Why a dispute costs $229 on a $129 pair of shoes

By double counting the loss of the item and the lost revenue you can really make a title seem worth a click.

Point taken. However, as the author works in FINtech, I’m feeling compelled to add that the revenue reversal figure itself is neither “cost” nor “loss” and should not be included in the $229.

It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that he considered both the lost sale and the value of the goods as part of the cost. That's double counting.

For a few years now, I have a small potato business selling used electronic instruments online.

One important lesson is I have to charge more than the cost of postage to pay for shipping.

Welcome to modern economics where nothing makes sense with prices

[dead]