Topic: I had a raspberry, I sell it to my child, how much money do I made? (Read 149 times)

I would just be bold without much explanation. Pretty much everybody else do this except the working class who work hard for money. We once joke about the poor rob the bank from the outside, the rich rob the bank from the inside out, it couldn't be more obvious. The rich also rob the breadwinner from the inside of the house(won't explain). What they are doing, is exploiting the loophole of the system, apparently people are getting smarter everyday, thus the loophole would have to step up themselves too, rich people use the leverage on their brain to create new loopholes. It is not easy for many to see the full picture because the school system has taught them to work for money their entire life, but not to profiting from loopholes. Also all of this loophole is so dumb that the smart people who leave the school find this knowledge of the rich look like a joke and not interested on learning more. Also buying and selling to myself is the ultimate loopholes that is impossible to be patched. To make the story into the news, it is never been easier today, we do not need to hire any news reporters, all we need to do is deploy the AI to do the jobs.

I will categorize this trade as an internal transaction between you and your son. In that case no trade took place. If it were to be between you and an ally of yours or an open market just as the previous comment says, then we can say there was a deal and a transaction recorded but in this case, you gave it to your son.
Let's assume it were to be an outside market, this deal in question is not in any ways profitable to categorize it to be a business of that nature. If I may ask, why would you put up such a stunt for your son or are your trying to teach your son something otherwise I see it rethoric.

Okay, let's count.
Total spending: $5 (given initially) + $10 (buying back from the child) + $5 (giving the child next time) = $20.
Total amount you're getting back: $5 (the first sell deal) + $15 (the second sell deal) = $20.
Your spending equals your revenue. That means that you got $20 of revenue, but since you've also spent $20, you've made zero profit because profit is counted after deducting expenses.

I like the explanation of the riddle by adaseb, and I also believe that the op is referring to inside trading here, but something doesn't quite add up with the analogy. Mainly because the value of the raspberry is inflated (and that's something over which one probably can make profit on the market), but the story of two people doesn't show how one uses the inflated price for profit.

It's an interesting dilemma that shows the problem of pricing goods and services. I'm sure many of us thought about this concept at least once in our lives when we did not know how to price a service. Let's say, you were asked by your neighbor to chop wood for his fireplace and he offered to pay you, but you don't know what's the market price of an hour spent chopping wood. How do you price your time? Most of us will just pick a low round number based on either the average hourly wage, or maybe our current wage at work, or maybe the minimum wage in the country, something like that. But let's say we charge him at average hourly rate. Was chopping wood worth more than an hour spent by a lawyer in court? How about an hour of a mechanic who fixed your car? Should you ask more or less for chopping wood than a tutor charges you for teaching your child?

As for making money, you and your family are a part of a closed system. All trades within that system don't make any of you make or lose money, even if you really pay for these items, because the whole family shares the same income. If you buy an item from your child multiple times, you gain money, but the child loses money that was given by you. Since both of you share expenses and sooner or later you will either have to give your child pocket money or buy stuff that it needs, the system will return to balance.

Basically the point of this thread is that the Raspberry is basically representing the banks and how they handle money.

Even though he didn’t actually make any money, he inflated the price of the raspberry. And this is more or less how all these banks work. One bank owes to another bank, that bank owes to another bank, and the latter and former bank lend to each other.

It’s either this or this is some riddle that I don’t understand.

You are right, I did not sell my raspberry to my child, but I did secause I am a child of an old man in my country, and I don't want to be left behind in this market, I have no choice but to sell ithat is what I do, I will not sell it to my child, but child, and if I can get it, I will sell it to my

There will always be a cheaper option available for the same product. I am still trying to process how this thing works. And what you say it that's the true, then it's a scam to deceive people. And I think this is what branded company do. Otherwise there are always other products which are far better than those brands. But people only buys branded products for name value.
I myself don't like those because it's just a waste of money. But my question is, why people still buy them at higher price knowing that it's a scam? Doesn't make sense. I am still trying to calculate that money you mentioned. Let me think a bit more. I'll give your answer when I can completely understand the concept.

It is as real as any business is doing, company buying and selling to themselves on a daily basic, it is definitely not a joke. Do you read the news company can create "house account" and trade between themselves.

