this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
98 points (94.5% liked)

Canada

11715 readers
504 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It is absolutely wild that you linked an article you clearly did not comprehend. The decision lab link literally says you should not let past unrecoverable costs influence future rational decisions which is exactly what you are advocating for when you cry about needing to see a return on investment for obsolete equipment. 🤣

But the absolute funniest part of your rant is you confidently claiming five axis CNC machines did not exist thirty years ago in 1996. The United States Air Force and MIT literally pioneered continuous five axis machining back in the late 1950s for complex aerospace components. Just because the specific low tier job shops you worked at in the nineties were still banging rocks together on manual knee mills does not mean the rest of the advanced manufacturing world was stuck in the stone age.

Your reading comprehension is also genuinely struggling if you think pivoting from building military aerospace parts to building commercial aerospace parts is the exact same thing as a factory pivoting to running a medical hospital. One is swapping the end product of an established heavy manufacturing supply chain and the other is a completely different sector of the human economy. And your claim that heavy industry conglomerates cannot survive a temporary twenty percent revenue dip is just mathematically false for any publicly traded defense prime. These companies maintain massive cash reserves and heavily diversified commercial portfolios specifically to weather procurement cycles and bridge the gap during retooling phases. If a massive heavy industrial firm instantly vaporizes because a single contract gets cancelled they are a spectacularly mismanaged financial garbage fire.

Finally you ended the whole thing by daring me to name any industry the government has forced to transition. Have you literally ever heard of the Defense Production Act or maybe basic environmental regulations. The US federal government literally forced the entire global refrigeration industry to completely pivot and retool when they banned chlorofluorocarbons. They forced the entire automotive supply chain to retool when they mandated catalytic converters and banned leaded gasoline. When the government changes the legal requirements for a product or completely alters their procurement strategy the industry adapts and survives or they stubbornly cling to their task specific machines and go bankrupt. Either way the capital gets reallocated whether you understand basic macroeconomic shifts or not.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Wait. So you think that ANY loss of investment results in a sunk cost fallacy? I would ask if you're joking, but you clearly aren't. You really should read that definition again. You've missed the entire point.

A sunk cost fallacy is when you continue to invest in something, that hasn't yielded results. The "fallacy" comes from thinking that if you "cut your losses too soon", you will have invested all that money for nothing.

That doesn't apply to investments that have already paid off. That also doesn't apply to losing your business, after having invested money in it for decades. Those are just losses. Not "sunk costs". I don't even think you understand what "equity" is. If you're trying to argue that past investments have no current value, then you are even more confused about economics than I thought.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It is honestly a marvel how you can type so many words while fundamentally misunderstanding the basic vocabulary you are trying to use. You literally just made up your own personal definition of a sunk cost fallacy to try and save face here. A sunk cost in economics is simply any money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered regardless of whether the investment was profitable yesterday or five years ago. The fallacy is letting the emotional weight of that unrecoverable past expense dictate your future business decisions instead of looking at the current marginal utility of the asset. If a production line stops being profitable but management refuses to scrap it because they are obsessed with the original purchase price they are actively committing the sunk cost fallacy. It does not magically stop being a sunk cost just because the machine successfully printed money for a few years before the market dried up.

And desperately dragging the concept of equity into this just proves you have entirely lost the plot of your own argument. Equity is the current market value of an asset minus liabilities. You literally just spent three entire comments screaming that these manufacturing machines are entirely task specific and cannot possibly be used for anything else. If a machine can only make a product that nobody wants to buy anymore its current market value is essentially the price of scrap metal. You cannot confidently claim an asset is completely useless for any other purpose and then turn around and cry about its massive retained equity. Either the machine has alternative market value and the company can liquidate it to fund a transition or it is a completely unrecoverable sunk cost that rational management needs to write off immediately. Pick a lane because right now you are just completely embarrassing yourself by arguing both sides of a basic financial contradiction.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, my God. You're doubling down? Seriously buddy, you are absolutley ridiculous. It's been pretty obvious for the last couple of exchasnges that you aren't arguing in good faith, but this is just bizarre. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about this concept.

The sunk cost fallacy is specifically in regards to a BAD investment. Not ANY past investment. If you have been investing in something that is profitable...then holding onto that investment, is good. It is considered an ASSET. It holds VALUE. Losing that asset is bad. It doesn't matter how long you've had that asset, or how long it's been since you paid it off.

But when you have been investing in something that is NOT profitable...meaning that it has never yielded a return on your investment, but you continue to pour more time, money and resources into it, despite that fact...that is a "sunk cost fallacy". This is not my "made up definition". Again, you should try READING the defintion I provided...or even just anything on the subject.

It's absolutely insane that you are now quoting my ENTIRE point back to me, about updgrading your equipment when it becomes outdated, in an attempt to claim that I am the one who doesn't understand this concept. What. The. Actual. Fuck. You have been arguing against me for saying that this entire time, by barking about "sunk cost fallacies". You haven't even understood a single thing that I've been saying, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

It's breathtaking to watch you confidently dig this hole all the way to the center of the earth. You're fundamentally confusing the historical profitability of an asset with its current marginal utility which is literal day one freshman economics. Yes a machine that makes money is an asset but the absolute second the market demand for that specific product drops to zero that machine becomes a liability if it costs money to maintain or prevents you from retooling.

A sunk cost is just a past unrecoverable expense period. It does not magically require the investment to have been a failure from day one for the fallacy to apply. If you refuse to scrap an obsolete machine today simply because you paid a million dollars for it ten years ago you are committing the sunk cost fallacy regardless of how much money it printed in the interim. The fact that you cannot grasp that a formerly profitable asset can transition into a sunk cost trap the moment market conditions change explains perfectly why you think businesses simply evaporate when a single contract ends. Please actually read an economics textbook instead of furiously misinterpreting the first paragraph of a website you hastily googled to win an argument like the lost reddit debate bro that you are. 🤣

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Dude. You are embarrassing yourself, here. I am embarrassed for you. I can't tell if you're just too stubborn to admit that you don't know what you're talking about, or just too stupid to realize it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

sounds like you're doing a lot of projecting there kiddo

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, buddy. Feel free to go back and actually read this entire exchange again, whenever you're ready. Except instead of trying desperately to make strawman arguments out of the details...try and actually understand what I'm saying.

And for real...do your homework on what sunk cost fallacy is. It isn't hard.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

should really follow your own advice lmfao, since you desperately need the last word, I'm going to end here and let you make a clown of yourself for one last time

bye