DK: “The only thing I did was point out that the word “distribution” in that phrase was a verb.” [the noun being a distribution of datapoints, if you read earlier]

Brent: “If there’s no need for scare quotation marks for “probability distribution”, I see no need for scare quotation marks for “income-distribution”

richard66: “I think the term ‘Distribution’ is used for its mathematical meaning. Distribution as in frequency or probability density functions etc.”

vikingvista: “No scare quotes necessary. Any property of a population has a distribution. It refers to an observation, not action.”

Just get over it, vidyohs.

I get it.

The fair and equitable distribution of data points — over time.

Certainly I’m the one who is thinking in a fog.

Hyphenated surnames are already becoming passe’ with the increasing acceptance of triple hyphenated surnames, such as Teresa Jones-Hampton-Crawley. Pretty difficult to tell where it will all stop.

I quickly scanned all responses below this level and did not see one single one that you could confidently point to as agreeing with you on any of your above posts.

Daniel agrees with Daniel, even though sometimes Daniel also can, for want of someone else to nitpick on, also argue with himself.

But, by God, you will reply, slipping and sliding in your disingenuousness, until your bones dissolve before you’ll admit someone else might have a point. Wonderfully educated and brilliant Daniel knows best, and for such a young thing too! At least that is why your mother told you no doubt.

You seem to have a different understanding of my fallibility than I do. I’m just sharing thoughts on here like everyone else. The weird thing is the thought I shared here that you just responded to was a pretty basic one that a lot of people agreed with me on.

If brains were gunpowder, I could scrape your head and the muirduck’s, and not get enough to blow my nose.

In reference to your comment above, good move. Keep your bark barks to one liners and you can, once in awhile, actually write something that is close to coherent; anything over one sentence and you’re incapable of the English language.

Nothing strange at all, little one. I was taught about a perfect man named Jesus, who was always right, and never made a mistake or had an incorrect idea. Now I get to see you in action and to all intents and purposes you seem to be a reincarnation of Jesus. Always right, never an incorrect idea, and willing to take on all comers with your vast wisdom, and hammer and hammer until people just get plain tired of your disingenuous sliding away to find a new point to hammer.

Of course you have to use that disingenuous skill you have in order to slide past most opposition, but hey, perfection just is what it is, eh youngster?

Prior distribution or not, and inequality rising or not, all that matters is that taking from the rich to give to the poor can not reduce but only increase inequality.

All the other talk is not just a waste of time and a distraction, but a capitulation.

As for your fury at my use of “income redistribution” – tell it to Don. He brought it up. The only thing I did was point out that the word “distribution” in that phrase was a verb. That’s hardly the sort of observation that deserves a rebuke from you.

The Progress Report

Economist calls for fair income distribution in China

Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self rated health in the United States: multilevel analysis

FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME

Is the income distribution in the United States fair? Why or why not?

The term ‘distribution’ is frequently used in a non-mathematical sense. Nobody is referring to a “fair” distribution of data points — they’re not talking about making an observation, they’re talking about taking action. Even more disturbing — check how often the word “economist” shows up in the articles.

I cannot tell you how many times I have explained to him, without rebuttal, in the final analysis, that there is no such thing, but, apparently, you couldn’t penetrate his skull with an atomic-powered harpoon.

I think the term ‘Distribution’ is used for its mathematical meaning. Distribution as in frequency or probability density functions etc.

Sure income has been distributed, but forceful and involuntary confiscation of any portion of that distributed income, to give to other people is not “income redistribution”, it is distribution of stolen wealth.

So when you socialist talk about income redistribution it is that duplicitous thing you do, it is a lie.

All other factors – those that inflate it (like actual differences in wages, investment returns, an observed association between earnings potential and number of earners in the household) and those that deflate it (transfer payments, substitution of investment income for earnings from work when possible) – combine to shift it from that baseline 38.8 to 40.8, according to the UN’s human development report.

Make of it what you will.