Canada

It's breathtaking to watch you confidently dig this hole all the way to the center of the earth. You're fundamentally confusing the historical profitability of an asset with its current marginal utility which is literal day one freshman economics. Yes a machine that makes money is an asset but the absolute second the market demand for that specific product drops to zero that machine becomes a liability if it costs money to maintain or prevents you from retooling.

A sunk cost is just a past unrecoverable expense period. It does not magically require the investment to have been a failure from day one for the fallacy to apply. If you refuse to scrap an obsolete machine today simply because you paid a million dollars for it ten years ago you are committing the sunk cost fallacy regardless of how much money it printed in the interim. The fact that you cannot grasp that a formerly profitable asset can transition into a sunk cost trap the moment market conditions change explains perfectly why you think businesses simply evaporate when a single contract ends. Please actually read an economics textbook instead of furiously misinterpreting the first paragraph of a website you hastily googled to win an argument like the lost reddit debate bro that you are. 🤣