Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Nice try. "Withhold approval" for what? Not for AGW

Exactly for AGW. Explicitly and repeatedly.
And absurdly.

The answer to the other remarks see here.

Nope. That's you strawmanning - (you decide to create a model of your own, omit the equilibrium calculations and so forth, make convenient assumptions, and come to an irrelevant conclusion about something else.)

You never did address the paper, except to simply deny its analysis and findings. So add it to the list - although not as absurd as AGW denial or Jim Crow denial, because you are not denying simple observable facts and research findings obvious to anyone who looks, as you are with them.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's you strawmanning - (you decide to create a model of your own, omit the equilibrium calculations and so forth, make convenient assumptions, and come to an irrelevant conclusion about something else.)

There is, in fact, no need to consider a modified model, I have used it only as a simple illustration of the error I mentioned.

The much more important point - that the two equilibria disappear if one allows (or simply does not forbid) part-time child labor, can be seen already in the original model. See here.

 

[iceaura]

There is, in fact, no need to consider a modified model, I have used it only as a simple illustration of the error I mentioned.

The error was yours, which is why you can't "illustrate" it in the context of the paper linked or the original model.

The much more important point - that the two equilibria disappear if one allows (or simply does not forbid) part-time child labor, can be seen already in the original model. See here.

And part-time adult labor - you need both, plus all the other particular circumstances as specified by the author of your link.

That's not a finding of error, of course - it's a description of other circumstances. The only "error" here would be if the original paper had claimed to be describing all possible economic circumstances.

Meanwhile: The author of your link seems to think or imply that it is the society, or government, that "allows" (or forbids) part-time adult and child labor. In normal industrial capitalist circumstances, including the ones analyzed for equilibria, the employers set the job hours. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution in the West, for example, it was common for children to eat and sleep at the jobsite, even right next to the machines they were tending. This lasted until forbidden by law or other social coercion. We see something similar in the dormitories and 24/7 on-call status of Chinese factory setups now.

So what you have posted there is a useful tip - a society trapped in a child labor economy can in some cases (with the other circumstances as described) escape by coercively limiting the hours an employer may require of their employees - especially children - and simply let market forces take over from there. Good idea.

Why is it posted in this thread?

 

[Schmelzer]

The error was yours,

Maybe, but once you don't give more than a cheap claim, one cannot find out if you are correct.

And part-time adult labor - you need both, plus all the other particular circumstances as specified by the author of your link.

No. One can move from the "equilibrium" with child labor the the equilibrium without using full-time adult labor all the time.

That's not a finding of error, of course - it's a description of other circumstances. The only "error" here would be if the original paper had claimed to be describing all possible economic circumstances.

The two equilibria are an artefact of the the model. In the real world, they would appear only if there is some regulation which forbids part time work.

Meanwhile: The author of your link seems to think or imply that it is the society, or government, that "allows" (or forbids) part-time adult and child labor. In normal industrial capitalist circumstances, including the ones analyzed for equilibria, the employers set the job hours. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution in the West, for example, it was common for children to eat and sleep at the jobsite, even right next to the machines they were tending. This lasted until forbidden by law or other social coercion. We see something similar in the dormitories and 24/7 on-call status of Chinese factory setups now.

In a free market, such extreme working conditions will appear if the circumstances are extreme enough to make such working conditions acceptable to the workers. Of course, in poor societies quite bad working conditions will be acceptable for the neediest members of this society. In the conditions considered by Basu, we have already a society where the parents are interested in reducing the working time of their children, and once enough families are interested in this, employers will make adequate offers for them.

So what you have posted there is a useful tip - a society trapped in a child labor economy can in some cases (with the other circumstances as described) escape by coercively limiting the hours an employer may require of their employees - especially children - and simply let market forces take over from there. Good idea.

