Pres. Trump's 2019 budget proposal put forth today includes eliminating federal funding for 22 agencies, grant programs, and institutes. There's a full list in the referenced article. Of likely interest around here:
- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public television and radio stations including PBS and NPR.
- The National Endowment for the Arts, which funds American artists and projects with grants.
Funding public education and funding the arts have a crossover - funding art education. What is not currently affordable - or rather, what is not a priority for funding (since 'afford' is a misleading term) is the totality of arts activity.
But funds that are used for educational purposes, including music of all kinds, should, IMO, be available.
In the US, what gets funded and what doesn’t generally follows how people in general feel about such things. Yes, that’s right – the knuckle-dragging rap-preferring unwashed public gets to decide what forms of “art” get subsidized by their city, country, state, or federal taxes.
It’s a shame that even the elite get only one vote apiece. How hard it is to improve the cultural level of the masses!
Interesting definition in the link. I do not see the neo-liberals as free marketeers. Quite the opposite really. Corporate welfare and poor to rich taxation are a key part of their MO. (Obviously they like deregulation when it suits them.)
TBH I don't even know how the comment relates. I simply provided a typical description of neo-liberalism to show that it was diametrically opposed to being "left leaning."
Well since reasoned argument doesn't seem to appeal, perhaps we should try, as my right-leaning father-in-law would joke, when anyone in the family said something silly, and visit physical violence on him? He's still not explained the significance of the leaning that we've been debating these past few days.
The present topic has veered from the origional. That's OK, but there are repeated negative personal comments that completely detract from the discussion and anyone's arguments. Take more care to focus on public funding rather than other members.
I'm going to bring it back to arts funding with news that a summer outdoor theatre group which usually takes place here has had its funding either withdrawn completely or substantially cut. It won't happen this year.
Cynics will say (as I have to admit I once did in the past about this festival) that it was funding for the usual noise-making and revelry and no real loss. However, I decided to experience it and I found that it plays a huge social role as well as an arts role. To start with people are approached in the main city park and surrounding areas and invited and encouraged to take part. The workshops encouraged both expression and cooperation. There were discussions about theatre past and present. People are encouraged to bring along instruments they may have for performances. The week concluded with a short piece written and performed by those taking part, including music and musical interludes.
Now I ask you, how else can something like this be experienced by the general public without it being supported by public funding? Free from advertising and marketing and cynical tie-ins in exchange for funding? It is surely also at the heart of a decent society to derive benefits like these from our collective resources? Where we aren't always in the same narrow, personal consumption groove, but collectively pooling talent and enjoyment.
Now I ask you, how else can something like this be experienced by the general public without it being supported by public funding? Free from advertising and marketing and cynical tie-ins in exchange for funding? It is surely also at the heart of a decent society to derive benefits like these from our collective resources? Where we aren't always in the same narrow, personal consumption groove, but collectively pooling talent and enjoyment.
But also, sometimes rich philanthropists fund stuff without wanting a name check.
But also, if the beleaguered tax-payers money is required more urgently elsewhere, what's so sinful about a banner that says "this production is brought to you by your local butcher, tailor and cobbler?"
There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' with that, but I think if we are going to have a public purse it could also be used for the public's pleasures alongside the road-widening and instead of handing it out to private companies who go cap-in-hand when they've f-ed up. That is where quite a lot of money goes: to cost-inflating contractors.
What do you mean by "cost-inflating contractors"? Is it not the case normally that private companies providing services funded by the public purse are subject to competitive tendering procedures, which ought, in principle, keep costs as low as possible consistent with meeting the specification.
Private companies are necessary: they provide employment, they generate income, they pay taxes. I agree that public money can go to the arts, of course this is an essential cultural investment in our community, to preserve and develop it, but I don't mind it either when rich cultured philanthropists step in and fund writers, poets, artists, musicians, festivals, etc...
And what is it you're actually saying apart from the routine frenzied defence of the private company? I don't think any that siphon money from public funds - usually under conditions of blackmail that they would otherwise go bust and 'jobs will be lost - are either essential or necessary, they are parasites. The 'they provide employment' line is routine balderdash of the highest order. When a company is beyond a one-man-band they need assistance to carry out their functions, so they advertise for it and draw up contracts with people. It's a two-way street (or is meant to be, but we'll leave that for now). The people working ARE the company, which is otherwise merely a name registered at the Chamber of Commerce..
If some rich person wants to start a festival, that's super, but there are times when you can't and don't want wait for the whims of someone to spark into action. When the community at large wants to use some of the surplus of its own labour to assist its leisure. Hard to understand for many people locked into a monochrome economic ideology they've been fed from birth, I grant you.
According to a wiki article I was glancing at the other day on "The Independent" newspaper, it states that this newspaper has been seen by some people as "leaning to the left", making it more a competitor to The Guardian than The Telegraph that it was initially thought it might compete with when it was set up.
