Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Michael, Feb 19, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So there are no Marxists here, then. Why introduce irrelevancy?
    To prevent that doubt, no matter how farfetched and indicative of an uninformed or naive perspective, they included analysis of a real world example of a familiar type. One in which, for example, part time child labor is just as legal as full time - and yet child labor persists.
    It also assumes various tradeoffs, etc - that part time arrangements impose no net costs or liabilities on the employer, for example.
    Unless the family needs the full time labor, or the tradeoff is not worthwhile, of course.

    As we all know, thereby demonstrating that part time labor is almost always "allowed" in your sense - meaning the government does not legally forbid it - including where child labor persists, as in the real world example of a familiar kind analyzed in the paper.

    About now, enough chaff has been thrown to again obscure the particular denial at issue (itself only an example of the category of denial that is the thread topic): that child labor exists and persists and does harm in the absence of government support, and without government interference of some kind will often continue indefinitely in the real world.

    That is not, at first glance, a denial of the same level or absurdity as Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial, or AGW denial - it could even be taken as a step toward an alternative explanation of recognized historical events or physical circumstance, certainly as a warning against authoritarian impositions and government making things worse.

    But when we see the advocate doing such things as informing us of the role of child labor in a family business, we recognize a familiar situation: we've been instructed in the logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations.

    Another pattern, or feature even, of the absurd denial. Add to the list.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. Even in this model, it persists only as long as the adults alone do not have income above subsistence level. The effect itself exists only in a short period of time when the difference between adult wages with vs. without child labor allowed is big enough to move the family above subsistence level. And the two equilibria exist only because Basu and Van have artificially, without any justification for doing this, taken the possibility of part-time child labor out of their model.
    Of course, you can invent circumstances where the two equilibria appear. But please don't claim that they matter. For example, once the family needs full time labor, there is no equilibrium without child labor, because the family simply starves if child labor is forbidden. The two equilibria appear only if the family does not need full time labor.
    And here we see a nice example of iceaura argumentation. Emphasis mine.

    The particular content of the paper (the particular model, the properties of this model, the conditions when the model predicts two equilibria, the validity of my counterarguments) are completely ignored. My position is named "denial". The Party line, which is in no way supported by the paper in question. Instead, the paper explicitly mentions that in such poor conditions (which iceaura describes with "the family needs the full time labor") a child labor ban (the only government interference which is extensively discussed) harms:
    A nice and simple strategy. You lose the argument? No problem. Summarize your position as if you are the winner of the argument, and name the opponent a denier. And (once you don't like him - that's quite typical if you lose arguments) add the accusation that this is absurd denial:
    Wow. Now the use of scientific arguments - like "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations", and my counterarguments to the model of Basu and Van became "a pattern of absurd denial". We naive deniers thought that using only scientific arguments could somehow help us - no. This is an aggravating circumstance, and makes our denial even more absurd. LOL.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You are now pretending that 1 and 2 were both referring to the same situation. That is dishonest. The first refers to hired child labor, the second refers to your attempt to deflect the argument into family businesses only, and a false claim you attempted to make about them along the way.

    Clearly when the employer and the negotiating laborers are the same people, the calculation of net benefits and consequent equilibria will be much different. Nonfamily employers of child labor seldom employ their own children in those jobs, for example, even in established child labor economies. So?

    You are also attempting to strawman your denial by framing it as a choice between government ban and government absence - so that we are to choose between a government ban of all child labor that will starve people, and government imposition and regulation as unnecessary. In the first place, that contradicts your presumption that stable equilibria involving child labor do not exist (what would the government ban?). In the second, pretending that banning all child labor is the only government option for moving off the bad equilibria is nonsense, and ignores even the history of child labor law - which almost universally does not do that.

    And you are of course denying the observation of equilibrium child labor economies in the real world, in agreement with the theory.
    That situation is maintained indefinitely - stable equilibrium, remember?
    No, they aren't. They are presented as features of the denial.
    So those were actually presented as "scientific arguments" - that wasn't my exaggeration or mocking misrepresentation.

