John Havelock's Dividend

Satisfactory Essays
I think Scott Goldsmith and John Havelock’s reasoning in the article “Dividend is the strongest protection for the Alaska Permanent Fund” works best. The first article, “Guarantee the PFD,” uses the reasoning of a Nobel Laureate and economist. Although this article may seem like the most reasonable choice because it comes with the insight of a highly-acclaimed individual, a sizable portion of the article is simply encouraging the reader to act against the new legislation. The article tells the reader about the assets of Alaska that could be used to instead substitute for the dividend shares from the Permanent Fund, but does not go as in-depth as the second article’s authors do. Cassellius and Smith simply state facts and give little reasoning or logical explanation behind it, leading me to prefer the other article. The third article “Who owns Alaska? Our wealth was meant to share” by Charles Wohlforth, an Alaskan author and columnist, touches on personal experience and relies heavily on historical…show more content…
Both authors use a wide variety of statistics and facts in their article and also explain the logic and reasoning behind each one. They say how the Permanent Fund is the state’s largest asset and explain how we can afford to pay dividends to Alaskans while continuing to generate $2.5 billion annually. Aside from the statistics, the authors recognize the same pattern of people turning to the dividend whenever there is a fiscal crisis. They propose the alternatives of using the earnings reserve, cashing out the unrealized gains, and eliminating inflation proofing which would free up $14 billion dollars for spending. They also consider limiting the amount of the dividend paid each year in order to consider both sides of the debate. Although their ideas may seem optimistic, their facts which support their ideas do
Get Access