Further, in the 2010 General Election, I gather that its editorial recommended its readers support the Liberal Democrat Party. This wasn't surprising given that, according toa poll at that time, it estimated that the political make-up of The Independent's regular readers were quite heavily skewed towards supporting the Liberal Democrats, followed by Labour and only a small percentage supported the Conservative, compared with the overall electorate.
I gather too that the Lib Dem MEPs have aligned with the Liberal Alliance political grouping in the European Parliament, that is slightly to the left of centre compared with the other political groupings.
Personally, I wouldn't see The Independent as left leaning (as suggested) in the way that the Labour Party has moved recently period under Corbyn, but would instead place it somewhat to to the left of centre in the current political situation. However, it's largely a semantic point, and I can hardly believe that some people have judged it worth making such a big fuss over the terminology used.
Newspapers shift their allegiances sometimes. Also, of course, some papers, such as the Guardian have quite a mix of contributors. Some would be very suitable for the Torygraph.
Someone who flips burgers for a living for minimum wage is supposedly providing value because he adds to corporate profits. Even though he adds to the growing obesity epidemic. A skilled actor on the other hand can provide positive benefits, as explained by Euge, and would be a much better recipient of resources than a burger flipper.
Do you think that the unemployed in general are layabouts Dave?
The efficiencies and business prowess of a large private company with its snout in the trough of PFI projects (private companies working in the public sector, such as hospitals) have been very publicly detailed recently in the UK with the collapse of Carillion.
But for a flavour, here are a couple of paragraphs from the post-liquidation investigations:
"Carillion's rise and spectacular fall was a story of recklessness, hubris and greed. Its business model was a relentless dash for cash, driven by acquisitions, rising debt, expansion into new markets and exploitation of suppliers. It presented accounts that misrepresented the reality of the business, and increased its dividend every year, come what may. Long term obligations, such as adequately funding its pension schemes, were treated with contempt. Even as the company very publicly began to unravel, the board was concerned with increasing and protecting generous executive bonuses. Carillion was unsustainable. The mystery is not that it collapsed, but that it lasted so long."
"This morning a series of delusional characters maintained that everything was hunky dory until it all went suddenly and unforeseeably wrong. We heard variously that this was the fault of the Bank of England, the foreign exchange markets, advisers, Brexit, the snap election, investors, suppliers, the construction industry, the business culture of the Middle East and professional designers of concrete beams. Everything we have seen points the fingers in another direction - to the people who built a giant company on sand in a desperate dash for cash."
To the hard socialists among us, perhaps it’d help if you’d direct us to a country where these economic principles have been successfully applied? Then we could see what you really mean...
Yawn.... that old chestnut. I'll make it simpler: you look up the countries most aggressively pursued by U.S. foreign policy and their CIA political-economic destabilising machine and you'll find places where things were working out (though not for people opposed to them).
Yes, Chile is probably the best example. The Americans destroyed that country just as it was promising a great deal so that they could keep industry profits syphoned to the States rather than to Chilean people. Utterly evil.
Chile made the great mistake of relying chiefly on a single source for national wealth - oil. However, it was that or not much else which is obvious for those who bother to learn about it - as some in this thread have clearly failed to do.
I think I've probably been out of this thread for too long to pick it up again, but I'd just like to question the idea that we can necessarily decide whether socialism, communism and capitalism will "work" in the future based on how they have been attempted in the past. The evils of Stalinism do not form the basis for a proper examination of the possible future success of communism. The capitalist exploitation of the masses during the 19th and early 20th C should not serve as a model for determining whether capitalism has any merits.
This thread has strayed far from its original purpose. Some comments are impolite. The thread is temporarily closed while we decide what to do.Some posts have been removed.
I have now reopened the thread after some editing and the removal of some posts that broke the ToS.
I can only emphasize that threads like this can only prosper if people are willing to be respectful of one another. Please a) stick to the (broad) thread topic and b) put forward your arguments and counter other people's but do not post personal comments or insults about other members.
If you find a post offensive, please report it to us, and don't retaliate in the thread.
NPR and PBS still survive in 2018 with their Arts funding that robs every man, woman and child of public funding from the current $4 trillion US Federal budget that could be spent on ditch digging, atomic submarines, billion dollar jets, $50 toilet seats, cheap roads, bullets and wars. It's just too bad that the Art cheapskates and skinflints, who apparently can't tell the difference between doing the public good and socialism, can't put a stop to this, especially Art education in public schools that brings a little culture into the lives of the students that their private homes can't provide. Must try harder. Must try harder. Must try harder.
On the other hand, NPR and PBS go into 23 million homes in rurals areas that might otherwise not receive it without being publicly funded. Much of the programming is excellent. Watch Artconomy that shows how important the Arts are in Kansas City that help generate millions of dollars of revenue each year because the city is friendly to the arts and artists. That's what can happen with enlightened leadership. Is it just a matter of political systems and money, or is it more a matter of cultural priorities and civilized peacetime activities? The Arts in Kansas City generate local tax revenues and tourism dollars.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Classical Music Forum
2.6M posts
40.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!