‘A string of thought’

A string of thought lead me to wonder how your film was doing. If I recall, when we first met about two years ago you were looking for funding. I read the voir.ca articles and ended up reading a letter of yours, found here, dealing with the infamous “coupures du gouvernment Harper”.

It is incredibly well-written. You present to us a defense of art, detailing its beauty, its value, its importance. Not only do you present art as something that is essential for us as humans – to escape the realities of a mundane life; to touch these emotions which can only last in an imagined, fabricated world; to test the psychology of the self, this human creature –, but as something that is essential for us as a people : the love of art is embedded in our culture, it is what allows us to distinguish ourselves from others, to carve our own identity as the Quebecois. Who would we be, what would we be were it not for this creative impulse and how we feel the need to share its products?

This appears to best sum up your letter and this is precisely the attitude that you, as an artist, must adopt. Is it, however, the attitude that you must adopt to see the world through as clear a lens as possible? Is it the attitude that you must adopt when speaking of politics? I do not think so. The arguments are passionate, but they are not reasonable.

‘ideology is merely a colour that we apply to our language, to our choice of words.’

My inclinations lead me to oppose any law which seeks to choose what I should consume. I share the ideals of the Enlightenment — which tend to be opposed to such behaviour, for reasons of self-determination, liberty and trust in the individual over himself –, but I also recognise that though these ideals can serve as the basis of a society, as the platform for us to build upon, this core ideology – liberalism — does not provide the justification for specific policies and it is clear that the government must sometimes interfere in “liberty” for the sake of the “greater good” even if no individual directly violates the liberty of another. One of the most blatant examples is its role in maintaining competition in the market; in the modern world, a free-market automatically pulls itself towards monopoly, which limit our choices, so even Adam Smith supported government’s role here. My favourite example to contrast the ideals of deontological liberalism with a more practical, consequentialist form of liberalism is the requirement to wear seat belts while in a vehicle, a law that is a blatant violation of individual rights, yet suffers no controversy simply because the arguments to support it are solid.

I’m a pragmatic and I’m eager to understand the different perspectives, both for what they have right and what they have wrong. I used to be more ideologically-driven, but my tendency to disagree with people simply because I can has lead me to argue while using different ideologies and I realised that ideological positions are, at their core, neither valid or invalid. They serve to tie up the body of a rational argument, to inject certain values and emotions, perspectives, but they do not provide the substance to fill a rational argument. Ideology is merely a colour that we apply to our language, to our choice of word, to our rhetoric. These positions tend to have strong links to more specific positions, but, ultimately, they have little to do with specifics.

I have now told you where I am coming from so as to alleviate any prejudice towards the position which I will undertake. I wish that I did not feel this necessary, but experience has taught me otherwise. So now, l can begin:

‘the framework of our society, whether we like it or not’

We must first ignore arguments that incorporate a view of the world as a whole, of how humans should be according to ideals, how suffering could be managed in a most efficient, utilitarian way and accept that the money we are currently funding art with, both privately and publicly, would not be sent to mothers unable to feed their babies, teenagers who must forsake education in favour of work or labourers who lack the tools to make the most of their potential, who are sometimes even caught in debt-bondage because they had to “borrow” the most rudimentary of tools, since no bank would lend them the money necessary to be independent. Whether or not it should be sent to them is another subject, but the reality is that people rather buy designer clothes, watch a film or drink beer than do anything about this; I’m not different and I can’t think of anyone I’ve met who is. The choice we have to consider here is between a ticket to a film or a beer in a bar, a CD or a t-shirt, a car or a painting and so forth. There are no starving children, needy mothers and desperate fathers for us to worry of, there is only the pleasure which consumption can bring us. This is the framework of our society, whether we like it or not.

‘the individual’

Concerning the pleasure of consumption, I believe that art is an important one. Social life (which relies on consumption, I should note) is probably the most important part of life and I suspect that most people would be happier solely with others than solely with art, assuming that it were possible to separate the two. Is it better for me to go to a pub and drink two Guinness beers while talking with others, spending 20$, or is it better for me to go to Archambault and buy a 20$ DVD to watch at home? I believe that this is a decision that I, and I alone, should make with the money which I earn and I should be able to do this free of unwarranted influences.

