[lambdapie]

You use the term "monetary velocity" as if it was some term of trade, but I have a PhD in economics and I've never seen it used this way. Are you referring to a specific school of thought or author when you use this term?

Redistributing money from people who are not going to spend it to people who will (or vice versa) is not zero sum.

This is the essence of (neo-)Keynsianism but it only applies during recessions. In the long run, redistributing money to people who are going to spend it has zero effect.

Of course redistribution has a positive effect on welfare as defined by the sum of total utility, but it doesn't increase, for example, GDP.

[dragonwriter]

> You use the term "monetary velocity" as if it was some term of trade, but I have a PhD in economics and I've never seen it used this way.

"Monetary velocity" is not the usual phrasing I've seen, but from the context it was presented in and the description fo the effects attributed to it (and, well, the name -- even though its not exactly the usual term) its fairly obviously the same thing as "velocity of money" [0], a fairly basic economic concept covered in most introductory economics courses.

> Of course redistribution has a positive effect on welfare as defined by the sum of total utility, but it doesn't increase, for example, GDP.

That's debatable. Redistribution to a group more likely to expend money within the domestic economy can increase the velocity of money in the domestic economy even if it has no effect on overall velocity (which it can also have), increasing GDP, in either case.

In any case, measuring economy health by aggregate measures like GDP is not done because those are real fundamental goals, its done because measuring the sum of utility isn't practical. Improving the some of utility without increasing one of the headline proxies isn't "zero effect" in the first place.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money