<p><a href=“http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18722/article_detail.asp[/url]”>http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18722/article_detail.asp</a></p>
<p>Hmmmm… indeed. Somebody is trying to get a rise out of colleagues. Soak the rich? Sure. Propose it to GWB. Propose it to Sensenbrenner who’s voted against emergency supplemental funding for FEMA and refused to consider delaying bankruptcy law changes for Katrina victims (they’ve been soaked, all right, what with all that water…).</p>
<p>Well, the Chronicle of Higher Education thought it was worth a read, too. </p>
<p>It is a main link on <a href=“http://www.aldaily.com%5B/url%5D”>www.aldaily.com</a>.</p>
<p>For the record, I voted for Kerry.</p>
<p>The American Enterprise Institute is just a TAD conservative</p>
<p>Sure, the Chronicle will print stuff written by academics that sounds provocative. As I said, it sounds like he’s trying to get a rise out of colleagues, and I’m sure a lot of them will respond.</p>
<p>No doubt about that, cgm.</p>
<p>I also read The Nation, Mother Jones, the Progessive, Dissent, the Utne Reader and the Village Voice. The calls for the redistribution of wealth are ongoing. </p>
<p>I tried to think of a quick knockdown for this idea, but could not. (That is why I posted). If there is something wrong with the growing disparity in income between the CEO and the worker on the factory floor (and I agree that there is), then why does it not hold here?</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I have one S in a public U witha very modest endowment (and constrained state funding) and one in a private with a large endowment.
I personnally attended what US News calls a ‘fourth tier’ U, first male in my family to attend college (my two older sisters made it to that same four tier’ institution before me).</p>
<p>Why should institutions be compared to individuals? There are plenty who dislike Wal-Mart for a variety of reasons. Has it been argued that Wal Mart’s wealth should be redistributed among mom and pop convenience stores? It HAS been argued that Wal Mart should be kept at bay to protect the livelihood of mom and pop stores and preserve the local character, but that’s different from taking some of its assets and redistributing them among the mom and pop stores. </p>
<p>The problem, though, is that the wealthier schools are not the large behemoths, not are they stopping others from operating, or stealing customers away from them. So what would be the grounds for confiscataing their assets?</p>
<p>They have have been:</p>
<p>From the Newleft Review, “a new financial regime aimed at boosting resources for sustainable health and retirement provision, with a share levy on corporations, redistributed across the continent.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26804.shtml[/url]”>http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26804.shtml</a></p>
<p>Who has been forcing anyone to shop at Walmart? Why should people in urban areas be prevented from shopping in Walmart, denied the opportunity that suburbanites and rural people have?</p>
<p>And so it is ok to ‘confiscate’ assest from individuals, but not institutions? Are you ready to eliminate the corporate income tax?</p>
<p>Randomdad:</p>
<p>Nobody is suggesting confiscating assets from individuals. I have read arguments in favor of limiting the compensation of CEOs and at least in one case (Grasso of NYSE) of compelling him to reimburse NYSE. But this is not a matter of public policy. What I have read are arguments for a more progressive tax code. The problem of applying this to institutions of higher learning is that…they’re all tax-exempt. So the mechanism does not even exist for redistributing wealth, should this be deemed a desirable social goal.</p>
<p>As you say, nobody is forcing anyone to shop at Wal Mart. Nobody is forcing students to attend HYPSM. Au contraire.</p>
<p>The article was satire…wasn’t it? :)</p>
<p>Not just satire, but satire dripping with sarcasm.</p>