or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Who loses more money?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who loses more money?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Person A and person B are betting on horses at a racetrack in Baltimore. A loses 10K. B loses 100K. A's net worth is 100K. B's is 5Mil.

 

1. B loses more money. 90K more.

 

2. A loses more. He loses 10% of his net worth. B loses 2% of his net worth.

 

Is 1 or 2 the best argument?

post #2 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooAmEye View Post
 

Person A and person B are betting on horses at a racetrack in Baltimore. A loses 10K. B loses 100K. A's net worth is 100K. B's is 5Mil.

 

1. B loses more money. 90K more.

 

2. A loses more. He loses 10% of his net worth. B loses 2% of his net worth.

 

Is 1 or 2 the best argument?

 

It doesn't make any difference A, B and C (the house) all lost because of the armed robbery perpetrated by the low life scum that live in Baltimore,  so says the mayor and the DA.  The only real winner is the politician who ultimately got the money through fraud and manipulation of the gambling entity in the city.   The whole conspiracy is the fault of the police because everyone knows they're incompetent and corrupt.

post #3 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooAmEye View Post
 

Person A and person B are betting on horses at a racetrack in Baltimore. A loses 10K. B loses 100K. A's net worth is 100K. B's is 5Mil.

 

1. B loses more money. 90K more.

 

2. A loses more. He loses 10% of his net worth. B loses 2% of his net worth.

 

Is 1 or 2 the best argument?

 

#2 is the best argument. Of course you understand that it is about wealth, not money. Money measures wealth like a thermometer measures temperature. 

post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSchool47 View Post
 

 

#2 is the best argument. Of course you understand that it is about wealth, not money. Money measures wealth like a thermometer measures temperature. 

 

I get it. You own 2 silver mines and 3 gold mines in northern California. Someone asks you how much is your net worth. You tell him that you are worth 2 silver mines and 3 gold mines. He tells you that he is worth 3 Picasso originals and 4 square miles of old-growth redwoods north of Ukiah. Yep. Yep. I get it. Goldmines = wealth.

post #5 of 18

post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooAmEye View Post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSchool47 View Post
 

 

#2 is the best argument. Of course you understand that it is about wealth, not money. Money measures wealth like a thermometer measures temperature. 

 

I get it. You own 2 silver mines and 3 gold mines in northern California. Someone asks you how much is your net worth. You tell him that you are worth 2 silver mines and 3 gold mines. He tells you that he is worth 3 Picasso originals and 4 square miles of old-growth redwoods north of Ukiah. Yep. Yep. I get it. Goldmines = wealth.

 

Primitive man created money as a lingua franca so that different types of wealth can be understood and compared more easily. And then even smarter primitive man created the language of ratios so that annual rates of return can be understood and compared more easily. 

post #7 of 18

The answer is obvious:   Fischer Motive 95ti in 180cm.

post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete No. Idaho View Post
 

 

It doesn't make any difference A, B and C (the house) all lost because of the armed robbery perpetrated by the low life scum that live in Baltimore,  so says the mayor and the DA.  The only real winner is the politician who ultimately got the money through fraud and manipulation of the gambling entity in the city.   The whole conspiracy is the fault of the police because everyone knows they're incompetent and corrupt.

 

post #9 of 18
Money is more portable than cattle.
post #10 of 18

But cattle tastes better than money.  MMmmmmm.........steak, burgers, jerky...... ;)

post #11 of 18

Forget the race track.  Take $10 grand and bet on a week of heli-skiing.  Your odds are much better, and if you win it is sweeter than all the money in the world.

post #12 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
 

Forget the race track.  Take $10 grand and bet on a week of heli-skiing.  Your odds are much better, and if you win it is sweeter than all the money in the world.

 

Agree. What do these 4 guys have in common?

 

   

 

   

post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooAmEye View Post
 

Person A and person B are betting on horses at a racetrack in Baltimore. A loses 10K. B loses 100K. A's net worth is 100K. B's is 5Mil.

 

1. B loses more money. 90K more.

 

2. A loses more. He loses 10% of his net worth. B loses 2% of his net worth.

 

Is 1 or 2 the best argument?

That's not an argument! This is an argument. Besides, the racetrack lost more money.

post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooAmEye View Post
 

Person A and person B are betting on horses at a racetrack in Baltimore. A loses 10K. B loses 100K. A's net worth is 100K. B's is 5Mil.

 

1. B loses more money. 90K more.

 

2. A loses more. He loses 10% of his net worth. B loses 2% of his net worth.

 

Is 1 or 2 the best argument?


The answer to your question, who loses more money, is simple, B loses more more money.

 

Now as to who loses more overall,  B lost more money, however he, possibly, can afford better to lose it. A lost less money, but it may have more of a affect on him. There are a lot of folks out there with a 5M net worth on paper that are closer to being in the hole than someone with less, However, if the idiot A is gambling 10% of his net worth on a horse, he will always be broke no matter how much wealth he has. So the biggest loser is A.

post #15 of 18

Deal 'em.

 

post #16 of 18
You capitalist pigs. All wealth should be redistributed so that 1 and 2 lose equal amounts.
post #17 of 18

To validate the argument, you need to take into account the person's current earning potential as well.

 

Additionally, for the living costs argument, there's some research or studies that quote you need 75k to happily cover your living expenses in the US.

So, for this example, even if person A has low net worth, his earning potential isn't mentioned.

 

You need to take both of these other factors into account as well.

 

So A could be a a rookie NFL player who just signed a multimillion contract and B with a 10th year veteran who has $5m but is at the end of his career.

It doesn't matter that A has no money in the bank if he's going to make more in the next few years.

post #18 of 18

Erik, Franz, and I firmly believe that A loses more money than B. 5x as much because 10 is 5 x 2.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Who loses more money?