Trump White House to release National Socialist People’s Welfare budget Tuesday

[The Larch]

Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.

Not that their budgets are just really huge.

Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.

It costs a tiny amount as well.

[viper37]

Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.

Not that their budgets are just really huge.

Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.

depends at wich level.  I object to art funding in Quebec and Canada because the government is the main entity funding nearly everything cultural, except stand up comics and books, and they get generous tax breaks.  The situation for the US seems different though.

[HVC]

But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.

[Oexmelin]

Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in

Why?

the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.

What's your metric?

[viper37]

But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.

not really.  People still shun theaters with Quebec productions because they lack mass appeal.  And like Yi, I don't see why should subsidize over 90% of the costs for something that benefits 1000 people in the entire province.  Especially when you don't subsidize everyone equally and use some weird metrics to exclude some creators from the mix.

[Admiral Yi]

Why?

Art, because by its nature is something that is local. Literature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.

What's your metric?

People?  I don't understand your question.

[Valmy]

I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.

[Oexmelin]

Art, because by its nature is something that is local.

How is art, "by nature", local? What does that even mean, and why does it disqualify government support?

Literature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.

How do you go from subsidy to the right kind, and the right kind to non-acceptable thought? Art should only exist to cater to current taste? Should the government refrain from investing in certain research in fundamental sciences because it would disqualify "other kinds" of science? Or is there some fundamental difference between science and art on that regard?

People?  I don't understand your question.

How do you measure benefits, and what is the acceptable threshold for reach? Would subsidies be justified if art reached, what, 20% of the population? 50% ? 100%? Is it simply a question of majority rule?

[Oexmelin]

I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.

You would be wrong.

The NEH and the NEA subsidizes collective projects, like the digitalization of archives for local repositories (because, shockingly, many states are not entirely fond of allocating funds for preserving their history, or even their very recent past), or large endeavors, like the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, which has sent researchers in half a dozen countries to document tens of thousands of slaving expeditions. The NEA gives money to museums in more remote locations, to help them host big exhibitions, or pay for the insurance costs, which have risen dramatically since 2001. They fund local projects to reinsert ex-convicts, or to make concerts free. The subsidies are usually quite tiny (10,000$, 40,000$), but for regional institutions, that's often crucial. Not every place is New York, or San Francisco.

But then again, I am sure the market was being unfairly shut out of the profits to be had on Transatlantic Slave Trade Databases.   

[Admiral Yi]

Art, because by its nature is something that is local.

How is art, "by nature", local? What does that even mean, and why does it disqualify government support?

Literature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.

How do you go from subsidy to the right kind, and the right kind to non-acceptable thought? Art should only exist to cater to current taste? Should the government refrain from investing in certain research in fundamental sciences because it would disqualify "other kinds" of science? Or is there some fundamental difference between science and art on that regard?

People?  I don't understand your question.

How do you measure benefits, and what is the acceptable threshold for reach? Would subsidies be justified if art reached, what, 20% of the population? 50% ? 100%? Is it simply a question of majority rule?

Art is local in the sense that it has a physical location.  If my tax dollars go to fund a rusting iron installation symbolizing the ur-mother in Pittsburgh, I don't get anything out of it.  The residents of Pittsburgh might not either for that matter.

Of course science is different than art and literature.  Science makes our lives easier.  Science propels economic growth.  Science solves problems.

The only time subsidies are warranted IMO is if there is some sort of market failure that the subsidy is correcting.  My opinion wouldn't change if 100% of Americans had read every NEH subsidized poem.  But the fact that consumption of the subsidized output does appear to be very limited does exacerbate the problem.

[frunk]

I would actually take the opposite position of Yi, in that the NEH and NEA should be subsidizing things that aren't popular but are significant for reasons other than economic viability.

[Valmy]

I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.

You would be wrong.

The NEH and the NEA subsidizes collective projects, like the digitalization of archives for local repositories (because, shockingly, many states are not entirely fond of allocating funds for preserving their history, or even their very recent past), or large endeavors, like the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, which has sent researchers in half a dozen countries to document tens of thousands of slaving expeditions. The NEA gives money to museums in more remote locations, to help them host big exhibitions, or pay for the insurance costs, which have risen dramatically since 2001. They fund local projects to reinsert ex-convicts, or to make concerts free. The subsidies are usually quite tiny (10,000$, 40,000$), but for regional institutions, that's often crucial. Not every place is New York, or San Francisco.

But then again, I am sure the market was being unfairly shut out of the profits to be had on Transatlantic Slave Trade Databases.   

What do you have to say to this Yi? Most historical work is probably not suited to be put on display to millions anyway.

[Admiral Yi]

I would actually take the opposite position of Yi, in that the NEH and NEA should be subsidizing things that aren't popular but are significant for reasons other than economic viability.

What would those other reasons be?

[The Minsky Moment]

But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.

not really.  People still shun theaters with Quebec productions because they lack mass appeal.  And like Yi, I don't see why should subsidize over 90% of the costs for something that benefits 1000 people in the entire province.  Especially when you don't subsidize everyone equally and use some weird metrics to exclude some creators from the mix.

Luckily the NEA seldom, if ever, funds Quebec productions that lack mass appeal.

[Oexmelin]

Art is local in the sense that it has a physical location.  If my tax dollars go to fund a rusting iron installation symbolizing the ur-mother in Pittsburgh, I don't get anything out of it.  The residents of Pittsburgh might not either for that matter.

I don't understand. What's the problem? I pay for all sorts of things I never use, including subsidies for research into stuff that will never ever affect me. If I happen to live in New York city, it's great. I have dozens of museums to visit, and the capacity to see great art all the time. If I live in Missoula, perhaps less so. How is that so terrible?

Of course science is different than art and literature.  Science makes our lives easier.  Science propels economic growth.  Science solves problems.

That's just silly - unless you simply hold that art is distraction/entertainment, or that ease of life is only measured by physical comfort and that there is no value to the human community in itself.  Someone's life can be made infinitely worse with science, and much better with literature. Science can waste dozens of years on problems deemed important by pharmaceutical companies, and abandon whole fields where there is not enough money. It can also consume millions of dollars for research onto diseases that affect only tens of thousands of people on the planet. History, and sociology solve problems - it all depends what problems you want solved.

What I am asking is whether these traits - which you assume are fundamental to science (?) - change things when it comes to your criteria of reach and benefits. Would government subsidies be warranted to research diseases which do not affect large swaths of the population? Is theoretical physics - which makes very few people's life better - something to ditch entirely? Should scientific research be determined by whether or not an article in Nature will be read by 100% of Americans? In short, is there something in scientific judgments of worth that you are not willing to submit to mass appeal, and conversely, is there something about aesthetic, or historical, or sociological judgements of worth which can only be valued through mass appeal?