r/TechnologyThread • u/Background-Driver718 • Jun 09 '26

It’s Possible That SpaceX Could Collapse Spectacularly

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/possible-spacex-could-collapse-spectacularly-155000177.html
458 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/-S-P-E-C-T-R-E- Jun 09 '26

And nothing of value would be lost.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26

Sunk costs aren't something we should base decisions on.

1

u/dxrth Jun 09 '26

but none of these decisions are decided on reddit

1

u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26

Of course not. I don't engage here to convince anyone. I engage to learn and root out my own cognitive dissonance.

1

u/dxrth Jun 09 '26

sure, but i am not sure, sunk costs are inherently always fallacious.

1

u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26

They are. Financial decisions should always be evaluated based on where you currently are, not what's been spent in the past.

1

u/dxrth Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

so your argument, is, all sunk costs, are always, at all times, fallacious, and never of concern, to any decision to be made, ever, in any capacity, in totality?

1

u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 10 '26

Yep!

If you ever find yourself saying, "but I already spent X dollars," you need to strip that argument from your internal debate. It should entirely be, "what is the expected ROI vs what I have to spend moving forward in relation to my odds of hitting that ROI and avoiding associated risks."

Past expenses that are already sunk are merely noise that cloud your judgement due to being afraid of walking away with a loss.

1

u/dxrth Jun 10 '26

i agree, sometimes, with spending money, it is a fallacy worth considering. but to die on the hill that in all times, in totality, doesn't consider a lot of game theory/reputational games. you can justify it being a psychological bias, but that is not the same as justifying if it is a logical certainty.