Nonsense. The link says "the free market gives a much better solution of the problem with two equilibria, which would appear only in a society which, for whatever reasons, artificially restricts child labor by not allowing part-time child labor. Or in economic models of a child labor market which, by construction, do not allow part-time child labor." No coercion is proposed at all. Only a fan of coercion can read such things into that text. And the trap does not exist, because, if part-time work is not forbidden, it will be used once it is useful.

Why is it posted in this thread?

I had put one posting into the other thread, where it was IMHO much more on-topic, as the continuation of the discussion about the Basu paper. But it was moved into this thread by the admins. So ask them. Seems, they don't like it if one moves an answer into another thread, even if it is more on-topic there.

 

[iceaura]

And part-time adult labor - you need both, plus all the other particular circumstances as specified by the author of your link.

No. One can move from the "equilibrium" with child labor the the equilibrium without using full-time adult labor all the time.

Not making sense. You appear to agree with my point. Did you misread?

The two equilibria are an artefact of the the model. In the real world, they would appear only if there is some regulation which forbids part time work.

Like I said - you and that author both seem to think part time work is the employer's preference.

In a free market, such extreme working conditions will appear if the circumstances are extreme enough to make such working conditions acceptable to the workers.

Whenever such conditions can be arranged by the rich and powerful, in other words.

In the conditions considered by Basu, we have already a society where the parents are interested in reducing the working time of their children, and once enough families are interested in this, employers will make adequate offers for them.

No, they won't, in general. That's what "stable equilibrium" means.

Nonsense. The link says "the free market gives a much better solution of the problem with two equilibria, which would appear only in a society which, for whatever reasons, artificially restricts child labor by not allowing part-time child labor. Or in economic models of a child labor market which, by construction, do not allow part-time child labor." No coercion is proposed at all.

We both read the link. You share the author's confusion about which party in the exchange prefers longer hours for less pay from the employees, controls the wage differential between adults and children, has an interest in using children to beat down adult wages, etc.

In the real world. The one the original paper documented an example of.

The scene of the absurd denial is not a theoretical one.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not making sense. You appear to agree with my point. Did you misread?

Probably. Your statement makes no sense to me. Giving it a meaning I could agree with seems impossible.
Part-time adult labor is also explicitly excluded from consideration in the Basu paper, and plays no role in the rejection too. The conclusions would be the same, independent of the legal status of part-time adult work. So, "And part-time adult labor - you need both" makes no sense.

Like I said - you and that author both seem to think part time work is the employer's preference.

No. Free market proponents do not share the leftist idea that only what the employers like matters. If there is a free market, the interests of both sides matter.

About

In the conditions considered by Basu, we have already a society where the parents are interested in reducing the working time of their children, and once enough families are interested in this, employers will make adequate offers for them.

No, they won't, in general. That's what "stable equilibrium" means.

The "stable equilibrium" exists only in your fantasy. In the paper, parents are assumed to forgo the child's income completely if the remaining family income is greater than the subsistence level. And the two equilibria can exist only if the family income with the child's income is already greater than the subsistence level. Or do you propose a fantasy world where the ban of child labor, which leads to less people working, and, therefore less production of goods for the whole society, somehow makes all families richer? Else, the full family income is already greater than subsistence. So, the families would be interested to reduce the child labor to part time, even if they could not afford to reduce it to zero - which creates the artificial equilibrium if part time child labor is excluded.

If what I write would be in contradiction with a stable equilibrium with child work, then there simply is none, even in the model world of Basu. And, in fact, an equilibrium which needs a part time child labor ban to survive is not a stable equilibrium.

We both read the link. You share the author's confusion about which party in the exchange prefers longer hours for less pay from the employees, controls the wage differential between adults and children, has an interest in using children to beat down adult wages, etc.

Wow, a really powerful accusation. But I have to admit that I share even much more with the author, LOL.

 

[iceaura]

Part-time adult labor is also explicitly excluded from consideration in the Basu paper, and plays no role in the rejection too.

Certain kinds or arrangements of part time labor, you mean. That is the description of the circumstances, yes. So?

