Advanced search

This is hurting my head. Have a squiz and tell me if anyone's out of pocket...

(34 Posts)
EleanorHandbasket Tue 02-Oct-12 14:55:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jins Tue 02-Oct-12 14:57:10

I think the hotel owner is out of pocket.

Roseformeplease Tue 02-Oct-12 14:59:08

The tavern owner is owed the money now as the prostitute has taken his money but has not yet returned it in the form of favours. So he has paid out, but received nothing in return.

LadySybildeChocolate Tue 02-Oct-12 15:00:44

It's the hotelier at the end; he's just given the lady of the night a free room as he doesn't have the 100.

nickeldaisical Tue 02-Oct-12 15:01:25

no, it said she offered him services on credit - she's already given him the services.

no-one's out of pocket because that's how economy works.

WheresMyCow Tue 02-Oct-12 15:01:25

I have seen something similar before and had to read it twice, and I thought that the hotel owner was out of pocket...but now I'm not sure confused

whatsleep Tue 02-Oct-12 15:01:27

I have read this before! Know one is out of pocket try have merely paid their debts to each other grin the final debt that the hooker pays to the hotel keeper enabled him to pay back the guest who changed his mind, as he spent the money he originally paid.....simple wink

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 02-Oct-12 15:01:27

No one is out of pocket. The tavern owner had already utilised the prostitute on "credit"

EleanorHandbasket Tue 02-Oct-12 15:02:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lubeybooby Tue 02-Oct-12 15:02:11

Nope no one is out of pocket.

The prostitute had given services on a tab which was then paid.

nickeldaisical Tue 02-Oct-12 15:02:53

but even the tourist isn't, because he doesn't know it's a loan.

WheresMyCow Tue 02-Oct-12 15:03:24

I thought that LadySybilde but then he's paid someone too.

EleanorHandbasket Tue 02-Oct-12 15:03:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Roseformeplease Tue 02-Oct-12 15:04:19

You are right. I read it that she had yet to give him the services, ie he had paid for them but she had yet to do the deed(s).

NorbertDentressangle Tue 02-Oct-12 15:04:39

No I don't think anyone is out of pocket.

(I did have to read it several times to get to that decision though!)

squeakytoy Tue 02-Oct-12 15:05:28

my head hurts with it too, but isnt it the hotel owner who loses out..

shadesofblue Tue 02-Oct-12 15:07:26

Closed system - it would have worked just as well if they'd all agreed to forgive the debts they owed one another. And the only women taking part in the economy are prostitutes.

*Slinks off back to Feminism.

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Tue 02-Oct-12 15:07:42

The point is this:

Hotelier owes €100 to butcher
Butcher owes €100 to pig farmer
Pig farmer owes €100 to feed supplier
Feed supplier owes €100 to taverna
Taverna owes €100 to prostitute
Prostitute owes €100 to hotelier

So in fact everyone both owes €100 and is owed €100.

If all seven parties got together they could wipe out their debts without the need for €100.

Clearly if you owe €100 and are owed €100 your net worth is zero.

So there is no need for any €100 note to wipe out these debts, and nobody is in fact better or worse off. If each party chose NOT to enforce their debts against the other parties, there would no problem.

ICBINEG Tue 02-Oct-12 15:08:45

So make it simpler:

Fred owes Morris 10p.
Morris owes Sebastian 10p
Sebastian owes Fred 10p

They can a) all stay in a state of owing 10p and being owed 10p.
b) cancel their debts to one an other in a zero sum gain.(with or without a 10p borrowed from a handsome stranger and given back at the end.

The article obfuscates this by saying they were all stuck in debt. Actually they were also all stuck in credit. So even if they were charging each other interest they are no better off before or after the transaction.

JamesBexleySpeed Tue 02-Oct-12 15:12:23

The hotel owner is definitely 100 Euros down. He should have the money in his till to pay for the rooms used by the prostitute, instead, the tourist took off with the money.
Everyone else is fine.

ICBINEG Tue 02-Oct-12 15:13:21

Or even simpler:

Cindy (the pole dancing mother of 3) owes Bob (the executive businessman) 10p
Bob owes Cindy 10p.

Nothing changes if they just cancel the debts with or without borrowing 10p from Wang Chin (the obligatory ethnic person who almost certainly studies hard).

I am utterly appalled, not at the gender stereotyping, but that I actually didn't spot it....grrrrrr

marcopront Tue 02-Oct-12 15:13:25

If you look at a simpler case.

A owes B $100
B owes A $100

So they agree to cancel the debt. That would be OK wouldn't it.


A owes B $100
B owes C $100
C owes A $100

Again they agree they can cancel the debt.

This is just a bigger group but because they all owe the same amount and they owe in a circle, it works.

marcopront Tue 02-Oct-12 15:14:42

I type too slowly.

JamesBexleySpeed Tue 02-Oct-12 15:16:05

ah, yes, I'm wrong blush the hotel owner no longer owes 100 to the Butcher.
<goes to have a lie down>

ICBINEG Tue 02-Oct-12 15:19:16

james no he isn't. He starts owing a hundred euros to the butcher and being owed a hundred euros by the prostitute. If she had simply paid him, he would have paid the butcher and ended up with 0 euros in his till, no debt to the butcher and no credit from the prostitute.

And this is exactly the state he is in at the end of the tale. No debt and no credit and nothing in the till.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: