Sunday, 9 October 2011

Reading Analysis #5 "What is seen and What is unseen" (10/09/2011)

A)
In this passage Bastiast questions whether subsidies should be given to the art industries. Bastiat confronts the argument that those who oppose art subsidies, oppose the art in general. Instead he argues that this is not the case, in fact he argues that by removing subsidies he would be supporting the arts. This is the counter intuitive piece of his argument. He says that by allowing subsidies the initiated in art comes from above in the form of legislators, rather than below in front of individual creativity. the most interesting point for me was the Bastias mentions how those who don't believe in subsidies have faith in mankind to support and advance art, while those who believe in subsidies clearly have no faith in mankind to advance the arts but instead relay on the legislators. 


B)
  1. Is there any legitimate situation for the government to support an industry?
  2. How can a democracy composed of civilians who value the arts, support the arts without committing any bad economic errors. 
  3. Do you believe that this is a proper application of the Broken Window Fallacy?


C) Bastiat uses the Broken Window Fallacy to uncover the bad economic principle behind subsidies as well as the issues with art subsidies in specific. This passage also shows how one can be against art subsidies but still support the arts..

No comments:

Post a Comment