The economics of dying: A misapplication of tools

Conclusions Unlike McKenzie and Tullock, we do not know how personsshould treat their bodily organs or what is an ideal exit. That depends upon their utility goals, which are defined in output terms specific to the decision maker. We contend that the body is an input into the utility production process, and therefore, as with any input, it must be maintained and repaired at a level consistent with the output goals for maximization of utility. Thus, from this framework, it is quite consistent for a person to die with healthy organs without any thought of belief in reincarnation or the desire to bequeath one's bodily organs to others, or religious values. Self interest is all that must prevail.Also, the fact that there are interrelationships between the organs in the system, and at points these relationships take on fixed factor characteristics such that reduced levels of operation in one organ can create disorientation or coma or damage to other organs, means that the body cannot die as M-T suggest. Zero capacity for all organs at death is a technical impossibility as well as being inconsistent with the output goals of utility maximizers.     

Valuation of SGARAs IN THE Wine Industry: Time for Sober Reflection

The application of AASB 1037 Self Generating and Regenerating Assets provides little guidance to the commercial performance of winemakers. The valuation of grapevines essentially requires the valuation of a segment of a business (vineyards), from which is deducted the value of associated infrastructure. Grapevines are reported at a fictional "net market value" even though they cannot be bought or sold. The combination of recognising revaluation increments as distributable profits through the valuation of grapevines at "net market value", and the subsequent "amortisation" of those revaluation increments over the useful lives of the grapevines, creates a reporting maze which is more likely to confuse than inform.