Most would agree with the preceding paragraph. However, by supporting subsidies to the arts one can not entirely agree with what I have said above. What essentially — but quite clearly — happens when the government subsidises art is that it takes out of this 20$, perhaps as little as 0.01$, perhaps more, perhaps even less (though in the case of alcohol it is a huge percentage). However, it takes part of this money and redirects it to entertainment which the government deems “deserving” of such money. So, rather than have one more cent to spend in a pub, the cent is taken by the government, pooled with other people’s cents and redirected towards another end. Thus, we are forced to buy certain forms of entertainment and the true costs — because it is hidden in the mass of taxes we pay — would be left unknown to us.

It is as if the government would give this money to pubs and tell them “this way, you can lower your prices and more people will come to pubs because we have forced them to pay for part of the beer already and if they do not consume your beer, they will essentially lose this money we have taken from them”.

The above is a simplified model, but it clearly represents the function of subsidies (let us forget the special alcohol tax, the bureaucracy that such a process requires and the myriad of other factors). Precisely the same things happens when a film is subsidised: part of the costs of producing a film are forced onto the whole of society and split amongst all tax-payers. Thanks to this, the film can be sold at lower costs or it can have a bigger budget without raising the costs because individuals have already paid for part of the film — unknowingly, but certainly and without choice. Consumers are misled into believing that the costs of a film is lower than it really is, just like people are currently misled into believing that the cost of producing tobacco is higher than it really is (another debate).

‘a bigger picture’

To paint a bigger picture of how the above functions, we can look at one method through which the government could subsidise visual art. It could offer to pay 10% back of what individuals spend on a painting. I buy a 1000$ painting and the government would give me 100$ back. This would create an incentive for me to buy paintings and it would create an incentive for painters to dedicate more of their time to their craft. As the price of art goes down, the quantity of art demanded goes up and the production and consumption of art goes up. This does come at a cost, though, because this 100$ has been taxed by the government, taken from individuals who will have nothing to do with this painting.

Does this not seem unfair to them? Should I not fully compensate the artist for his time and skills, just like I am expected to pay for the full costs of a delicious Indian thali, a laptop for me to write on and a keyboard to play music with? Is it really the role of the government to influence how I entertain myself?

‘what is 0.01$ per citizen?’

But what is 0.01$ per citizen? Not only does it, like votes, add up, but one injustice remains an injustice. It is not place of the government to redistribute wealth on the account of entertainment, nor is it the place of the government to tell us which form of entertainment we should choose. What forms of entertainment should be funded by how much is determined by free-market mechanisms. If an individual wants something, he will pay for it, and if he does not want it, he will not pay for it. No matter how much I value art, there is a certain arrogance in looking down upon those who wish to spend their money on things that are not sponsored by the government. Their tax money should not be used to manipulate them into consuming other things. Not only could this money be used for health-care and education, but if the individual still had it, he would have more to spend on those arts not sponsored by the government. Why should the screen writer be subsidised while the poet ignored? For the same reason that a romantic comedy is more likely to get funding than a deep, philosophical film: most people like one more than the other regardless of claims about what the “superior” form of art may be.

Consider, for example, if we were to have an opera that would interest only one thousand citizens in a society of ten million. This piece of theatre would cost 500 000$ to produce. If paid for by the audience alone, then it will cost at least 500$ to watch this piece of opera. If it is completely subsidised by the society’s government, then it will cost an average of 0.05$ per individual in the whole society. What is 0.05$ per citizen? Not much. If someone told me that, with my 0.05$, they would produce an opera, I would eagerly give it to them. It is a mere 0.05$ after all. But why should ten million people be forced to pay for what one thousand people want? Why should a miner have to pay any part of an opera in Montreal? Is there any reason for these individuals who will attend the opera to force any part of the cost onto individuals who will not attend the opera and probably do not even know it exists? I cannot think of one. It would seem to me that the desires of a thousand people would be paid for by everyone else. Even if we change the proportions, the numbers, even then I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which such a subsidy for the opera could be justified. We are not speaking of building bridges and cleaning water, but entertainment — one of the most beautiful things in the world, but still, entertainment.

