Sloppy thinking at the 'New Yorker'...
Oct. 30th, 2008 07:43 amVia boingboing, on a commentary by one Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker, to wit:
In the case of a state's natural resources, they are - since they are owned by the state - pretty much by definition owned collectively by the population of that state. Sharing or spreading monies derived from developing those resources among the population "distributes" the money and, if anything, is about as far as you can get from the socialist tradition, which would hold that the state ought to retain and use such revenue toexpand the scope of its power benefit the people.
The source of the government's income tax revenue, on the other hand, is income. Instituting a change where some end up paying more and where a "refund" is given to a large number of others who currently don't pay anything at all may be described using the same adjectives, but also constitutes a fairly significant "redistribution" of wealth, which is a word that nobody - at least nobody in the media - wants to use, at least not in the same paragraph as the word "Obama."
Cheers...
A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.Semantically, there is not much of a difference between "spreading" wealth and "sharing" it. However, when one considers the source of the wealth, a small, yet significant distinction arises.
In the case of a state's natural resources, they are - since they are owned by the state - pretty much by definition owned collectively by the population of that state. Sharing or spreading monies derived from developing those resources among the population "distributes" the money and, if anything, is about as far as you can get from the socialist tradition, which would hold that the state ought to retain and use such revenue to
The source of the government's income tax revenue, on the other hand, is income. Instituting a change where some end up paying more and where a "refund" is given to a large number of others who currently don't pay anything at all may be described using the same adjectives, but also constitutes a fairly significant "redistribution" of wealth, which is a word that nobody - at least nobody in the media - wants to use, at least not in the same paragraph as the word "Obama."
Cheers...