No. Free market proponents do not share the leftist idea that only what the employers like matters. If there is a free market, the interests of both sides matter.

And so their analyses are works of fantasy, and make no sense in most real world situations, including any in which accumulated wealth gains political power unless prevented from doing so, any in which labor is in surplus and perishable (will starve, etc) while accumulated capital is limited and durable (gold, land, etc), and so forth.

The "stable equilibrium" exists only in your fantasy.

And in the rigorous theory of market analysis, the documented examples of that research paper, all of recorded history, etc.

So, the families would be interested to reduce the child labor to part time, even if they could not afford to reduce it to zero

But the employer would not.

Or do you propose a fantasy world where the ban of child labor, which leads to less people working, and, therefore less production of goods for the whole society, somehow makes all families richer?

The inadequacies and hardships of simply banning child labor where it is entrenched are and have always been recognized and accepted - in that paper, btw, as well as everywhere you post. What's your point?

Silly question, I forgot - denial of something obvious in the real world.

 

[Schmelzer]

Certain kinds or arrangements of part time labor, you mean. That is the description of the circumstances, yes. So?

So? You have to explain what is the meaning of introducing adult part-time labor into the discussion. It makes no sense.

And so their analyses are works of fantasy, and make no sense in most real world situations, including any in which accumulated wealth gains political power unless prevented from doing so, any in which labor is in surplus and perishable (will starve, etc) while accumulated capital is limited and durable (gold, land, etc), and so forth.

And, of course, Marxists have always been correct in their predictions. LOL.
Of course, if "accumulated wealth gains political power", as well as it is "prevented from doing so" by political means of the other side, we have no free market, so free market analysis is inapplicable by construction, and free market proponents know this very well. In a situation where labor is in surplus, the wages will decrease until there is no longer a surplus. In the extreme situation of starvation, those who starve will no longer care about the advantages of free markets and will start to use political means (armed robbery and so on), and we have, again, a situation where free market theory is not applicable. But, except in Marxist fantasy land, this is not the usual result of a free market economy.

And in the rigorous theory of market analysis, the documented examples of that research paper, all of recorded history, etc.

There may be, of course, a lot of situations where one appears trapped in a bad equilibrium. In reality as well as in theory. But the particular case discussed by Basy & Van is not of this type, here the two equilibria are an artefact of the model, and the model is artificial.

But the employer would not.

Because they are evil sadists who like to see completely tired children working full time, even if they in the evening are already unable to do anything useful, instead of using two half-time children doing the same job in even better quality for the same price or even less.

The inadequacies and hardships of simply banning child labor where it is entrenched are and have always been recognized and accepted - in that paper, btw, as well as everywhere you post. What's your point?

The point is that the mentioned fantasy land, which with child labor produces less than without, would be the only possibility to have two equilibria in a society where part-time child labor is possible.

 

[iceaura]

So? You have to explain what is the meaning of introducing adult part-time labor into the discussion. It makes no sense

I didn't. You did. I agree it makes no sense. I've never seen a market economy where part time labor was banned by a government, but I've seem many situations in which employers set the hours and wages to suit themselves as much as possible - and part time didn't suit them.

And, of course, Marxists have always been correct in their predictions.

Supply and demand description is Marxist prediction?

Of course, if "accumulated wealth gains political power", as well as it is "prevented from doing so" by political means of the other side, we have no free market, so free market analysis is inapplicable by construction, and free market proponents know this very well.

And yet such "free market" fantasizers refuse to shut up and go away when real world topics arise. Go figure.

There may be, of course, a lot of situations where one appears trapped in a bad equilibrium. In reality as well as in theory. But the particular case discussed by Basy & Van is not of this type, here the two equilibria are an artefact of the model, and the model is artificial.

The model was illustrated with a real world example of a very common kind. It's familiar, in the real world.

Because they are evil sadists who like to see completely tired children working full time, even if they in the evening are already unable to do anything useful, instead of using two half-time children doing the same job in even better quality for the same price or even less.

