Artsy people are awesome at economics

[Asher]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/may/13/jeremy-hunt-arts-budget

assuming Hunt is a pragmatist, he should recognise that severe cutbacks to the arts would be counter-productive. The figures, as Melvyn Bragg recently pointed out, tell the story. The arts take a minute 0.08% of the national budget. Yet they employ close to two million people and contribute £16.6bn to our exports. The theatre alone makes £2.6bn annually from a subsidy of £107m. You don't have to be an economic wizard to work out that subsidy is one of the best investments any government can make in British life. From an initially small outlay, we reap huge rewards. So why put down what is, to put it at its basest, a hugely productive cash-cow?

Whose mind did that just blow?

[Kuciwalker]

[Dinner]

It's pretty bad though he does make a good point about arts spending being a good way to employ large amounts of people giving it good bang for the buck. The answer, I think, is to make it more market orientated by giving individuals, corporations, or city governments tax incentives to fund art especially public art. That way local people get to decide which projects to fund.

[-Jrabbit]

And keeping musicians, actors and visual artists even marginally employed and off the streets is clearly a good thing.

I'm a big proponent of government funding of the arts.

[Asher]

And keeping musicians, actors and visual artists even marginally employed and off the streets is clearly a good thing.

I'm a big proponent of government funding of the arts.

I'm focusing on the economics of his comment, not the moral or ethical grounds.

[Al B. Sure!]

Well government funding for the arts only really gets criticized when complete crap (we all know what it is; no need for the aesthetics and nature of art debate) is subsidized.

That is problematic. The government arbitrarily deciding on things getting funding (who decides this stuff anyway?)... There should be some means for public involvement even if it's market forces from a more market-oriented art culture.

Although marketable art also tends to be crappy (Lady Gaga?)

[MrFun]

summary of thread:

"Asher hates librul artz grads."

Moderators can close this thread now.

[Al B. Sure!]

MrFun:

Umm... did you even read a single word of the first post?

[Asher]

I'm specifically referring to the fact that they treat subsidies like seed money, and they act like it's a terrific ROI from an economic POV.

The simple fact is most of the stuff subsidized to any reasonable degree is stuff not economically sustainable on its own (which is why it needs the subsidies), which means it is not, in fact, a good economic ROI.

The guy who wrote the article is either being incredibly disingenuous with his use of the numbers, or he just doesn't know better. I'm assuming the latter, since it's true of every arts grad I know.

[Al B. Sure!]

Asher:

Oh. Must've been too riled up from the organic food thread to pay that any mind.

As far as government spending goes... they could do much worse. At least this generates something.

I liken it to funding of libraries and museums. Or are you against those?

[Asher]

I don't object to reasonable amounts of subsidies to the arts, nor libraries or museums.

I just object to this guy's stupidity.

[Hauldren Collider]

I got a liberal arts diploma from Charmin.

[Wiglaf]

The government spent $107 million on museums that turned a $2.6 billion profit. What is the problem?

[Asher]

[Asher]

It would be for a bot. Can't pass the Turing test.