‘investing public money in artistic projects’

I have mentioned a more direct form of subsidy, but there is also the possibility of investing public money in artistic projects, particularly films. I believe that the funding of films can best be done via private means because when there are financial stakes at play, people are more careful about lending to those they should be lending to and not wasting money on projects that will never be finished or that no one will want to pay to see. This also means that specialised films by unknown artists will have more difficulty getting investment, but, as much as I might like to see those films, it is true that its costs would be hard to justify; a film’s budget should be determined by how people will want to see it, not by how good it is. This is why a private industry encourages the creation of “pop” art, such as the typical action thriller with an impossible love-affair, but this is why films by the private industry are so popular. And they cannot steal the niche that will always exist for more eccentric projects; well, there is as much room for these projects as there is a desire to watch them.

‘investing in the infrastructure of a market’

Another possibility is something that I feel can better be described as investing in the infrastructure of a market. For example, it is impossible to organise a music festival such as the Montreal Jazz Festival independently from the local government (both in terms of the costs and benefits it offers) and thus it seems sensible for the local government to see itself as an enterprise, to invest in the music scene and try to make profit from it. In the case of a music festival, there are many indirect economic benefits that this can bring to the city. It did invest in the Montreal Jazz Festival, which is organised by an autonomous corporation, and this has proved itself to be a good idea. For sports, we could speak of public parcs or community centers. Producing art is as valid an economic activity as anything else and it is in Montreal’s interest to be seen as a center of art, as a city to invest in. The municipalities of the Greater Montreal Area have an economic interest in at least helping the development of the art scene as a whole, even if not of individual works of art.

‘the whole of society’

Now, I have mounted an attack on art subsidies while taking the individual’s point of view. I feel that, though the case may not be complete, the verdict is clear: the government should not subsidise art. However, it is not the right time for me to conclude my argument.

If I look at the whole of society and consider that much of our film industry is publicly funded, it is tempting to think that, the small-scale arguments aside, the fact of the matter is that if we did not have this industry, we would be less happy, and that if there were no art subsidies, there would not be this industry. Thus, if we take away subsidies for the arts, we will become less happy as a people.

However, this is a gross simplification of the matter at hand. If the clothing industry were subsidised, then we would think “But oh, how could we clothe ourselves were clothing not subsidised?”. The agricultural industry is heavily subsidised and it sometimes seems that if we were to cancel the subsidies, our food industry would collapse and we would all starve. This is true to some extent (the cost of food would temporarily rise if we suddenly withdrew subsidies), but it is not because the government has made a sector dependent on the government that this sector would not exist without government help or that this sector should be dependent on the government. If the sector is abruptly abandoned by the government, then it will collapse, but even without the courtesy of a gradual reduction in subsidies, as opposed to sudden abandonment, the sector will grow once again and as long as people want it to be there, it will exist and it will be limited only by how people sometimes choose other things. Is this not a sensible approach to the economy?

‘a focus on “choice”’

When people debate over art subsidies, they do not — or at least, should not — debate over whether or not art is “good”, but how the art market should be structured so that it be most efficient and most related to the wants of people. Those who oppose the subsidies put a focus on “choice”. I can choose between spending my money on a book, designer jeans or a DVD and the size of the market for each product will be determined by what the people have chosen to spend their money on, rather than by a government body. With subsidies, the government takes part of a person’s money and spends it on one specific project, such as on one specific film. This is an attempt to manipulate the individual’s choice in choosing what is consumed, giving priority to one project or another by forcing the individual to pay for part of the cost in advance. Currently, the government gives priority to films and documentaries over poetry. It’s OK for poets to be forced to find a “real” job, but it’s bad for screenwriters to find a “real” job? Is this fair? Do we really want the government, rather than individuals, to make such decisions?

