This week reading assignment is basically based on the reading from section four, Selected Essays on Political Economy written by Bastiat. The article is about his strong opinion against state subsidizing the arts because of broken window fallacy. His argument is that what's seen through subsidizing the arts from the state could be a form of increase in jobs in arts, but what's not seen is that the money used to subsidizing the arts has to be coming from the tax payer money which is also needed to be spent on some other jobs and careers in other field. In conclusion, he does not denounce the importance of arts in a state but he reasons that all forms of subsidizing in arts should be from the private sectors (the people) and not from the state. After reading this piece I have mixed feeling as well mainly because
1. Should the state be allowed to do some jobs through public funds on sectors that the public that is not highly interested in?
2. What's the difference from Private spending and Public Spending when both of them are actually from the pocket of the people as well? Government use public spending in order to maximize their profit, which is on power in the seats, through gaining popularity from the people.
3. Although we know that arts comes with value, should we just let it die along with the price system when nobody is really interested in it?
In conclusion I think that my opinion will still be mixed. If the majority public sees that there is a need to use public funds to subsidize people, why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment