Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

[Schmelzer]

About simple ways to transport things without government-build Autobahns:

No, you can't.

Ok, I give up.

I know, they also have to drink water, and they cannot without government-provided aqueducts and water pipes.

Tired of so much ....., sorry.

 

[iceaura]

I know, they also have to drink water, and they cannot without government-provided aqueducts and water pipes

Wells and stock tanks or ponds are the common first provisions along extended trade routes, when the Hardin Commons management of common grazing areas and river access points can no longer handle the increased traffic, or in the desert caravans example when water supplies are difficult to tap and sparse. Aqueducts and water pipes come as cities grow - more characteristic of State level government.

Meanwhile, the example of racial oppression in the US might be easier for you to consider - more recent, more familiar, closer to your experience and information base. And also directly thread relevant - it's quite closely tied to the Indiana laws.

 

[Schmelzer]

Wells and stock tanks or ponds are the common first provisions along extended trade routes, when the Hardin Commons management of common grazing areas and river access points can no longer handle the increased traffic, or in the desert caravans example when water supplies are difficult to tap and sparse. Aqueducts and water pipes come as cities grow - more characteristic of State level government.

Fine. Obvioiusly, the problems you mention here become relevant only once the markets grow, the trade routes become extended trade routes. Nice to hear the implicit funny thesis that wells need governments (not? In this case, mentioning them would be off-topic).

Meanwhile, the example of racial oppression in the US might be easier for you to consider - more recent, more familiar, closer to your experience and information base.

You have no knowledge at all about what is familiar to me, close to my experience and what is my information base.

 

[iceaura]

You have no knowledge at all about what is familiar to me, close to my experience and what is my information base.

I didn't say close or familiar, I said closer and more familiar. You don't know jack shit about transporting trade goods to market across "pure nature", but you have rented a room from a stranger or visited a clinic in a city or eaten at a restaurant when far from home, yes?

So in considering the freedom of contract problem in racially bigoted Indiana, you are not completely without background or experience.

Fine. Obvioiusly, the problems you mention here become relevant only once the markets grow, the trade routes become extended trade routes.

I illustrated how and when the new problems kick in, as follows: " when the Hardin Commons management of common grazing areas and river access points can no longer handle the increased traffic, or in the desert caravans example when water supplies are difficult to tap and sparse." Note that the early, small markets have smaller needs that require only small governments - often a tribal council that meets once a year for a few days can handle a Hardin Commons pasturage at the Market Fair, for example - and as markets grow they put demands on government, forcing growth and structural change (if one wants to maintain the market growth).

Nice to hear the implicit funny thesis that wells need governments (not? In this case, mentioning them would be off-topic).

Wells and water supplies capable of handling trade caravans and the like do require significant government to create and maintain and regulate, yes.

 

[Schmelzer]

The one article I have considered in detail was based on an elementary error, thus, has not shown it. And even not really claimed that it can be really trapped for a long time. The point was that there may be some intermediate periods with multiple equilibria, and if, by accidents, forbidding child labor happens in such a moment, then its fine.

... First of all, the family fights for subsistence, only that's why the children work. Now the child loses its job. Fight for subsistence becomes even harder. This family is immediately and directly harmed.

The researcher invents some side effects of the broken window - less working force once children no longer work, means higher pays for workers. So some workers will be happy by gaining more. The happy glazier repairing the broken window. But to work for the particular harmed family, the gain in increase for the father should be greater than the loss by the child getting nothing. This is something one can invent, but already extremely implausible. The side effect of higher wages - higher prices for the goods - is completely ignored. But the overall price-independent picture - the children no longer produce anything, the society has less to distribute - shows that, like for the broken window, the overall effect will be negative.

Then, the society as a whole is never trapped in child labor. Because, according, again, to your link, even in the worst cases much less than half of the children work. Thus, there are enough non-working children where to invest education and so on, and one can be sure that forbidding child labor will not really improve the education of the children of the poor. In fact, they loose the professional education one obtains from "learning by doing", and what they get is usually indoctriantion in public schools which even in modern Western societies creates horrible levels of functional analphabets.

It appears that there is even a more important error in the Basu paper. The two equilibria are an artefact of the model - that it does not allow part-time child labor. With part-time child labor allowed, the two equilibria disappear, the one with child labor goes easily down to the one without, using part-time child labor on the way to the other equilibrium. See here.

 

[iceaura]

Do you have a problem finding threads of continuity, or is this some kind of deliberate imposition of hassle on people?

It appears that there is even a more important error in the Basu paper. The two equilibria are an artefact of the model - that it does not allow part-time child labor.

That's not an error, that's a description.

It appears that there is even a more important error in the Basu paper. The two equilibria are an artefact of the model - that it does not allow part-time child labor. With part-time child labor allowed, the two equilibria disappear, the one with child labor goes easily down to the one without, using part-time child labor on the way to the other equilibrium. See here.

The equilibria exist, in other words, wherever employers enforce the hours they require of their paid employees, and require full time attendance on the job. That is a common circumstance.

One of the common coercive government regulations for moving an economy off of sub-optimal equilibria is a limiting of hours an employer may require of their employees - especially children.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have posted this in this thread because here the Basu paper has been discussed before. And it has nothing to do with Holocaust denial.

The equilibria exist, in other words, wherever employers enforce the hours they require of their paid employees, and require full time attendance on the job. That is a common circumstance.

No. Such a stupid decision (using two much less tired half-time children would give much better results) by all employees would be yet another prerequisite for the two equilibria to appear.

 

[iceaura]

I have posted this in this thread because here the Basu paper has been discussed before. And it has nothing to do with Holocaust denial.

The thread on absurd denials has plenty of room for your denial of child labor equilibria under market capitalism. It's there already.

No. Such a stupid decision (using two much less tired half-time children would give much better results) by all employees would be yet another prerequisite for the two equilibria to appear.

Yet another aspect of reality you declare to be in your view stupid, and therefore to not exist.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Closure

You know, we should probably be clear:

I have posted this in this thread because here the Basu paper has been discussed before.

No. You have posted in this thread because you show no respect for this community or any of its participants. When people point out that pretty much any thread you participate in seems to become about you and your pet fallacies, this particular discussion stands out as symbolic because it represents an occasion in which we decided specifically to not punish a new user for obvious misbehavior; that is to say, instead of giving you another chance, we should have thrown you out, then, and passing time only presses the argument that the arrogant disregard shown this community, for other people, facts, and basic integrity, are pretty much all you brought.

You posted your latest in this thread because this is one of the threads subject to your hubris. Which, in turn, isn't really much of an excuse at all.

Which, in turn, describes the character you present us. Should you have something more to offer than two-bit, rudy poot, puti-toot fallacy and excrement, well, that would be an improvement. Most likely. Well, you know, it's the internet, so, whatever; it's entirely possible the real you is even more ridiculous.

Meanwhile, that you posted here because it matched some part of your former disrespect for this community only asserts to highlight the problem you present.