And if it's absolute profit, then the company is still worth running - you're making enough money to pay your suppliers, your employees, and CEO's still getting their salary and bonuses. Hundreds people directly paid by the company are better off with the company still standing than closed. Thousands of customers are better off being able to exchange their currency for your product. (else they wouldn't do it.)

The only people suffering are shareholders, and you wouldn't do them any good by shuttering the company, because if you stay open there's still chance the company will make the profit in the future.

You're neglecting opportunity cost in your analysis. Otherwise, I more or less agree.

You assume there are other more profitable ventures out there. It appears, from the actions of investors and central banks, concerns that provide a return where you'd worry about the opportunity cost of not investing in them are few.

See: Europe stagnation, U.S. Fed holding interest rates down, negative interest rates, Japan, Brazil, and now China's massive slowdown.

You seem to have misread my comment.

The comment by meric above seemed to be making a claim ("If there's positive (accounting) profit, it's worth doing!") about the general case, in which case opportunity cost is an important element.

If the claim was meant to be narrowly about this particular situation, then I still think a note that opportunity cost is likely to be low is an important piece of the analysis.

I never said (and did not mean to imply, and don't think I did) that including it would change the conclusion - just that omitting it left the argument incomplete.