Printable View
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]DH, development costs have to be allocated, you know this as well as I do.[/QUOTE]No. It is prohibited to allocate them. They must be expensed entirely in the year of occurrence. I know you aren't particularly concerned with facts, but that is Statement of Financial Accounting Standards #2 in case you would like to verify, and it has been the rule for nearly 40 years in the US.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]Somehow you think calling them 'sunk costs' makes them disappear?[/QUOTE]They are already gone. It appears you don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. That is unfortunate.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]It also appears you wish to segregate the Volt production line from all other production lines to which both fixed and variable overhead and administrative expenses are assigned to reduce production costs to support a preconceived conclusion.[/QUOTE]No, what I said was that there is no way for the costs of Volt production to be segregated based on public information.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427849]You want to argue you are making a profit on a product line[/QUOTE]I never said they were making a profit. I have no idea whether they are or not. But, I know for sure that the numbers presented were based on accounting that is both theoretically unsound (never allocate sunk costs as it creates a death spiral) AND prohibited.
Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months.
I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that he could change lead into gold and the same person who is now selling trees that grow greenbacks.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;427856]Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months. I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that lead could be changed into gold and the same person who is selling trees that grow greenbacks.[/QUOTE]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee!
DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:
[url]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57[/url]
While you admit you don't know what the true costs are for the Volt you are ready to dismiss a well founded trade publication's assessment of the costs. While you may not have access to this information you may be assured others in the business do and leak it frequently. GM even complained the R&D costs cited in the articale were applied over a period of time shorter then GM allotted for those costs. Even GM did not call the R&D costs 'sunk costs'.
With GM having to idle plants which produce the Volt due to falling sales, battery and other supply firms going out of business due to lack of demand for the parts they supply for the Volt, somehow I just doubt you have a clue what you are talking about. Support the unions all you want, GM is still mismanaged, its work force is still over paid vs the industry standard and they are still trying to produce a vehicle no one wants and is by no stretch of the imagination profitable.
DH there is Obama-nomics and then there is the REAL WORLD, please stop confusing the two.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.
Really! I think I have heard it all now.
A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.
Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427862]DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:
[url]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57[/url][/QUOTE]And it says,"A cost that has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. A sunk cost differs from other, [B]future[/B] costs that a business may face, such as inventory costs or [B]R&D expenses[/B], because it has already happened. Sunk costs are independent of any event that may occur in the future."
I bolded the parts you don't seem to understand. [B]Past[/B] R & D is sunk, whether or not it ultimately proves productive. It occurred in the past and can never be recovered. Future R & D, while it may or may not be productive, is not a sunk cost.
The thought of me as a liberal accountant is really quite laughable. I certainly am seeing some interesting words being put into my mouth. You say, "support the unions all you want." I have never mentioned one single thing about unions. These types of straw-man attacks really detract from your credibility.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee![/QUOTE]Distraction from what, just what part of Obamas record would they want to distract from?
DH if you can not read and understand the definition, there is no reason to continue the discussion. As stated earlier, even GM did not classify the Volt's R&D costs as "sunk costs" but complained the article failed to spread the cost over, in GM's opinion, a large enough production run / time period.
I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.
I would be open to considering Obama's $5+ Trillion in new debt "sunk costs". By the way didn't Obama promise to reduce the deficit, which was $10 Trillion and change when he took office, by half and yet it's now $16 Trillion and climbing? I guess Member would call that $10 Trillion delta another 'forecast' not a promise. Perhaps it's time to change 'forecasters'.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427874]I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I've been meaning to take an introductory accounting class.
No matter what side you're on, I think most people agree the second debate was great if not exceptional. I'm no debate historian, but I did read one article quoting someone who said he'd seen all the debates for the past 3 decades or so and thought Tuesday's debate was the best. I found it riveting television. About 65 million viewers, just slightly less than the first. Both sides scored points and had plenty to be happy with.
Ultimately I am influenced by substance, policy. But with all the emphasis on style and the build-up to the debate, I can also appreciate the importance of style and effect. And this was clearly in play Tuesday night. Both Obama and Romney were strong.
'Riveting television' is a classic oxymoron.
Obama let it slip in debate that he'd push for a gun ban in a second term, this puts Obama in a bit of a pickle. IMHO.
The NRA is stepping up its attack on the president in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with a new [b]"we told you so"[/b] Theme. They're also blanketing those states with mailings and ads, trying to persuade pro-gun, non-NRA members to vote for Romney. They made a similar effort during the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial recall effort and several analysts credited the NRA with helping to save Gov. Scott Walker.
Obama suggested more than just an assault weapons ban when he said [i]"What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap handguns."[snip][/i]
Washington Times said 'It's a revelation that could sway the election'.
You can bet the NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment groups will be working overtime to get the gun vote fired up.
A lot of gun owners believed Obama four years ago, when he said he wouldn't take their guns away, now he has admitted he wants to take them away. Thanks for coming clean Mr President.
BTW I'm still expecting an October Obama surprise, probably Iran connected.
The highlight was Obama's masterful trap that caught Romney in his own lie.
Romney and the entire Fox News operation had been saying for weeks that Obama had attempted a coverup by waiting so long to call the Libya attack terrorism. Now there are legitimate questions about the Benghazi attack. But what Romney and conspirators had been doing was shameless, opportunistic bullshit. This was obvious to anyone with half a brain.
So in the debate, Obama just says very plainly, he called it an act of terror the day after.
Romney, incredulous, says WAAAHHHHT?
Obama: Please proceed, Governor.
Romney: Hey everyone, this is amazing, I just want to make sure we get this on the record, the President is saying he called it an act of terror the day after.
Moderator: Actually, that is true.
Audience: APPLAUSE
Just EPIC! That is a debate moment that will go down in history. Romney got his ass handed to him, and his attempt to deceive the public was exposed in front of 65 Million Americans.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 427863]
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.
Really! I think I have heard it all now.
A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.
Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.[/QUOTE]Compared to the Beirut Barracks bombings and the USS Cole, a Benghazi possibility is like driving on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles. How many people do you think die each year on Interstate 5?