost $20.

they were :pimp :pimp

Why did he buy that pair of pants to begin with?

Or a really shitty TV.

:1orglaugh

Lol :)
$30 :)

oooh our 2nd $30 answer

PS there is an answer to this question. I wont say whether or not its been posted yet =)

thats 2 for $30 and 1 for $20

How do you expect us to get the answer right when you keep getting the question wrong?

$30 think... anyway, are you John?

He lost 20.

The 10 he was about to get back from re-selling was an attempt to regain 10 from his 20 loss.

Seeing as he never regained the 10, he lost the full amount of 20.

Financially, its not possible for him to lose more than 20, since that is the maximum of his total expenses related to this case.

Just because he was about to cut his losses in half by re-selling and didnt get his money from it doesnt mean he lost *extra* money, just means he lost the full amount.

the speakers were "hot".
John went to prison for recieving stolen property.
the rest of that crap is just their to distract you.

I think he lost $30.

But math is not my strong suit, so wtf do I know.