Good faith privately-funded White House ballroom discussion

[Callatoroy]

Callatoroy is arguing the bad side of the sunk cost fallacy. And Presidents LBJ and Bush both lived and died under that supposition when fighting wars. It would be wise the current administration to reconsider future benefits irrespective of the political (and financial) costs already paid.

Ain't no way Democrats should support bad policy and action...just because "we're already in it". That may be the world's worst decision making.

The sunk cost fallacy is the tendency to continue investing in a decision based on past, irrecoverable costs rather than future benefits.​

Definition and Concept​

The sunk cost fallacy occurs when individuals allow past investments of time, money, or effort—known as sunk costs—to influence current decisions, even when abandoning the endeavor would be more rational ( PositivePsychology.com+2). Sunk costs are expenditures that cannot be recovered, and rational decision-making should focus solely on future costs and benefits ( Wikipedia+1). Ignoring sunk costs helps avoid the trap of "throwing good money after bad" ( Scribbr).

Psychological Basis​

This fallacy is rooted in loss aversion and emotional attachment. People feel that abandoning a project or relationship would waste prior investments, leading them to persist even when evidence suggests stopping is better ( Scribbr+1). Cognitive biases such as the status quo bias—a preference to maintain current commitments—also reinforce this behavior ( The Decision Lab).

Common Examples​

• Financial investments: Continuing to invest in a declining stock or failing business because of prior money spent ( The Decision Lab+1).
• Relationships: Staying in an unfulfilling relationship due to the time and emotional energy already invested ( The Decision Lab+1).
• Everyday decisions: Watching a boring movie to the end because you already paid for the ticket ( Scribbr).
• Career choices: Persisting in a career path that no longer aligns with personal goals because of prior education or training ( The Decision Lab).

Economic and Rational Perspective​

Economists emphasize that only prospective costs and benefits should guide decisions. Past expenditures are irrelevant to future outcomes, and rational actors should make choices based on expected future returns ( Wikipedia+1). For example, if a project initially projected to yield $120 million now has a value of $65 million after $30 million spent, continuing would be irrational; the decision should be based on future potential, not past spending ( Wikipedia).

Avoiding the Fallacy​

To overcome the sunk cost fallacy, focus on:

• Future-oriented thinking: Evaluate decisions based on potential outcomes rather than past investments ( PositivePsychology.com+1).
• Objective assessment: Consider alternatives and their expected benefits without emotional attachment to prior costs ( PositivePsychology.com).
• Awareness of biases: Recognize when loss aversion or commitment to the status quo is influencing your choices ( The Decision Lab+1).
  Understanding the sunk cost fallacy helps individuals and organizations make more rational, forward-looking decisions, reducing unnecessary losses and improving overall outcomes ( PositivePsychology.com+1).

Nice theory. Now, lay out the consequences for stopping?

 

[lawtig02]

Ok, so pretty much what trump is demanding, or at least in the ballpark. So, what if Iran tells you go fuck yourself which is where we are?

That’s not even remotely close to what Trump is demanding. Trump wants absolute capitulation. Iran will crumble to dust before they agree to that. My plan offers carrots as well as sticks. Trump knows nothing but the stick. My plan may not be realistic, but it is far more likely to be acceptable to a proud Persian regime than anything Trump is or will do. And I’m a guy sitting on his back porch on a Sunday afternoon, not the man Republicans chose to lead the diplomatic and military initiatives of the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

 

[BoonetheAiredale]

Nice theory. Now, lay out the consequences for stopping?

The straight opens. Iran begins to rebuild. No one knows where the uranium is, no more American servicemen die, nuclear destruction from Iran is about where it was from before the war which is zilch, billions of dollars not spent by our military depleting our missile stock, less innocent civilians dying, complicated and tricky dialogue between nations that detest each other, America takes a tactical loss, but doesn't end up chewing up its own citizens because the train is already down the track, Russia and China rush in to fill the "leadership" void (tactical losses carry some very real costs), maybe we consider getting out of middle east pickles, who the actual fuck knows.

Now you tell me the real consequences of stopping. Not some Armageddon based fear of nuclear war next week. That's like threatening hell and damnation to unbelievers. Scary, but no one has a real clue.

 

[pspsps]

This thread claims it is about the tacky money laundering ballroom.

 

[sringwal]

This isn’t the SAVE Act or the ballroom. It’s the US in a military conflict. Whether you disagree that we should be there doesn’t really matter at this point because we are there. So you either support packing up and leaving things as they are now, or finishing. There will be plenty of time for pointing fingers and playing politics after it is concluded.