‘the flaws of democracy’

I am not, I should note, speaking of any conspiracies. The government does not make arbitrary decisions and it chooses to subsidise films over poetry because this is what’s most popular at the moment, rather than because of some secret agenda. The government probably makes some great choices, and it probably makes mistakes, just like any private company that invests in films. However, its status as a public agency offers it certain advantages – such as being funded not by profits, but taxes – which discourage competition, the best entity to keep producers “in line”. It is also subject to the flaws of democracy. The politicians who are responsible for districts with the film industry are expected to pressure the government for more money to throw at the film industry. Lobby groups do the same thing and it all, together, only serves to reduce the independence of the film industry, increasing reliance on government aid, discouraging the creation of private corporations to invest in the film industry. Economists have shown that subsidised industries tend to grow stagnant; is this true for the arts? I do not know, but I believe that art is an impulse that we obey, that will exist as long as people have the time to think about such things. It is not something that is brought out upon the whims of government. It is more about the creator than it is about an audience; when we create for the sake of an audience, what is created is not art, but a product.

Do you really believe that it is right for us to determine how much we invest in the film industry via, say, a vote in parliament? Democracy is not an appropriate tool to determine how much we should invest in art any more than it is an appropriate tool to determine how much we should invest in the telecommunications industry; the government does not and should not decide if we are to upgrade more of our infrastructure for 3G mobile phones.

Xavier, consider how you were rejected for government funding. I am not sure how you felt about this, but I can imagine that there was some disappointment, a sense of frustration. In the context of a free market, you will be able to fund your project based on how much interest you can generate in it, how much you can convince investors that people will like your project. They may not care about you or your dreams, but they do care about producing something that people will like. If it’s clear that people will like it, then you have a certain framework to work with, build a budget and be sure — or almost sure — that you will make ends meet. After one successful project, people will start to have faith in you and will be more eager to take risks and lend you money because they have a reason to believe that they will see a profit out of it, because they have a reason to believe that other people will appreciate the end-result. If the art scene is thriving — and it can only thrive or stagnate if interest in it thrives or stagnates –, then it will be easier to find funding.

Is this not better than one government body taking all these decisions? They are perhaps not completely arbitrary, but there would be several competing options rather than one or two funded by the government (as would happen if the film industry were completely subsidised). The differences are not always big when we look at the surface, but, ultimately, it seems quite clear that it is better to eliminate all subsidies from the arts, ridding ourselves of projects which few will ever care for, museums which no one visits and to have films, albums, museums that cost no more than what people are willing to pay for. The costs of having a magnificent set and costumes needs to be justified by the interest of the public in the project, by the amount of money people are ready to pay to see the film.

‘the film industry would grow or shrink if the government ended subsidies’?

As for whether or not one specific industry, such as the film industry, would grow or shrink if the government ended subsidies, it is impossible for me to say with certainty. Imagine that it were to shrink, though, and consider what this would mean. Then consider that Ukraine lost 60% of its GDP between 1991 — the year that saw the fall of the Soviet Union, of communism — and 1991. Productivity, efficiency, quality of life went down after the fall of communism.

You might assume that if the production of art goes down after an end in the subsidies, then this is because it was bad to end the subsidies. It would be tempting to say this for the same reason that it would be tempting to say that it was bad that communism ended in Ukraine. However, though the method by which subsidies or communism may end can be bad, or the end result may, at least in the short-term, be bad, this does not mean that the decision was bad, that Ukraine should have maintained its communist economy and that we should maintain our subsidies for the arts.

Ultimately, it is understood by most economists that a free-market economy will not only produce more luxurious goods such as unique fashion — designer clothes — or innovative gadgets — such as cell phones and MP3 players –, but it will better feed itself, care for the sick and so forth, all while increasing productivity so that we need to work fewer hours and have more time to appreciate life.

