一天有個年輕人來到王老闆的店裏買了一件禮物，這件禮物成本是18元，標價是21元。結果是這個年輕人掏出100元要買這件禮物，王老闆當時沒有零錢，用那100元向街坊換了100元的零錢，找給年輕人79元，但是街坊後來發現那100元是假鈔，王老闆無奈還了街坊100元。.現在問題是： 王老闆在這次交易中到底損失了多少錢？ (Since there are too many versions of this question, I assume this question is the correct one.) 從會計學或經濟學角度去計算，損失都是同樣100元 http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qid=7012111200304 Garlic2010 “PROUDLY” ANSWERED. (Actually, it’s a piece of ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS ARTS found from him!!!) 這評論目的在解釋從會計學或經濟學角度去計算，損失都是同樣100元。 http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/article?qid=6908122800145 I know no accounting but do know a little about economics. I believe it would be amusing to see how you crank up with those numbers, commented by Garlic2010. http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/article?qid=6912121500348 NOW THIS ARROGANCE CLAIMS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ACCOUNTING BUT LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS. If he claims he doesn’t know accounting and knows little bit of economics, how can he proudly say this: 從會計學或經濟學角度去計算, 損失都是同樣100元? YOU ARE SHAME, OUR RECLUSIVE ONLINE ARROGANCE! Garlic2010 said: (又係佢誤人子弟傑作) 王老闆收了100元假鈔，失去79元的找續和21元的貨物，所以王老闆的損失是100元。 ========================================================= The purpose of this criticism is to show Garlic2010’s conclusive statement is FALSE. IS THE $3 PROFIT EXISTED??? 為甚麼貨物價值是21元而不是18元呢﹖因為如果賣給真正的顧客，王老闆可以收到21元，所以21元是王老闆的真正損失，這個也是經濟學機會成本的觀念。By Garlic2010. His statement is false. The opportunity cost of a decision is based on what must be given up (the next best alternative) as a result of the decision. Any decision that involves a choice between two or more options has an opportunity cost, according to NetMBA.com. Did Mr. Wong make a decision on which customer to sell? Can Mr. Wong choose which customer to sell? Did Mr. Wong intentionally forgo the $3 profit to being deceived? THE ANSWER IS NO, SO THERE’S NOTHING RELATED TO OPPORTUNITY COST!!!!!!!!!
《評論》tricky p. 2 maths question
2012-12-19 12:20 am
相關問題: https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121112000051KK00304
更新1:
回答 (2)
2013-01-01 9:43 pm
What a ridiculous arrogance is attempting to persuade everyone to believe his insanity. If you’ve been ripped off $100 from a crank, this is your lost NOT OPPORTUNITY COST. An opportunity cost is the benefit you lose by CHOOSING AN ALTERATIVE DECISION.
2013-01-01 13:44:07 補充：
Although you have an opportunity to spend your $100, you no longer have this opportunity to use this $100 after being robbed, so this can’t be regarded as an opportunity cost!
LOST = COST GET IT?
2013-01-01 13:44:44 補充：
Try not to alter the definition of an opportunity cost yourself. You wrongly interpret it!
Let me ask you this question: If I have $1 million defected goods in a warehouse which can’t be sold in any circumstance, can you tell me that $1 million is the opportunity cost?
2013-01-01 13:44:07 補充：
Although you have an opportunity to spend your $100, you no longer have this opportunity to use this $100 after being robbed, so this can’t be regarded as an opportunity cost!
LOST = COST GET IT?
2013-01-01 13:44:44 補充：
Try not to alter the definition of an opportunity cost yourself. You wrongly interpret it!
Let me ask you this question: If I have $1 million defected goods in a warehouse which can’t be sold in any circumstance, can you tell me that $1 million is the opportunity cost?
2012-12-22 9:16 am
Obviously you have not studied economics and know nothing about opportunity cost. If you have, you should be ashamed of yourself.
2012-12-22 01:19:12 補充：
Let me tell you one thing. If anything has a cost, that cost is an opportunity cost.
2012-12-22 01:20:40 補充：
If you are robbed of $100, you have no choice but lost $100. Would you say that the $100 you are robbed of has no other use, and therefore no cost?
2012-12-22 01:23:29 補充：
There is a cost involved in being robbed or cheated although you have no choice over the action. But you do have a choice on how the money could be used if you still had it.
2012-12-22 01:19:12 補充：
Let me tell you one thing. If anything has a cost, that cost is an opportunity cost.
2012-12-22 01:20:40 補充：
If you are robbed of $100, you have no choice but lost $100. Would you say that the $100 you are robbed of has no other use, and therefore no cost?
2012-12-22 01:23:29 補充：
There is a cost involved in being robbed or cheated although you have no choice over the action. But you do have a choice on how the money could be used if you still had it.
收錄日期: 2021-04-23 21:31:53
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121218000050KK00166