I hear you, but I also believe that finishing the war in Iran is about as likely as finishing the war in Vietnam, particularly when we are going at it without our allies. If I had a clear understanding of what "finishing" things meant, then I might be more likely to be closer to you on this issue. I do believe that there are many Iranians who would like to see Iran wnter the modern age, and I do believe they need our support. But the plan right now feels like blindly throwing darts. And I don't think this war is making the world safer for those Iranians, us, our the world. Instead, I think it is breeding hatred, and hatred breeds terrorism, state supported or otherwise. On this, more than anything else, though, I really hope that I am wrong.

 

[1moretimeagain]

Minimum of getting the uranium / ending nuke program and strait being opened in pre February way

You support the US forces going in and taking the uranium dust?

I’m not sure how we go about know whether we got all of it. If Iran says they will hand it over to us, I would assume they are only turning over a portion of what they actually have.

 

[farce©]

Nice theory. Now, lay out the consequences for stopping?

We piss off Israel. The end.

 

[ChileG]

This is garbage. You believe bullshit.

Before Trump tore up JCPOA, Iran possessed less than 300 KG of uranium processed to 3.67% purity. After Trump’s regrettable action Iran now holds almost 9000 KG of enriched uranium, with 440 KG of that total enriched to 70% purity.

But you claim Trump tearing up the agreement was “the right thing to do.”

I’ve pointed this out to him many times.

Anyone with an ounce of sense in 2018 who felt the treaty needed to be amended had that as a base starting point, with economic levers to pull as negotiating leverage. But Yrump tore that agreement up and so our starting point became chaos. And here we are. How MAGAs here can’t draw a straight line form 2018 to now is must be willful ignorance.

 

[ChileG]

No. I think the lack of democrat support putts tremendous pressure on him to leave with things only partially done. Im hoping he is determined to finish the job despite the pressure. Even if it costs the midterms. I would rather finish it and lose the midterms than partially finish and win the midterms.

Lol, Trump doesn’t give one damn about any Democrat support. Unless you mean losing the support of 65% of Americans and getting pummeled in the midterms.

 

[UNCatTech]

What are the consequences of packing up and coming home tomorrow like you apparently are in favor of?

Probably no risk of loss of American lives in combat, maybe regain favorablity with other nations. We know they don't have a bomb or the long range capability to target the US.

I doubt Iran provoked us, they will be glad were gone.

Oil supply chain moves back toward normal.

The terrorist treaty probably remains the same either way.

the majority of US citizens are happy with the decision.

Trump doesn't look as stupid as he does now.

I'm sure i can come up with some more good things.

To be clear, I never said to leave tomorrow. You said that, because you seem to believe this is binary, we either continue our go full stop.

I'm not sure i know the answer, but it would have to include actual negotiations and work toward an agreement. Which we both know trump is incapable of.

 

[UNCatTech]

Ok, so pretty much what trump is demanding, or at least in the ballpark. So, what if Iran tells you go fuck yourself which is where we are?

How do you know what Trump is demanding when trump doesn't? He never proposed any real targets, he just talks in circles.

 

[Callatoroy]

That’s not even remotely close to what Trump is demanding. Trump wants absolute capitulation. Iran will crumble to dust before they agree to that. My plan offers carrots as well as sticks. Trump knows nothing but the stick. My plan may not be realistic, but it is far more likely to be acceptable to a proud Persian regime than anything Trump is or will do. And I’m a guy sitting on his back porch on a Sunday afternoon, not the man Republicans chose to lead the diplomatic and military initiatives of the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

His stated demands are a complete end to the pursuit of nukes, ending proxy support, and unfettered opening to the strait. He has offered to more or less give Iran a nuclear energy program.

 

[lawtig02]

His stated demands are a complete end to the pursuit of nukes, ending proxy support, and unfettered opening to the strait. He has offered to more or less give Iran a nuclear energy program.

Iran will never ever give up a pursuit of nukes when Israel’s nukes are pointed at them. So what is Trump proposing that will incentivize Iran to unilaterally disarm?

 

[Callatoroy]

The straight opens. Iran begins to rebuild. No one knows where the uranium is, no more American servicemen die, nuclear destruction from Iran is about where it was from before the war which is zilch, billions of dollars not spent by our military depleting our missile stock, less innocent civilians dying, complicated and tricky dialogue between nations that detest each other, America takes a tactical loss, but doesn't end up chewing up its own citizens because the train is already down the track, Russia and China rush in to fill the "leadership" void (tactical losses carry some very real costs), maybe we consider getting out of middle east pickles, who the actual fuck knows.

Now you tell me the real consequences of stopping. Not some Armageddon based fear of nuclear war next week. That's like threatening hell and damnation to unbelievers. Scary, but no one has a real clue.