Whatever you decide to assume their motives must be, the situation is quite common and has been for the entire industrial revolution. It's not like they're paying by the hour, you know - normally (as with the brick factories in India) it's piecework or daywork or something similar. If the work is too low quality, they don't pay.

The point is that the mentioned fantasy land, which with child labor produces less than without, would be the only possibility to have two equilibria in a society where part-time child labor is possible.

The multiple equilibria exist wherever employers can set the working hours and compensation accordingly.

You simply deny that situation exists.

 

[Schmelzer]

I didn't. You did.

Part time adult labor you introduced. And it makes no sense. Here:

And part-time adult labor - you need both, plus all the other particular circumstances as specified by the author of your link.

The model was illustrated with a real world example of a very common kind.

Quote the paper about this to support your claim.

Whatever you decide to assume their motives must be, the situation is quite common and has been for the entire industrial revolution.

Of course, during that time the people wanted full time jobs. The interest in part-time jobs on the side of the parents appears only in the period of transition.

It's not like they're paying by the hour, you know - normally (as with the brick factories in India) it's piecework or daywork or something similar. If the work is too low quality, they don't pay.

So in this case part-time work is not a problem at all, at least for the employers, and if the parents want part time, they will get it. Thus, no problem with two equlibria appears.

The multiple equilibria exist wherever employers can set the working hours and compensation accordingly.
You simply deny that situation exists.

No. They can set working hours if there is supply of labor for such working hours. Once they set full-time work for children, it means there is enough supply for full-time child labor.
The point of government-supported restrictions of working hours, together with minimal wages, is to exclude some workers (in particular uneducated, migrants, and so on) from the job market. That means, redistribution from the poorest workers to the richer workers.

 

[iceaura]

Part time adult labor you introduced. And it makes no sense. Here:

You introduced part time labor, as an equilibrium breaker. You seem to think it is something employers naturally introduce, out of the goodness of their hearts or enlightened long term self-interest in their community or whatever.

Of course, during that time the people wanted full time jobs. The interest in part-time jobs on the side of the parents appears only in the period of transition.

There is no transition - stable equilibrium, remember? What some parents "want" is irrelevant. Parents too insistent about their inconvenient wants starve, are evicted, cannot afford schooling, cannot obtain medical care, etc.

So in this case part-time work is not a problem at all, at least for the employers,

They think it is. By requiring full time work they lose nothing in the short term, while gaining extra production, keeping adult wages low, trapping their work force, and so forth. They regard these as benefits - which in the short term they are.

No. They can set working hours if there is supply of labor for such working hours.

So you meant "Yes". Since there is, in these situations, they do.

The point of government-supported restrictions of working hours, together with minimal wages, is to exclude some workers (in particular uneducated, migrants, and so on) from the job market.

The child labor trap operates in the absence of government restrictions.

At the root of what you are denying here is capitalist employer coercion, similar to your denial of market capitalist coercion in pressuring AGW researchers, and capitalist ownership-based coercion in US racial oppression.

It would be interesting, if one were interested, in tracing the blindness to corporate capitalist coercion that runs through Holocaust denial - Holocaust denial does manifest itself in a couple of incoherent ways otherwise difficult to explain: the Nazis didn't kill that many Jews, or single out the Jews to that extent; the Jews were killed because of their financial abuse of the capitalist German economy; if the Nazis were bad it was because they were leftwing and against market capitalism; and so forth.

 

[Schmelzer]

You introduced part time labor, as an equilibrium breaker. You seem to think it is something employers naturally introduce, out of the goodness of their hearts or enlightened long term self-interest in their community or whatever.

No. I think employers will start to accept it if there are enough potential workers interested in this. You know, if I want very much to work part-time, so much that I accept even lower than proportional wage, no goodness of hearts is necessary on the employers side.

There is no transition - stable equilibrium, remember? What some parents "want" is irrelevant. Parents too insistent about their inconvenient wants starve, are evicted, cannot afford schooling, cannot obtain medical care, etc.