    And such "arguments" are features of absurd denials. The list is supported by reaffirmation.
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    So? In the model of Basu and Van such differences play no role. In standard economic theory the differences are also almost irrelevant. And I do not have to pretend that 1 and 2 refer to the same situation, simply because the for the arguments I have made the difference is quite irrelevant too. That non-family employers seldom employ their own children has the simple reason that they can usually afford this, subsistence level is not their problem.
    First, we discuss the Basu and Van paper. It is about a small part of all situations. There is agreement that in very poor societies child labor is economic necessity, and a ban would be harmful, that in rich societies there will be no relevant child labor, and the ban will be almost irrelevant. The paper is about the small intermediate region. Then, I do not pretend that a ban is all the government can do, it can do a lot of things, up to genocide, but the ban of child labor is what is discussed in the paper.

    And here is the lie of this posting:
    Of course I do not deny that in poor societies the equilibrium will be one with child labor.
    In a model world, where nothing changes, the equilibrium will remain indefinitely. But, sorry for you, we live in a world which changes.

    About "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations":
    And they are obviously evil scientific arguments, those who use them are therefore guilty of "absurd denial".
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In your replies here, and the discussion here, they are central.
    But you did, and based your response on that, which was dishonest.
    No, it isn't. It is not about independently established economies that then have child labor as an imposed necessity - it is about economies structured around and by child labor. Child labor itself maintains its status - stable equilibrium, remember? That includes many poor economies, some intermediate ones, and even a few rich ones.
    Then you will cease presenting it here as government's only alternative to doing nothing.
    Not "the" - "a".
    And it will maintain the poverty. Stable equilibrium, remember?
    In a wide range of market capitalist economies found in the real world, a stable equilibrium involving child labor exists.
    You denied that. You denied the real world existence of the child labor equilibrium established by the theory.
    Stable equilibria, by definition, maintain themselves in fluctuating and changing circumstances.
    Of course no economy lasts forever. Volcanoes. War. Resource depletion. Disease. Climate change. Even technological innovation can push an economy off of an equilibrium and into a new state.
    And so can political effort, governmental decree.
    They are not scientific arguments.
    Anyone who thinks they are is dealing in absurdities.
    Anyone who denies the actual science, history, and physical reality surrounding us all on the basis of such absurdities is engaged in absurd denial.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Because of your permanent repetitions of ideological claims with no base in economic theory or the paper.

    The poor family where the children have to work too in the family business is not that good as an evil capitalist employer, and so you have to make a difference.
    Iceaura cannot make a post without a lie.
    Economics "structured around and by child labor" are a fantasy. Of course, in poor societies people start to work earlier than in rich societies. Moreover, the percentage of children is higher because of low life expectancy. But even in this case, most of the work is done by adults.
    And again, an equilibrium is stable only if the economy does not change. Our real economy changes, so equilibria change too.
    I have not claimed that the government's only alternative is doing nothing. I have no doubt that it can do a lot of harm in many many different ways.
    And a second lie. It seems, almost all statements about me are lies. I have already many times, in this posting too, written that in poor societies the economic equilibrium will include child labor.

    About "logarithmic effects of CO2 boosting, the tendency of black people to score lower than white people on IQ tests, the disproportionate prevalence of Jewish people in some professional occupations":
    Iceaura seems to live in an alternative reality, where the effect of CO2 boosting is probably exponential, black people score much higher than whites on IQ tests, and Jewish people have in all professions the same prevalence as in the general population. Or so.