Not remotely close. Here are the most obvious consequences:

1. Iran remains in control of the strait where it can extort shipping fees in violation of international maritime laws. That would add to globally inflated oil casts as well as other goods. As well, it can wield that control as a weapon to get what it wants. It effectively gives Iran control of global oil prices and ALL of the ripple effects that entails. Are you willing to give Iran that power?
2. It shows the rest of the world that we don’t have the resolve to finish what we started and weakens our position in the eyes of china and Russia relating to Taiwan, or any other level of aggression they may undertake
3. It gives Iran way more power than any other ME country thereby destabilizing the ME which only adds to long term inflated oil prices and adds to global inflation.
4. Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances so ongoing wars will continue and if we abandon Israel it increases the chances they would use a nuke to ensure Iran can’t.
5. The rest of the ME will undertake nuke development programs because they can’t rely on the US.
6. Our economic health will be influenced by Iran because our economic health is tied to global oil prices.
7. Global terrorism increases because Iran will have vast monetary resources to grow them
8. Iran is in a stronger position to renew its pursuit of nukes because only us and Israel were willing to stop them.

That’s just the beginning. There is no situation where we should allow Iran to “win” because we don’t have the resolve to do what needs to be done.

 

[lawtig02]

Not remotely close. Here are the most obvious consequences:

1. Iran remains in control of the strait where it can extort shipping fees in violation of international maritime laws. That would add to globally inflated oil casts as well as other goods. As well, it can wield that control as a weapon to get what it wants. It effectively gives Iran control of global oil prices and ALL of the ripple effects that entails. Are you willing to give Iran that power?
2. It shows the rest of the world that we don’t have the resolve to finish what we started and weakens our position in the eyes of china and Russia relating to Taiwan, or any other level of aggression they may undertake
3. It gives Iran way more power than any other ME country thereby destabilizing the ME which only adds to long term inflated oil prices and adds to global inflation.
4. Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances so ongoing wars will continue and if we abandon Israel it increases the chances they would use a nuke to ensure Iran can’t.
5. The rest of the ME will undertake nuke development programs because they can’t rely on the US.
6. Our economic health will be influenced by Iran because our economic health is tied to global oil prices.
7. Global terrorism increases because Iran will have vast monetary resources to grow them
8. Iran is in a stronger position to renew its pursuit of nukes because only us and Israel were willing to stop them.

That’s just the beginning. There is no situation where we should allow Iran to “win” because we don’t have the resolve to do what needs to be done.

Why did Iran not exert that power over the Strait before Trump and Bibi launched this war?

If Israel won’t accept a nuclear Iran, why should Iran accept a nuclear Israel?

Can you even begin to comprehend how humiliating it is that our idiotic administration gave Iran this opportunity to “win”?

 

[Callatoroy]

Iran will never ever give up a pursuit of nukes when Israel’s nukes are pointed at them. So what is Trump proposing that will incentivize Iran to unilaterally disarm?

Iran isn’t pursuing nukes as a defensive deterrent. I think people forget how insane that regime is. Iran wants nukes to wipe out Israel. They haven’t been shy in voicing that.

 

[lawtig02]

Iran isn’t pursuing nukes as a defensive deterrent. I think people forget how insane that regime is. Iran wants nukes to wipe out Israel. They haven’t been shy in voicing that.

Bullcrap. Iran knows if they wiped out Israel, they would immediately be wiped out themselves. They may be hardliners but they’re not idiots. Iran absolutely wants nukes for deterrent purposes.

 

[wmheel1287]

Certainly a valid concern. I’d say the over because we can’t leave as things are now. I’d say guaranteed if he had democrat support.

Lol, you Reoublicans cant do shit on your own. You claim Democrats are ruining the world yet you always screech and squall thay they dont help you clean up your messes enough.

 

[Callatoroy]

Why did Iran not exert that power over the Strait before Trump and Bibi launched this war?

If Israel won’t accept a nuclear Iran, why should Iran accept a nuclear Israel?

Because the sane world knows Israel’s use is defensive and Iran’s desire is offensive. They likely won’t accept it until they are all dead or their economy and ability to fund their desires is eliminated. It would appear we are making progress on that

 

[wmheel1287]

No. I think the lack of democrat support putts tremendous pressure on him to leave with things only partially done. Im hoping he is determined to finish the job despite the pressure. Even if it costs the midterms. I would rather finish it and lose the midterms than partially finish and win the midterms.

There is no finish to this stupidity any more than there was to Vietnam. There is the inevitable point in time at which we tuck our tails and go home having left the situation far worse than we found it.