[mothballed]

>The resulting logical contradiction does not imply an error in my argument, but rather the inapplicability of the paradigm you're attempting to use.

This is a diabolical level of gaslighting to present your logical contradiction as my fault. Perhaps the "shoehorning" you're finding is in fact a function of forcing your reasoning into the premise of appeal to economic value to which I responded while simultaneously damning my response in a way that created a contradiction in your logic.

>>Can you think of any economically valuable reason why it might be important to know about weather trends or events in advance? Any at all?

The whole premise of this was appeal to the economic interest of constituents of the people ending the program.

If you want to pretend like we're addressing an entirely different "argument" in whatever la-la land is existing in your mind right now, so that you can seriously make your statement, I'm not particularly interested in addressing your hallucinatory fantasies. Have a good one.

[mindslight]

All you've seem to have done here is push your own favored framework, and then argue reflexively based on it. My initial point was that the assumptions of your framework would seem to be incorrect. You merely translated my point into your framework, and then blamed me for the resulting logical contradiction.

The specific problem here is imagining market participants as efficient actors. In reality, it's more like an NP-hard problem, and making logical appeals based around abstract models is exactly how we try to convince other market participants that something is in their interest (eg the comment you originally responded to).

In general, there was no need to come out swinging at me and accusing me of "gaslighting". Try more understanding, and less arguing. You'll get further.