Reading Assignment #5-Theaters and Fine Arts

A. 
I thought that Bastiat provided a couple interesting viewpoints pertaining to subsidizing certain professions, specifically art. Overall, I found the article be quite interesting.

One of the most interesting parts of the article was how Bastiat talks about how subsidizing one profession lowers the wages for other professions- I never really thought about the act of subsidizing by the government in this matter.

If one profession is subsidized, it comes at the expense of other profession's wages unless taxes are increased. Because increasing taxes to subsidize artists is not really a pragmatic idea in many instances, it is just not feasible to easily subsidize artists as Bastiat argues against.

I thought that this point by Bastiat really points out how in economics, there is always a cause and effect- one economic decision effects economic outcomes in many ways.

I also found it very interesting how Bastiat argues how subsidizing artists would not be a great idea because regulating that industry could come at the expense of creativity. He points out that by regulating the art industry, there would be less freewill to make certain art because maybe the government would refuse to compensate certain artists for certain types of paintings (if let's say, the paintings were considered inappropriate by governmental standards).

In short, I really do agree with Bastiat's point- not subsidizing art allows for more freedom among artists. Artists can create whatever they want based on their feelings and receive compensation from people who buy their work. By not having governmental regulation, artists do not have to worry about whether or not their paintings will be "accepted" or subsidized by the government.

B.
1. Why is it that some people believe that economists want art to be abolished when economists claim that art should not be subsidized by the government?
2. What would be the economic result of subsidizing artists? As in, would doing so hurt or help our economy?
3. Do artists actually need to be subsidized for their work? Would doing so promote more or less artistic innovation/creation?

C. 
This article covers whether or not the government should support- and subsidize- the arts. The author, Bastiat, believes that the desire to make art should not come from the government subsidizing artists, but rather, from "below", or in other terms, from the desire within artists to create. He doesn't believe that artists should be motivated by state compensation- he feels that they should be motivated by the artists themselves.

Bastiat goes on to claim that many people consider economists who argue against the state subsidizing artists to be against art altogether. But Bastiat argues that economists who think this way don't want art to be abolished at all.

In fact, Bastiat wants no governmental subsidation because he wants the state to protect the free development of those types of human activity, so that artists can create whenever, and about whatever, they want.

Bastiat then goes on to how how people who are against Bastiat's economic thinking believe that if an activity is not subsidized, it will eventually be abolished. In the case of art, Bastiat argues, this is not the case at all.

The final argument Bastiat goes on to make is that by taking tax money to subsidize artists, there will be lower wages of other jobs such as plowmen, road construction workers, etc. Thus, more money would be given to artists than these other workers. And who is to say that these other workers are less important than artists?