This is why, since 1999, Ukraine’s economy has been soaring and though it was hard to change from a system where everything was subsidised to one where industry is private, it seems to have been for the best. It is all about linking economic activity, including the production of art, and what people want, which a free-market system does better than any system of subsidies. What people want is not always linked to what is best for them, but though it seems reasonable to employ such arguments when speaking of drug addictions, when speaking of art, I believe this to be an arrogant claim. I and only I am in a position to know if it is better for me to read poetry or novels, to listen to a pop singer or underground genres such as “post-rock” and “abstract hip-hop”, to watch a Quebecois film or a Hollywood film. It is up to me to choose between different arts, regardless of whether there’s a government stamp, and it also my choice to choose other forms of entertainment, such as sports, drugs, social life, religion or writing this letter. As long as people do not cause harm, we should not look down upon them for the way by which they entertain themselves, even if we do not believe their choices to be very stimulating.

‘it seems clear’

So, I have explained how, from the individual’s point of view (and society is made up of individuals), art subsidies are unfair. The government should not, after all, take part of my money, spend it on entertainment it believes to be “good” for me, pressuring me to choose what they want me to choose because the price has been lowered with my own money. I have taken society’s point of view, offering the example of an opera being subsidised and how it would be unfair to society. Finally, I have taken as an example a country where everything was subsidised and which much later returned to a free-market system. Much of its industry collapsed, but after eight years, with a more efficient system, its economy grew at a rate it could not have achieved and it is now wealthier than ever before, with brighter prospects for growth and artists that are free to do what they wish (granted, Ukraine still has many problems to resolve).

When looking at every level of society, and especially as a global citizen, it seems clear that it would be a wise choice to gradually eliminate subsidies for the arts and let the market thrive based on what people want. The worst that can happen is that we will have to wake up to the fact that not everyone is a lover of art, particularly art in its most peculiar forms. What I suspect will happen is that the arts industry will suffer and will, like Ukraine, come back stronger than it could ever have been without this sacrifice. Those who invest in movies will, unlike the government, work strongly to promote art abroad because they will have the motive of profit. If we want our film industry to be known throughout the world, we will have to make changes in how it is structured, we will have to stop isolating ourselves and we have to base our policies based on reason rather than emotions.

I have ignored existing policies on the matter because this is an issue that concerns every society. Art is indeed an important part of life and it is not easy to make a living out of it, but it is important to remember that the right to speak our minds is not the same as the right to be listened. The artist has the right to write, draw and play; no one will stop him. However, no one has the obligation to read, look or listen and no one should in any way be forced or pressured to read, look or listen to what this artist has produced, as is done when tax-money is used to subsidise the attempt of artists to make their work known.

Still, there is perhaps something the government can do. Why not offer to compensate parents and their children for any music lesson they wish to take and perhaps even the cost of a first instrument? Rather than encourage the dissemination of art, we would encourage the creation of it. If this system is universalised, we would help ensure that everyone in society who has a natural talent will discover it. When a person has a talent and fully realises it, they can find the strength to succeed with it.

-Dussault

PS: This letter has been slightly edited since it was first sent.

5 Comments »

1. It is mischievous to refer to “taxpayers’ money”. Once it has been extracted from the incomes of businesses and individuals, and accumulated from wherever else a government chooses to tax, it is government money.

   A good government will take some account of the various wishes of its citizens in deciding how its money should be spent. In a democracy, if the citizens are sufficiently disenchanted with how government does this, it will vote those politicians out and elect some more.

   The opera-lovers’ lobby is small but vocal in Australia and I dare say the same is true in Quebec. Making a big effort to attract government attention and government funds is not unreasonable as long as the process is transparent and it is not carried too far.

   The mood in the English-speaking world, and indeed stretching to nations as remote from world financial centres as Iceland, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904, has been over the past couple of decades that if governments got out of the way, the market will take care of everything – whether it be an adequate supply of music CDs, poetry or Guinness.

   The current financial crisis, while neither Australia nor Canada is as severely affected as many other countries, is a direct consequence of belief in the power of markets.

