31–40 of 235 posts
With a basic income for artists, everyone profits:
- Artists can be more creative and independent, because they don't need to monetize their work. - People can enjoy art regardless of their social status and the money in their pocket. - Society has a richer, more diverse and creative culture.
Well that's not really universal by any metric (you have to be an artist, there can't be too many applicants or you'll get subjected to lottery) but I'm still enthusiastic. It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. These feel more like government artist in residence grants.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?
There was a debate regarding this topic just recently in Poland, where they wanted to introduce something of this kind. This is wrong in so many ways. It will encourage people to basically pretend they're doing some kind of art even if they're not. If someone is a real artist imo, they will manage. It will be part-time but eventually they will get better and can start making money out of it, and if not then well it c…
Well that's not really universal by any metric (you have to be an artist, there can't be too many applicants or you'll get subjected to lottery) but I'm still enthusiastic. It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. These feel more like government artist in residence grants.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?
Or it may not. We can't tell objectively, because there is no metric to measure.
I suppose my point is, if you cannot tell that there is a benefit at all, why leap to the assumption that it's a large enough benefit to pay 25m euros for.
Well that's not really universal by any metric (you have to be an artist, there can't be too many applicants or you'll get subjected to lottery) but I'm still enthusiastic. It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. These feel more like government artist in residence grants.
> It's always nice seeing countries look to support their artists in building their cultural heritage. But, at the end of the day it's still worth close to nothing, right? I enjoy art and music as much as anyone else but the reason those professions are so poorly paid is because the supply outstrips the demand considerably[1]. What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's alre…
No, it's hardcore keynesism. You're still sustaining demand in the market for all their necessities, from food and toilet paper to brushes and smart LEDs; and you are supporting the overall quality of life in the country, which passes also through people getting involved in art in various ways (as critics, consumers, etc). The fact that you may or may not get valuable output at the end is relatively irrelevant; in the end, a couple of resulting unicorns could probably repay the whole operation just by publicity and goodwill flowing to Ireland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?
> Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand? Or it may not. We can't tell objectively, because there is no metric to measure. I suppose my point is, if you cannot tell that there is a benefit at all , why leap to the assumption that it's a large enough benefit to pay 25m euros for.