A computer trading program is a tool used by humans.
But a tool which can act quite independently when it is not under close supervision. And let us not forget human children. Here, we have a process very similar to making a tool, conception and giving birth, where the result is a new human, capable of Austrian-style action, not merely a new tool.
A computer trading program is a tool used by humans. Animals "act" in the vernacular sense but the Austrian school's idea of action derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... which is the study of *human* action.
I see the failing is more widespread. In the examples I gave, animals are acting in the Austrian School sense of making purposeful decisions. I guess that makes them at least somewhat *human* in the Austrian School sense.
In thinking of economics, while it certainly makes sense to consider the actions of animals as you noted, the only relevance is in guiding the actions of humans. It's irrelevant to consider what honeybees are going to do outside of how that impacts humans and how we must react to them.
Except that once the precepts of the Austrian School are satisfied, then the conclusions inevitably follow, whether it be honey bees living in the wild or human traders on a stock market. It doesn't matter whether or how you choose to ignore this.
any data that refutes a well-reasoned logical argument is considered incomplete.
Another possibility is that the "well-reasoned logical argument" wasn't actually well-reasoned. For example, I've seen a perversion of the Austrian School axiom of action in which it is claimed that humans and only humans can act.
That bolded part can be refuted easily by observing non-human actors such as computer trading programs and animals. The latter can make economically relevant decisions without having a human involved anywhere in the process, for example, bees harvesting honey and incidentally pollinating plants or a host of scavengers and predators taking turns on a large carcass.
Thus, empirical observation trumps the perceived "well-reasoned" logical argument. I'm not claiming that this particular argument is representative of all Austrian School adherents, but rather of someone who thought they had a well-reasoned logical framework for which empirically based scrutiny should be useless. It turned out not to be so.
Also, how does one determine the well-reasoned nature of a logical argument? In an abstract sense, via a construction of a mathematically valid certificate, which is traditionally called a "proof" in mathematics. The problem is that construction of such a proof may be computationally very hard while construction of an empirical counterexample can take much less effort.
Nor are these problems considered in a vacuum. All this effort is to explain empirical observation of real world economic systems.
Are you suggesting that the earthquake and ensuing tsunami were somehow not natural disasters?
Back at you. I don't see any reason I need to answer that any more than you do. One could also read my post.
Or are you suggesting that this was a disaster that couldn't have been prepared for, despite the fact that TEPCO had been warned of the possibility years before? They dismissed the prediction as an unrealistic scenario and literally didn't bother preparing for it, so yeah... they were unprepared.
But they weren't unprepared for a more or less uncontrolled meltdown. When things fail hard, the planners of a system can still steer how the system fails.
Erm... just to be pedantic, you didn't just observe effects.
An effect is the result of a cause. So to demonstrate "effect", I have to show an initial phenomenon, such as the cessation of nuclear plant building (while I don't demonstrate in the previous post that it's due to anti-nuclear hysteria, there's plenty of evidence such as propaganda, lawsuits, and restrictive regulations to back that up). Then I have to show a second, subsequent phenomena (here, the continued operation of old nuclear plants). Finally, I have to present an model which explains the connection between the first phenomenon and the following one (my "claim" as you put it).
I did so.
Yep - all the woes of the nuclear power industry is the anti-nuclear NIMBYS fault. They caused all of the problems if they just shut up all the problems would go away.
I wouldn't say "all", just "most". Anohter classic example is the continued operating of older, less safe plants because new ones can't get built.
Also quantifying social costs is too damn hard for just about anyone to work out so they assume such things do not exist.
Because social costs happen to be whatever numbers you decide to pull out of your ass that day. But even if we were to somehow find a valid and objective means to calculate such social costs, you would find that hydroelectric wouldn't far that well simply because it kills more people per watt of generated power, causes more environmental damage per watt, and prevents the use of more land for normal human activities per watt of generated power - all of these include the effects of meltdowns.
Is anyone else unnerved by the short notice of passing asteroids?
No, because we're getting early warning of near inconsequential asteroids. That indicates that we have decent early warning. You do want to know that at least you're detecting this stuff before it hits.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!