    Ok, I'm joking, this is all quite natural if one remembers that iceaura is a totalitarian Party soldier. Such a Party soldier knows that mentioning these facts is an indication of rejection of the Party line. So, those who do such evil things have to be penalized, which in this forum takes the form of being named "absurd denier".
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You don't see any difference in the employer and employee being the same person or family? No wonder you deny suboptimal equilibria. You can't even see the negotiating parties.
    Economies. No, they are not.
    And that is a straight denial of the existence of the stable equilibria theoretically established and illustrated by analyzed example in that paper. You asked to be informed of when you are denying such things - there's an instance.
    It's the other way around - the economy does not change (in this relevant respect) if the equilibrium is stable. Stable equilibria maintain themselves against small perturbations - by definition.
    You have argued from that premise, repeatedly. Total ban/do nothing is your setup. You have presented the bad effects of an incompetent total ban as the bad effects of government interference itself, for example. You even introduced part time labor as something a government would forbid, rather than introduce and enforce in the parents's and children's interest - in contrast to all of history and real world circumstance.
    The statements about your posting here have been backed with illustrative quotes, and are quite clearly accurate.
    Denialists are always dealing in absurdities, as noted.
    In the US, the Republican Party line - the Party in control of the Federal and most State governments, all public and most private scientific funding, etc - is exactly what you posted. You were not rejecting that Party line, but posting it here on this forum.

    And pretending it is a scientific argument. None of those Party line schticks you post here are scientific arguments. Don't you know that? Do you really not know the difference?
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course I see differences. Which was the reason why I have mentioned family business. Check which difference I have thought to be important enough to mention them.
    And this posting is also not without a lie.
    No. If external circumstances change, the equlibrium changes too. The change is a small, continuous one, with smooth dependence on the external circumstances, if the equilibrium is stable. It may, during such a continuous modification, become unstable. In this case, even a small, minor change in the external circumstances may lead to a large effect - switching from the now unstable equilibrium to another, stable one.
    It is the setup of Basu and Van. They have considered also a ban in some parts of the economy (say, the parts where government has control), and conclude that this results in failure.
    No. The incompetency of a total ban was the point of criticizing the paper of Basu and Van - they have claimed that in some particular circumstances, which appear only in their artificial model, a total ban would have positive effects. And I have argued that a different modification of this model - namely allowing part time child labor, which was artificially excluded in the model, is a much better way to reach the same effect in a much less harmful way.

    Forbidding part time child labor is, of course, nonsense. But that Basu and Van have made this nonsense part of their model is not my problem.

    Note also that the thesis that government interference is almost always harmful is a general one, which I have for a lot of reasons, and the harm caused by child labor bans (which are a quite common and popular form of government intervention) is only a particular example.
    And yet another lie. You use quotes only as rare exceptions, usually without link, 99% or so of them come from the immediately answered post. And those almost always illustrate only your strange ability to completely misinterpret what is written.

    Cheap polemics disposed.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is not always the case - and in stable equilibria, commonly not the case.
    Or it may - as is very common - not. Depends on the circumstances.
    No, it is only an example they consider, of a significant problem faced by those dealing with stable child labor economies.
    Sometimes. They even illustrate, by example, this problem with that particular error of governance. Partly this reinforces their thesis: clearly we have evidence for the stability of the child labor equilibria involved.

    Meanwhile, their analysis holds. So does the common reality that government is not restricted to crude errors like that.

    So we all agree that this occasional failure of one particular form of misguided government intervention has no bearing on the description of the equilibria, etc. So you never need to mention it again - it's irrelevant here.
    That severe limitation - your presumptions of what is important - may be why I didn't notice them. You are ignoring the relevant differences - if you weren't, you would not have bothered mentioning family businesses, or idealizing their nature.
    And correctly.
    And I pointed out that "allowing" was not at issue - part time labor is almost always "allowed", by the government. Government was not involved - their analysis was of market operations unrestricted by government.
    Meanwhile, you imagined a situation in which an employer would be willing to incur immediate costs (including risks from competition) and forego immediate profits, to accommodate the wishes of a few parents that threatened to raise his costs and reduce his profits long term as well, and that this minority of unconventional parents would then move the economy away from the old equilibrium by accruing benefits ten or fifteen years later. That is not common.
    And irrelevant here. This is one of the situations in which it can be beneficial, and is critical to benefits.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    With the amount of repetition involved in dealing with your endless reposting of denial and obfuscation, the quotes do drop in percentage terms after a while - I only repeat them once or twice.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM

Share This Page