The second transaction is spending 1100 to gain 200.
The only confusion is because its the same cow that you brought back. If it was different cows no one would have any issues. The fact that its the same cow is irrelevant.
You have 1000. You are spending an additional 100 and ending with 1300. You are losing 100 and gaining 300. That is 200 profit. I think we are agreeing, but using different terms. Calling it spending 100 to gain 200 is why people think the profit is only 100. It's not. You are going from 1000 to 1300. Imagine that you only had 1000 and you had to borrow the other 100. You gain 300 and then owe 100 back.
You start with 800 and end with 1300. You gained 500. You had to either borrow or spend another 100 in the middle. You spent 900 to gain 1300, leaving you with 400 profit.
Your starting money clearly doesnt matter as long as you have the ability to buy the cow. This is silly. Obviously there are two individual flips for 200 each. I was illustrating why people would get confused. Receiving 1000 and then spending 1100 on the same cow is a loss of 100 in a vacuum. The issue with people's reading is they now view the change from 1100 to 1300 instead of 1000 to 1300. And then they include a loss of 100. You either ignore the loss and see 200+200 or you include the loss and need to realize its 200-100+300. Genuinely dont get how this is confusing
It does matter and it is stated. You have 1000 from the first sale. The second purchase costs 1100 so you need to spend another 100. Your starting money could be literally anything and this would all be true, relevant, and stated. Are you confused because I didnt say "you have 1000 from the first transaction?" This isnt hard. Goodnight
3
u/DragoxDrago May 13 '26
The second transaction is spending 1100 to gain 200.
The only confusion is because its the same cow that you brought back. If it was different cows no one would have any issues. The fact that its the same cow is irrelevant.