If the society becomes richer, even the artificial Basu equilibrium disappears once the parents income alone is beyond subsistence. The child labor "trap" does not prevent the society from becoming richer, because it became richer with child labor before, and with children working this "becoming richer" continues.

Where is only a small range where it exists: The parents' income is lower than subsistence, but together with the child's income above.

They think it is. By requiring full time work they lose nothing in the short term, while gaining extra production, keeping adult wages low, trapping their work force, and so forth. They regard these as benefits - which in the short term they are.

Nonsense. As explained, they lose additional profit from a) having less tired workers for the same wage, b) an additional profit from a lower wage for part-time workers, which they can get if other employers do not allow part-time work, despite the fact that some parents are interested. The "keeping adult wages low" is nonsense: Nobody cares about common goods, and low adult wages would be a common good for all the capitalists. The trapping is your fantasy.

The child labor trap operates in the absence of government restrictions.

No. It requires that there is no offer for part-time child labor. Your arguments that there will be none fail.

The usual "you are a denier of everything" BS disposed.

 

[iceaura]

No. I think employers will start to accept it if there are enough potential workers interested in this. You know, if I want very much to work part-time, so much that I accept even lower than proportional wage, no goodness of hearts is necessary on the employers side.

Nice planet you live on.

If the society becomes richer, even the artificial Basu equilibrium disappears once the parents income alone is beyond subsistence.

Depends on distribution. In the common situation described the parent's income status does not rise magically according to "society" wealth. Stable equilibrium, remember?

As explained, they lose additional profit from a) having less tired workers for the same wage,

No, they don't. They already adjusted compensation accordingly - stable equilibrium, remember?

) an additional profit from a lower wage for part-time workers, which they can get if other employers do not allow part-time work, despite the fact that some parents are interested.

There is no such lower wage, or part time employment, on offer.

The "keeping adult wages low" is nonsense: Nobody cares about common goods, and low adult wages would be a common good for all the capitalists.

Nice planet you live on.

No. It requires that there is no offer for part-time child labor.

No appropriate offer, in the absence of government restrictions.
You mean "Yes", then. As so often before.

The usual "you are a denier of everything" BS disposed

Denier of three things, so far (although you have great potential, with Putin).

That absurd denials correlate, collect in individuals, has been noticed before.

 

[Schmelzer]

Iceaura obviously has no more arguments.

 

[iceaura]

Iceaura obviously has no more arguments.

None needed. You continue to deny the existence of the stable equilibria, and the physical reality of the illustrative examples.

So having established that, we can move on from your repetition of the claims they invalidated many pages ago.

The thread has turned up and illustrated a half dozen patterns common to absurd denials - denials "similar" to Holocaust denial, involving alternative realities presented as nonfictional - that might worth the trouble.

That they collect in individuals - correlate far better than chance - is one.

That they spread in the victim's worldview, and eventually involve (apparently in their defense) fantasy revisions of historical account and rejections of physical fact well removed from the specific matter denied, is another. (a chicken and egg problem, here)

That they apparently require - invariably include - presumption of a singular and unitary all-powerful concealed conspiracy: not merely the existence of an agenda driven cooperative effort by a few bad people, but something concealed so well that even the names of its essential perpetrators are unknown, so widely powerful it can be the cause of any given event in history or supposed physical fact of current establishment.

That these conspiracies and their implementations are invariably governmental, and not the doings of private wealth or economic class collusions only.

And a few others. Might need a new thread, to avoid having to wade the repetition river.

 

[Schmelzer]

None needed. You continue to deny the existence of the stable equilibria, and the physical reality of the illustrative examples.

