SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SiouxPal who wrote (322576)1/23/2007 8:34:55 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574199
 
Its apparently a semantic argument over the meaning of redistribution. There are other issues of disagreement but the main point is that -

I am defining "redistribution" to mean execution of a policy to take from one person, group or organization and give to another person, group or organization.

John is apparently defining "redistribution" to mean anything (including ceasing to perform an action) that causes the wealth of one person, group, or organization to increase, and another to decrease.

Lets imagine I came to your house each day, and insisted that you give me $10, and I then turned around and gave the $10 to John.

By my definition if I stop doing that I am stopping the redistribution, and if I reduce the amount I take (say I only take $5 from you to give to John) I am reducing the amount of redistribution.

By John's definition, if I stop taking the $10 from you and giving it to him, or if I cut the amount I take from you and give to him, I am engaging in redistribution by cutting (or eliminating) the transfer, since after the cut you are better off then you used to be and he is worse off.

Do you get it now?

Also what do you think of the definitions?

Of course even if you agree with me on the definition, it hardly means that you have to agree with me on policy. For example you could see a tax cut as a reduction of redistribution away from the wealthy, and be against it for that very reason.