I did not think that I said that. Sunk costs are irrelevant. Economists' confusion about stocks and flows makes microeconomics irrelevant.
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 09:34:52AM -0400, Julio Huato wrote: > Maybe I just don't understand Ann's concern. To me, sunk costs are > irrelevant because value -- and, therefore, money, capital, and financial > wealth in general -- is an expectation. And I don't understand what Michael > Perelman says: Is the notion of irrelevant sunk costs wrongheaded because > economists confuse stocks with flows or vice versa? I don't think so. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