Honestly I find no use to a piece of raspberry, may be my child would spend his time to play with it, I know they could play video game on it, or making it run some software, I'm not interested on it and I think it is waste of time for me to play with it. But the reality is I had made profit from selling it, tbh the actual market price is now fetch a lot higher than $15, so I could easily more than $15 by selling it.

That is as simple as it sound, if you would like to know more, the content is the raspberry, the context is the price of $5 changed to $15, and the money is made by expanding the context of the raspberry. Yup content and context expansion is both used to create wealth in a keynesian economy.


whether I trade it with my child or to my friend or to a new stranger, what appear is both the content and context remain the same, the content is still the same, it is raspberry, the context is still the same, it is the price of $15, the name might be not the same but it doesn't matter to me, whether it is my child or my friend or a stranger, it is still the same just a buyer in disguise. Nothing has ever changed, everything is still the same and I made the profit.

Well it may sound like it is a mistake to not sold to someone else. In fact I could repeatedly buying and selling the raspberry to my child to make the price higher than $15, to $20, or to $25 or more. When I could sell to my child for $25 compare to selling to someone else for $15, how much money do I made?

A lot of people would believe that, it might be not you, but there is a lot of people around you, many of them are happy to buy at inflated price. When you look at the actual market price today, it is much higher than $15 on the open market.

Read the next post I will make shortly below... it is going to be a long story to explain in great detail.

You didn't make any profits, rather it's a loss. Given the fact that it's your money which was used again and again from your own pocket, just changing hands and made it back to you, gives us the conclusion of no profits made. Then let's talk about the loss part. The raspberry has a value. It has a resale price. By selling and circulating your own money, you gave it away for free. If you had sold that to someone else, you could have earned the resale value. But in the end, the selling price having no value makes it a loss.
And making it to the news? Who would believe that?
Or am I missing something here. Explain your side of the story, please.

I'm I missing something? It doesn't make sense to me, but if it does to you, please clarify better.

You actually made nothing ($0) in these charade transactions as you are the owner of the raspberry, the money you gave to your child and the supposed money you think you made from the transactions.

The equation might have been different if the money is independent of you in the case that it's your child's or someone else's money that has nothing to do with you whatsoever.

This is really funny to me when reading it and I would have suggested you but in brackets indicating that this is a joke  in front of the topic, e.g: (fun) atleast people will know what they're about reading about but answering your question, I believe you already know that  you made no single money since all the money spent belonged to you as well as the raspberry and there is anyone who will be making any money or profit should be your son because whether his the final buyer of seller, he has an advantage of either owning a raspberry or having to own full possessions of the $15

Now my question is, what is the reason behind you selling the raspberry to your son and what impression str you creating.

Good question. Everybody give money to the child to buy food from the canteen or buy books from the store, I see completely no harm in giving them money to buy a raspberry too. Why multiple occasion? Of course it is totally acceptable to give child the money everyday so they could buy food from the canteen everyday, it is definitely not an insider trading.


Do you just said the piece of high tech artifact are just sold for no money? You must be kidding, I just sold the tech for $15, it is the reality, the value on the product is reality, every piece of invention created by scientist has a high price.

Why do you have to give money to your child to buy from you on multiple occasions? The answer to your question is that you made no money because all the money that was used for the trade was actually your money. If it were calculated the other way around, you should be recording some losses from all the transaction fees if they were to happen between some online gateway payment system. 

The only benefit I believe you can get from this is if you eventually place this on the open market and fabricate the story real enough so that your target audience will believe that the trade eventually happened, then they can start pricing your selling products from the last price of sales, if it's actually worth the price. This should be the main reason I believe you are trading within yourself. 

Since the last topic is about selling raspberry to myself, many readers decide it is worth zero and do not made any money.

Now I had a decision, I would decide against selling to myself, so reader suggest I had to sell to someone else to make money, so I had decide I would sell it to my child, but why my child? Isn't it insider trading? It is not, I reassure you. First I would give my child my money first to make the trade possible. so the story goes like this,

I give my child $5, next I sell the raspberry to my child for $5, next I buy the raspberry again for $10, again I give my child another $5, and sell the raspberry to my child for $15, now the raspberry has a price of $15 from the initial of just $5, how much money do I made?

I also need to make it to the news, and let's the entire world to know I just sold the raspberry for $15, and it is all over the news! The rapsberry I buy for $5 and sold for $15, there has to be profit made, the number is real!