Classical Music Forum banner

Proposed elimination of arts funding

45K views 466 replies 39 participants last post by  jegreenwood 
#1 ·
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.

Thoughts?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rams-trumps-budget-would-eliminate/ar-BBJ2Odf
 
#171 ·
The Free Market works extraordinarily poorly to provide America with up-to-date working infrastructure: water supply, sewers, reliable electricity, bridges, tunnels, railroads. If something does not provide either immediate cash or votes, it is either not attempted or it is executed in the quickest, cheapest, most slipshod manner. The works which best reflect the enduring strength of a civilization, at least here in the USA, are/were largely executed by government entities, sometimes in partnership with enlightened private companies led by exceptionally visionary entrepreneurs.
 
G
#173 · (Edited)
That is true. Indeed most of the important industries work best in public ownership, ie the ones you have mentioned plus health, education, other utilities, defence, research etc. A regulated private sector may be better placed for the product development and marketing of shiny things.
 
G
#172 ·
Don't forget that the UK government gives b?illions of free money to the private transport companies. Last I heard they gave about as much as the companies generated in ticket revenue.

Transport networks do not have anything to do with the free market. It is an industry where politicians can take favours in return for giving private companies a huge amount of money. The system is corrupt from top to bottom.
 
#177 ·
Just for general information: In the United States there is vanishingly little “free market” in the infrastructure. Highways, electric, water, wastewater, etc., all are either publically owned and operated, publically owned and operated by private firms under time-limited contracts, or privately owned with all important aspects of operation regulated by public boards or commissions, including the prices they charge. All these boards and commissions that I know of are composed either of elected officials or of members appointed by elected officials.

Since most infrastructure utilities are “natural monopolies,” they have never been considered candidates for competing in a free market. Instead, they are granted exclusive franchises for their service areas.
 
#184 ·
Just for general information: In the United States there is vanishingly little "free market" in the infrastructure. Highways, electric, water, wastewater, etc., all are either publically owned and operated, publically owned and operated by private firms under time-limited contracts, or privately owned with all important aspects of operation regulated by public boards or commissions, including the prices they charge. All these boards and commissions that I know of are composed either of elected officials or of members appointed by elected officials.

Since most infrastructure utilities are "natural monopolies," they have never been considered candidates for competing in a free market. Instead, they are granted exclusive franchises for their service areas.
While this is largely true, it is also equally true that anti-any-tax zealots such as Grover Norquist have so poisoned the public debate over taxes that "public" infrastructure is starved for necessary funding, while vast sports arenas are constructed everywhere. In the USA, the Republican Party essentially requires as an oath of membership that one be opposed to levying taxes for any purposes whatsoever, including wars. Their view of capitalism is that, if infrastructure is needed enough, some corporation will supply it if the money is right. But the money is never right.
 
#178 ·
^Or you could always rely on water from rain or your own solar panels (lol), I think its always been this way since Roman times......

Once a piece of infrastructure is provided it eventually becomes a way of making money, even the internet..............
 
#181 · (Edited)
Maybe less so here. Our peak loads tend to be in the afternoon in the summer, when everybody is using air conditioning. That's when there are occasional rolling brown-outs. So solar panels may be helpful.

But the main motivation for subsiding solar seems to be increasing usage of "green" power, since hydro is scarce in arid SoCal. Our main nuke is being decommissioned because it has gotten too expensive to operate. That leaves gas turbine, oil, and coal.
 
#185 · (Edited)
“…anti-any-tax zealots such as Grover Norquist have so poisoned the public debate over taxes that "public" infrastructure is starved for necessary funding…”

Transportation aside, most infrastructure is paid for by user fees, not taxes.

“…while vast sports arenas are constructed everywhere.”

It seems that way sometimes! But it’s not a political right-vs-left issue. Go to the People’s Republic of Seattle and scope out their stadiums, built (partially) with public money..

“In the USA, the Republican Party essentially requires as an oath of membership that one be opposed to levying taxes for any purposes whatsoever, including wars. Their view of capitalism is that, if infrastructure is needed enough, some corporation will supply it if the money is right. But the money is never right.”

First I’ve heard about that. Must have happened while I was otherwise distracted. Oh well… :lol:
 
#186 ·
"…anti-any-tax zealots such as Grover Norquist have so poisoned the public debate over taxes that "public" infrastructure is starved for necessary funding…"

Transportation aside, most infrastructure is paid for by user fees, not taxes.

"…while vast sports arenas are constructed everywhere."

It seems that way sometimes! But it's not a political right-vs-left issue. Go to the People's Republic of Seattle and scope out their stadiums, built (partially) with public money..

"In the USA, the Republican Party essentially requires as an oath of membership that one be opposed to levying taxes for any purposes whatsoever, including wars. Their view of capitalism is that, if infrastructure is needed enough, some corporation will supply it if the money is right. But the money is never right."

First I've heard about that. Must have happened while I was otherwise distracted. Oh well… :lol:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

Ken, are you telling me that you are unfamiliar with ol' Grover Norquist and his Pledge?? Grover is right up there with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association in the pantheon of saints that Republicans worship. In fact, Grover is on the NRA Board of Directors. By the way, Ollie North (remember him?) is now President of the NRA. It's a small, interlocked world--the GOP--these days. Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would never recognize it.

But we can discuss this at length down in Groups :).
 
