3 ms·

I think it's more of a sunk cost thing. Like gosh I've spent the last 8 waking years to get to this place. I'm not letting these investors screw me over. Even i

by omot 9y ago

I think it's more of a sunk cost thing. Like gosh I've spent the last 8 waking years to get to this place. I'm not letting these investors screw me over. Even if he goes skiing or hiking, or hanging out with friends or family its going to gnaw at him for the rest of his life.

icantdrive55 9y ago
I know a Veterinarian that lost his license. I honestly believe do to lies. He spent 2.7 million on lawyers. He now just is mad at the Lawyers, and is sleeping behind his former veterinarian hospital. He is practically homeless. Travis has a lot of his personality out on the internet. Actually, it should be a warning for all of us. I will never forget him shimmying around in that Uber Black arguing with a guy who went bankrupt. I just thought he wasn't meant to have power, and money. And I know he was lonely for females he thought he deserved. Oh yea, those women were there just for the money. My point is good luck finding a sympathetic jury. I'd rather have him go off, and start something else, maybe a dating site? He doesn't seem like the charitable type.
clairity 9y ago
i get what your saying, but want to add some precision: 1) using the term "sunk cost" is not quite correct here - sunk cost implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment. in this case, it's likely that further investment (in time and cost of this court case) results in billions of dollars in value to one or both of the litigants. it's in fact very rational to pursue this litigation because there is real monetary gain at stake (and not simply the face-saving variety). 2) there's a fairness issue at play: "i did the work so i should get the reward.", or "i provided the money, so i should get the reward." you have to balance these two impulses fairly, not just for this case, but for future iterations of the game (in the game theory sense). for future iterations, it is "worth" applying a punishment now (in the form of an expensive court case) so that future rewards are meted out fairly as well.
- kevinpet 9y ago
  If we're going to have pedantry, lets make sure we have correct pedantry. "sunk cost" just means that a cost has been paid, and it's non-recoverable. When it comes up, it's usually to point out that only the future cost and benefits matter when making a decision.
  - clairity 9y ago
    not seeing the disagreement... what's at odds here?
    - lttlrck 9y ago
      Perhaps this line? ‘implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment‘

by omot 9y ago

icantdrive55 9y ago

I know a Veterinarian that lost his license. I honestly believe do to lies. He spent 2.7 million on lawyers. He now just is mad at the Lawyers, and is sleeping behind his former veterinarian hospital. He is practically homeless. Travis has a lot of his personality out on the internet. Actually, it should be a warning for all of us. I will never forget him shimmying around in that Uber Black arguing with a guy who went bankrupt. I just thought he wasn't meant to have power, and money. And I know he was lonely for females he thought he deserved. Oh yea, those women were there just for the money. My point is good luck finding a sympathetic jury. I'd rather have him go off, and start something else, maybe a dating site? He doesn't seem like the charitable type.

clairity 9y ago

i get what your saying, but want to add some precision: 1) using the term "sunk cost" is not quite correct here - sunk cost implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment. in this case, it's likely that further investment (in time and cost of this court case) results in billions of dollars in value to one or both of the litigants. it's in fact very rational to pursue this litigation because there is real monetary gain at stake (and not simply the face-saving variety). 2) there's a fairness issue at play: "i did the work so i should get the reward.", or "i provided the money, so i should get the reward." you have to balance these two impulses fairly, not just for this case, but for future iterations of the game (in the game theory sense). for future iterations, it is "worth" applying a punishment now (in the form of an expensive court case) so that future rewards are meted out fairly as well.

kevinpet 9y ago
If we're going to have pedantry, lets make sure we have correct pedantry. "sunk cost" just means that a cost has been paid, and it's non-recoverable. When it comes up, it's usually to point out that only the future cost and benefits matter when making a decision.
- clairity 9y ago
  not seeing the disagreement... what's at odds here?
  - lttlrck 9y ago
    Perhaps this line? ‘implies that the future value doesn't justify continued investment‘