No. I do not at all deny the existence of at least one market equilibrium, which is stable. Then, I do not at all deny the existence of other equilibria too, they are possible in various circumstances. In fact, every investment decision traps the investor into some equilibrium, which may not be optimal at all, given that a different investment decision could have been better. What I deny is the existence of two stable equilibria in that particular model proposed by Basu, if one, contrary to Basu, also allows for part-time child labor. I have not objected against at all various illustrations given in the Basu paper, and illustrations given by physical reality play no role at all in this discussion. Except that you continue to refer to your own claims as having something to do with reality.

That they collect in individuals - correlate far better than chance - is one.

Which is something I have also predicted. There are sheeple, afraid of opposing the Party line, and those who don't care. Or don't have to care, because the Party soldiers are unable to harm them. Once you are not afraid to oppose the Party line in one question, you will oppose it in other questions too.

This is, btw, a trap for those who are ready to oppose the Party line. Because to oppose it out of principle in all questions would be foolish - there are enough questions where the Party line is the correct one. And if you, in only one question, make the wrong choice and support some fools against the Party line, this will be used to present you as a fool in general - iceaura nicely illustrates how this is done. As if it would be impossible to err in one question but to be correct in others. Everybody makes errors.

And, via the guilt by association technique, this is also used to present as fools all those who doubt the Party line in other questions, where you doubt it too. The scheme is simple: "You deny the Party line in X, you have the same position as A about X. But A is also an Y denier, a complete fool."

BTW, new threads will not help you to "avoid having to wade the repetition river", because it is basically your repetitions of your accusations which are the cause of the many repetitions.

 

[iceaura]

No. I do not at all deny the existence of at least one market equilibrium, which is stable

You mean "yes", again.
You deny the stable equilibria as established in theory and illustrated by example, involving child labor, in theory and in fact.

What I deny is the existence of two stable equilibria in that particular model proposed by Basu, if one, contrary to Basu, also allows for part-time child labor.

Thereby creating a new model, not the one involved, a separate discussion topic not relevant here, and one which is not illustrated by example - perhaps because its assumptions are not realistic, and the circumstances involved not common in the real world.

Which is something I have also predicted.

No, you got mixed up with "Party lines" - you predicted that rejections of Party lines would cluster, which seems plausible in itself, but also that this accounted for absurd denials clustering, which it does not.

Once you are not afraid to oppose the Party line in one question, you will oppose it in other questions too.

Irrelevant. We are discussing absurd denials, not Party lines. As you pointed out, there is no correlation even - rejection of Party line has nothing to do with absurd denial. Party lines themselves are very often absurd denials, and someone with the independence of mind to reject them would be protected from those absurdities - as we see with AGW, where absurd denial is the Republican Party line in the US and has enfolded the sheeple.

This is, btw, a trap for those who are ready to oppose the Party line. Because to oppose it out of principle in all questions would be foolish - there are enough questions where the Party line is the correct one. And if you, in only one question, make the wrong choice and support some fools against the Party line, this will be used to present you as a fool in general

That interesting but irrelevant hypothetical possibility belongs in a different thread. The observation it appears to be avoiding is that absurd denials cluster. They cluster whether they align with some Party or not.

This can be overlooked in a situation such as we have in the US, where the governing Party and its lines include so many absurd denials. The temptation is to see Party as causal, as explanatory.

Everybody makes errors.

Not everybody makes absurd denials, and then insists on defending them at great length against all evidence and observation and reason, as you and the other absurd deniers do here. Absurd denial is not something everyone does. It is a peculiar and specific category of "error".

And, via the guilt by association technique, this is also used to present as fools all those who doubt the Party line in other questions, where you doubt it too.

No one has made any such argument here. You continually insist on posting that irrelevant noise, for some reason.
And it dovetails with this:

BTW, new threads will not help you to "avoid having to wade the repetition river", because it is basically your repetitions of your accusations which are the cause of the many repetitions.

No "accusations" from me are involved. The repetitions of the long ago invalidated are yours.

And as you again exemplify: The absurd denier always claims to be persecuted for their views, maligned personally and put at risk and unfairly accused of whatever merely for holding an "independent" opinion. In the US they will claim this even for such standard Party line propaganda claims and government backed "opinions" as Darwin, Jim Crow, or AGW denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

Repetitions of the usual lies disposed.

