On Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 18:13:20 (-0700) Jim Devine writes: >Ann Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> Except that the bridge at "10% of normal cost" is only possible because of >> the sunk costs (either the owner or a seller of a 90% complete bridge), and >> discrete vs. continuous production functions. > >the historical cost of the unfinished bridge is the sunk cost. But >what's important to the company building the bridge are the expected >future profits, the cost of finance, and the like. The past payment of >the sunk costs may be historically necessary to the state of current >expected profits, but capitalist profit-making firms don't think >historically. If we're only interested in capitalist firms' behavior, >then Henry Ford was right: "history is bunk." In other contexts, he >was wrong.
No, but debt is history, and if sunk costs were financed through issuing debt, they would sure as hell care about history. Bill _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