#189 ·
When an electric utility doesn't have enough energy to satisfy all the demands of its customers, it may lower the system voltage in some areas, say from the usual 117V to 90V. Because of Ohm 's law, that reduces total power draw in those areas (though it can cause problems as well with dialysis machines and so forth). Since lights get dimmer, it's called a brown-out. The utility may spread the pain by "rolling" the voltage reduction through different areas.
 
#202 · (Edited)
It's amazing how people can project their personal ideologies on almost any situation. The California energy crisis resulted from a program devised by a liberal democrat administration. Among other things, it imposed price caps on energy, hardly a hallmark of "deregulation." These price caps previously did not exist. So far as I can see, it had nothing at all to do with "public-private partnerships."

Among its aims, though, was to increase competition among companies and agencies (private and public alike) producing electricity as opposed to delivering it to customers. So its planners spoke of it as "deregulation" of a sort, which made the republicans in government salivate like Pavlov's dogs.

So as I say, it was not really a partisan thing. There was plenty of stupidity to go around. The only truth I can gather from all this is already well-known: A fool and his money are soon parted.
 
#206 ·
It's amazing how people can project their personal ideologies on almost any situation. The California energy crisis resulted from a program devised by a liberal democrat administration. Among other things, it imposed price caps on energy, hardly a hallmark of "deregulation." These price caps previously did not exist. So far as I can see, it had nothing at all to do with "public-private partnerships."

Among its aims, though, was to increase competition among companies and agencies (private and public alike) producing electricity as opposed to delivering it to customers. So its planners spoke of it as "deregulation" of a sort, which made the republicans in government salivate like Pavlov's dogs.

So as I say, it was not really a partisan thing. There was plenty of stupidity to go around. The only truth I can gather from all this is already well-known: A fool and his money are soon parted.
One of those ideologies being the tired trope - though accepted as an obviously 'common sense' maxim - that 'government interference' lies at the heart of any crisis. It's the ideology of capitalist true believers. Not that companies seek ways to make ever more money on the backs of their customers and fill their coffers using underhanded means, with or without regulation/deregulation.
 
#223 ·
I think we are all old enough, but we remember differently. I think my memory is better and clearer than yours.

Both you me and a 10 year-old have experienced disgusting train services and they have been in the hands of private contractors for decades now. In fact even though British Rail was being deliberately run in to the ground, ready for the 'solution' of privatised contracts, the train fares weren't the daylight robbery they now are.

So what is really dire, I ask?
Your memory is certainly NOT better and clearer than mine. In fact, my old man worked on the railway so I might have a better picture than you. If you can stretch your mind back we experienced disgusting rail services, with filthy trains, always late, with British Rail. The fares were always expensive even then and the unions held the country to ransom with strikes. Whatever the situation now, I can tell you the situation was dire then,. however much your rose coloured spectacles try to see things differently! I'm not saying things are OK now but I can tell you they were certainly NOT OK then!
 
G
#228 · (Edited)
Your memory is certainly NOT better and clearer than mine. In fact, my old man worked on the railway so I might have a better picture than you. If you can stretch your mind back we experienced disgusting rail services, with filthy trains, always late, with British Rail. The fares were always expensive even then and the unions held the country to ransom with strikes. Whatever the situation now, I can tell you the situation was dire then,. however much your rose coloured spectacles try to see things differently! I'm not saying things are OK now but I can tell you they were certainly NOT OK then!
A lot of flaky assertions there Dave. Can you back any of them up?

Re the always late thing, that is a modern scam. What has happened is that official journey times have dramatically increased so that these companies can always hit their targets. Take one example. When Intercity 125s were introduced in the 70s under British Rail it took 38 minutes to get to London from my home town. Now it is 53 minutes using the same trains on the same stretch of track! So not only have the private companies failed to invest in new trains in all that time, they are running much slower than they did 40 years ago.

Any thoughts Dave?
 
#209 · (Edited)
Many of us will recollect the Enron scandal and collapse, which played very strongly into the California power fiasco that Ken referenced. Here was certainly a case where a corporation (if that is what one chooses to call a criminal enterprise like Enron) was allowed to "go rogue" with the generation and distribution of electricity in a classic example of capitalism conjoined with criminality. People went to jail, employees lost jobs and pensions, stockholders were left penniless, and the power grid in certain areas was jeopardized. Read all about it here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
 
#254 ·
I had to deal with the Enron scandal and collapse in the course of my professional life, and had the opportunity to examine it in painfully deep detail (lucky me). Your characterizations of it as a "criminal enterprise" and a corporation allowed to "go rogue" are absolutely and entirely correct and accurate.

There has long been a line of thought among certain laissez-faire (i.e., anti-regulation) economists that free markets are, if not entirely, at least largely self-regulating. This idea was gleefully seized upon by many conservative American politicians in the 70s and 80s because it happened to to be a convenient way to support the movement to deregulate certain industries that had powerful Washington lobbies -- banking and finance, insurance, energy and telecommunications, among others. One such idea was (imo misleadingly) coined the efficient capital markets hypothesis.

The Enron scandal and the so-called mortgage-backed securities crisis of 2008 are two shining examples of America's failure to sufficiently regulate the financial, insurance and energy industries. Anyone mindlessly buying the Koolaid of less regulation of business is always good should carefully study those two situations.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top