Thereby creating a new model, not the one involved, a separate discussion topic not relevant here, and one which is not illustrated by example - perhaps because its assumptions are not realistic, and the circumstances involved not common in the real world.

No, what is nonsensical is the model proposed by Basu. The correction is, in fact, making the model closer to reality. Because I have yet to see a country where child labor is allowed, but only in full time, with part time child labor forbidden.

So, the two equilibria exist only because of an artificial restriction of the model proposed by Basu.

No, you got mixed up with "Party lines" - you predicted that rejections of Party lines would cluster, which seems plausible in itself, but also that this accounted for absurd denials clustering, which it does not.

"Absurd" means, in this discussion, nothing but "iceaura does not like it very much". In this meaning, clustering has to be expected for absurd denials too, given that if iceaura does not like the particular poster, there will be a tendency to name his positions "absurd" in very different questions, independent on the content.

 

[iceaura]

No, what is nonsensical is the model proposed by Basu. The correction is, in fact, making the model closer to reality.

You assumed a different model, a different situation with key features different from Basu's, - and much less realistic, btw. (Your notion that part time employment as necessary for equilibrium instability, of flexible adjustment in both hours and wages for children etc, would inevitably exist on parental demand unless forbidden by outside coercion, is - - - how to put this - - - - "naive". ) Unlike the real researchers with their actual working theory, you did not analyze an example of your assumed arrangements, of course - not even theirs, which you were directly critiquing.

You then assumed that the theoretical existence of your assumed arrangements prevented the situation described by the real researchers from existing in reality, despite their documentation of an example familiar in kind over all the history of industrial civilization.

That's where the "absurd" label comes from. The absurd denial, by definition, is of readily apparent and intersubjectively verified physical and historical circumstance. As with AGW, and Jim Crow, you deny the reality that's in your face.

In this meaning, clustering has to be expected for absurd denials too, given that if iceaura does not like the particular poster, there will be a tendency to name his positions "absurd" in very different questions, independent on the content.

And once again the self-proclaimed math and science guy gets the direction of implication backwards in a simple, repeatedly posted, easily reviewed argument.

And how did that happen? How does an error that silly come to trip up - repeatedly - yet another absurd denier? Apparently, reading it, from the characteristic need of the absurd denier to feel picked on, conspired against, personally attacked for their "independence" of mind. This, judging from behavior ("sheeple", "good soldier", etc, in this case) is or at least appears to be, commonly, projection.

This has been repeated enough, by enough different posters, to earn a place in the list of possible sources of absurd denial: the need to feel personally attacked, as a justification of one's otherwise dubious behavior. Clearly absurd denial reliably instigates responses that lend themselves to such a need. Add that to the list, if the thread ever undertakes its ostensible topic.

 

[Schmelzer]

You assumed a different model, a different situation with key features different from Basu's, - and much less realistic, btw.

Of course, for Marxists every picture of capitalistic reality which does not present employers as evil bloodsuckers with strong sadistic tendencies is not realistic. Which is nothing I would care about

On the other hand, one can reasonably doubt that the model of Basu has much to do with reality. And, given that what is criticized is this model, and not reality itself, the simply modification of the model which includes part-time child labor, and, as a consequence, cannot have two equilibria, once it copies all the other weak points of the original model, will be essentially as far away from reality than the original. The only difference is that it allows part-time child labor. Given that I have never heard about a system which allows full time child labor but forbids part-time child labor, it seems quite safe to assume that it is closer to reality than the original model.

And, just for information, a lot of child labor is in the family business, and in this situation part-time labor is not a problem at all.

I like iceaura's attack techniques. First, one writes nothing but personal attacks (essentially whole threads like this have the only aim of personal attacks against "deniers"), and then one observes that the targets of such attacks a "need to feel personally attacked". That's already great.