Week 5: Late Critical Reading assignment

Bastiat: Week 5

            The essay by Bastiat addresses dozens of topics that were almost ahead of their time when written, and are still a major part of economic debate today.  Within his section “Theater and the Fine Arts,” the most interesting aspect of this article that I found was how so many arguments from the essay are used by the United States Congress today, but with less articulation and less support than Bastiat was able to fit into the five pages of the section.  The opening two paragraphs themselves highlight the liberal and conservative arguments, respectively, for the increase and decrease of funding for the arts.  Under the same logic of paragraph 1.61, though, is the conservative argument for the decrease in government funding for any social programs, including the arts in high schools.   Later in the article, during the analysis of Lamartine, Bastiat uses an argument common in the Reagan and Bush administrations when they cut funding for arts programs: the best arts programs are the self-sufficient ones. 

            From the above paragraph comes the first of my discussion questions: using solely the arguments provided by Bastiat in this essay, should the United States increase or decrease funding for school arts programs?  If no, would education be served as a self-subsidized enterprise rather than by a government agency?  

            The second discussion comes from the vote Bastiat discusses in paragraphs 1.74 onwards: how are Lamartine’s arguments for the subsidy to the arts a “childish illusion” (1.78) and how does Bastiat’s counter that it reallocates wealth completely validate his opinion when he admits earlier in the essay that the arts are meant for the taxpayers and to help increase French pride and culture?

            A third discussion question, in a similar manner to question 1, revolves around Bastiat in the modern world:  in the modern day, when taxes are relatively lower than his era and people have more money to spend on leisure activities, could Bastiat’s arguments, specifically the idea in paragraph 1.61 that taxing to subsidize the arts hurts essential industries?

            This reading is meant to give a laissez-faire argument concerning government support for the arts and culture.  The opening paragraphs are the only ones where Bastiat’s obvious conservative opinions are not stated, for he merely points out each side of the argument concerning the arts.  From paragraph 1.62 onwards, though, he begins dissecting the arguments for support of the arts by  stating that taxing for the arts hurts the people by using their wealth to finance an industry that creates minimal wealth.  He goes on to further suggest that the public does not intrinsically value the arts over their own well-being enough to want the government to subsidize the arts.  The article was likely meant to supplement the class notes we took on government spending and the function of taxes, while also being meant to give proof that sometimes government subsidies are more negative than positive.  Finally, in the final paragraph, Bastiat states one of Professor Rizzo’s favorite ideas: that public spending only replaces private spending, but does so less efficiently. From this theory, it is clear where Rizzo gets his main ideas for Econ 108 and that Bastiat's essays still apply to modern economics both inside and outside of the classroom.