= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drnickbone comments on Why economics is not a morality tale - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
That sounds like assuming no depreciation and no cost of capital, right?
Otherwise, imagine a firm considers increasing its capacity via investing in a productive asset, for an upfront cost A. There is a depreciation rate d, and a cost of capital (interest, dividends etc) of c. If the firm sells the asset after r years, then its sale value in year r will be something like A x (1 - d)^r, and the present terminal value will be something like A x ((1 -d)/(1+c))^r.
So in the business pan, the firm should assume a fixed cost not strictly of A, but rather of A x (1 - ((1-d)/(1+c))^r). If (d+c)r is roughly 1 or more then this will be about A; only if (d+c)r is much less than 1 can this cost be ignored.
As | understand it, it assumes no or low depreciation, but says nothing about the cost of capital. The definition of "profit" that I've been using is "extra profit to the company after all investors have been paid at the rate the market would demand, and employee and entrepreneurs have been reimbursed for their time and effort".