What does it mean?!?

russ_watters

Interesting insight into your psyche you have provided: you shape your definitions to fit your preferred view of reality instead of using pre-defined words to describe observed reality. Thats a backwards way of looking at the world. Ironic on a science BB (though you can see a lot of it in the "mystics and psuedo-science" forum).

Dissident Dan

You left out:

The act or process...not the theory, is what I was talking about when I was discussing what a government does.

And I wasn't talking in political jargon, but in general definitions, as the above "acot or process" definition is. Redistribution is changing the distribution. That is exactly what military, police, public roads, etc. spending does.

russ_watters

No, I didn't leave anything out. That other definition is a general definition of "redistribution" and is not applicable to economics. In economic terms, "redistribution of wealth" (which is the term Zero used) means taking wealth from those who have it and giving it to those who don't.

Dan, this is REALLY getting tiring. If the dictionary definition isn't good enough, type "redistribution of wealth" into a goole search and read as many of the ~156,000 hits as you feel you need to understand the concept better.

I need to revive a dead thread....

Zero

That's odd...maybe it is because I am mostly self-taught, that I use words that make sense to me, even if they don't match a dictionary definition I have never read. Maybe a more appropriate phrase would have been 'pooling assets for common goals', but it comes out to the same thing; societies collect money, them use it where the leaders see fit.

This whole 'take from the rich and give to the poor' is a hateful statement meant to denigrate the poor. Of course, once you dehumanize a group, it is easier to allow their children to go hungry. I don't accuse you of wanting poor people to suffer...I accuse you, and people with your attitude, of having a basic lack of empathy towards your fellow Americans. Statements like the one above, to me, signify that we should change the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "...Two Nations, depending on your tax bracket...."

Dissident Dan

I'm sure that "redistribution of wealth" is dumbed down to mean "take from the rich, give to the poor," but I don't go by political rhetoric, I like to deal with reality. In reality, giving poor people rich people's money, and spending money on national defense, both redistribute money, and that money, ideally, would benefit poor people just as much as the richer ones who pay more money, so that money is given to the poor, just indirectly, and in the form of protection and what-have-you.

russ_watters

Well that does explain a lot. There are many words that are commonly misused. I prefer being correct, so I look them up when there is a question. There is a danger of finding I am wrong of course and so sticking my foot in my mouth, but I have found that paying attention to definitions and always checking myself makes me LESS likely to be wrong.

It is difficult (impossible) to have a meaningful discussion if one of the parties is making up their definitions as they go along.

The thing is though, Zero, I think that you DO know the definition and you knew it when you first posted the term but for some reason you don't feel like supporting your position anymore. If you changed your mind or realized you were wrong, thats fine. So I'd like to clarify:

Zero, do you believe it is one of the main duties of a government to take money from the rich and give that money (cash money) to the poor, ie welfare?

Yes or no? I won't argue against it (been there, done that), so no need to try to justify it. I just want to know your opinion.
Dan, the definition was unequivocably clear. Thats a re-wording, but that is EXACTLY what the definition means.

The spending-money-on-infrastructure thing is not redistribution of wealth because a road doesn't increase my wealth (and otherwise, ALL government spending is redistribution of wealth). Cash money going into my pocket is what increases my wealth.

Zero

Russ, I believe that you miss the ****ing point by dumbing down every issue in that sort of Fox News way that you have perfected so well...


The point is, as I have stated repeatedly, but I wil say again in case someone has listened to too much right-wing radio and now has an IQ of a squirrel; A society, in my view, takes care of its members. If it is 'every man for himself', it is not a society. I think America is best served by making sure that its children have hope for a future. That is ALL children, not just the children of the wealthy. If that means 'taking from teh rich to give to the poor', then so be it...if the rich don't like it, why don't they stop paying taxes?


Oh, wait, that is what they are trying to do!

Dissident Dan

Well, apparently you only define wealth as green money, not as what that cash is used for, because money is only useful for gaining other things from it, after all. And roads, protection, etc. are things that that money can help a person gain. Whether you spend the money, or it is spent for you, I don't think that it makes much of a difference in this issue. And, actually, the building of roads does increase your wealth, as in money in your pocket, by allowing you to get to your job, and all the other transportation that goes along with it (transportation of goods, etc.).

russ_watters

So thats a "yes" then, right?

Zero, maybe to you its "dumbing down" but to me its trying to get a straight answer. If I can't even get a yes or no answer to a yes or no question, clearly I must put things in simpler terms to make that possible. In this instance, all I did was cite the ACTUAL DEFINITION of a term and ask if that is what you believe.

A meaningful discussion is not possible if you refuse to explicitly state your opinion or at the very least use the same vocabulary as the rest of the country. Making up the words as you go along makes it seem like you are trying to hide your opinion.

Its really ironic, Zero - in another thread you were lamenting my use of big words. So which is it? Do I oversimplify or overcomplicate? As per the dictionary definitions of both "redistribution" and "weath", Dan. Dan, if thats not good enough, PLEASE do a google search for the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and see how it is applied.


Btw, Zero - edit the personal attack out of your post.

Zero

Sorry kids...I think I ruined this thread...