<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section does not cite any sources . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section does not cite any sources . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> The sunk cost is distinct from economic loss . For example, when a new car is purchased, it can subsequently be resold; however, it will probably not be resold for the original purchase price . The economic loss is the difference (including transaction costs). The sum originally paid should not affect any rational future decision - making about the car, regardless of the resale value: if the owner can derive more value from selling the car than not selling it, then it should be sold, regardless of the price paid . In this sense, the sunk cost is not a precise quantity, but an economic term for a sum paid, in the past, which is no longer relevant to decisions about the future; it may be used inconsistently in quantitative terms as the original cost or the expected economic loss . It may also be used as shorthand for an error in analysis due to the sunk cost fallacy, irrational decision - making or, most simply, as irrelevant data . </P> <P> Economists argue that sunk costs are not taken into account when making rational decisions . In the case of a baseball game ticket that has already been purchased, the ticket - buyer can choose between the following two end results if he realizes that he doesn't like the game: </P>

When would sunk costs be irrelevant for current decision making