   So there are occasions when the markets fail to provide adequately for needs. There is virtually no service that government *must* provide although there are many services that, if government does not provide them directly, it must engage firms on its terms to do that.

   The US health care system is an example of what happens if health care is left primarily to employers and health insurance companies without governments taking an active role.

   Whether a government decides to inject money into the market for opera or for movies; for art galleries or orchestras; to subsidise poets or subsidise farmers: that shapes the kind of society that that state becomes.

   There are no grounds for saying that it is wrong for a government to put money into any of these, apart from the fact that many citizens think that it is a good idea. What you can say is that your personal preference would be that it subsidises none of them. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, eventually your government will get the message, and stop.

   In the 18th century France was considered the centre of the arts. As Napoleon disparagingly remarked of the British, “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers”.

   It would be ironic if in the 21st century, Quebec discontinued all funding and government encouragement for the arts, leaving the province’s inhabitants, standing out from the rest of Canada, as “a society of shopkeepers*.

   Comment by MikeM — April 2, 2009 @ 4:20 AM

2. I notice that in the 2007-08 budget the provincial government budgeted $405 million to be given to the City of Montreal plus another $240 million for the City employees’ superannuation fund plus other sums of amounts unspecified in the budget speech.

   In contrast to that mean-spirited parsimony, it budgeted to lavish a huge $10 million on films, http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/2007-2008/index_en.asp

   Hmm.

   Comment by MikeM — April 2, 2009 @ 4:46 AM

3. MikeM, concerning the United States, they dedicate a much larger share of their money to healthcare (roughly 15% of GDP as opposed to less than 10% of GDP for just about every other country in the world) and there is a federal insurance program; the issue is not that they are not putting enough money in healthcare — far from that –, it’s that they’re wildly inefficient in doing so and that is why I am very critical of their healthcare and I do believe that the public model is more efficient. However, I think that it’s too difficult to draw comparisons between the health or education industries and art, since from the first two sectors are needed by every citizen much in the same way, while for entertainment, not everyone has the same needs.

   For example, Radio-Canada (a francophone television network) is funded by the government. I don’t care for television, but it’s popular enough, though far less than its private counterpart, TVA. This goes to show that a private network can indeed provide these services, and apparently, in a way that is better linked to the wants of people (and let’s not speak of the popularity of US-based television shows). And even if this meant that the television industry should collapse: are sitcoms, talkshows, reality TV and dramas — typical, trashy television — a fair reason to redistribute wealth? I believe not. I believe that some things are, but certainly not for television, which is mere entertainment, often said to be one of capitalism’s most crass forms of entertainment. We might as well subsidise circus’ (no offense intended towards clowns).

   This said, you are right that we live, after all, in a democracy, but it is good to keep in mind that we live in a liberal democracy — a certain balance between individual rights and majority rights was intended –. In this case, people in Quebec are asking for the federal government to subsidise art (not that I’m happy to consider television “art”). I don’t see how that’s a federal matter, but the lobby is indeed strong and central government feels that if it taxes money to give back to us, that we will feel more “dependent” on them and thus maintain Canadian unity.

   But I’m getting sidetracked: do you believe that democracy is necessarily right, because it seems that you are using “democracy” not just to explain why these policies exist, but to justify them. Agricultural subsidies are well-supported, in some countries the mix between Church and State is encouraged by the people, but the popularity of policies can not, in itself, serve as a justification. We need to look at the economics of agricultural subsidies, we need to look at those individuals who want no part of a Church/State mix.

   Relativism is comfortable and it is even necessary for personal comfort, due to the fact that things are not always as we think they should be, but I believe that it hampers one’s motivation to find truth; we must look not just at what is popular, but at what is right, and though these, to a large extent, will match, they will not always do so.

   Thanks!

   Comment by admin — April 2, 2009 @ 12:44 PM

4. “However, I think that it’s too difficult to draw comparisons between the health or education industries and art, since from the first two sectors are needed by every citizen much in the same way, while for entertainment, not everyone has the same needs.”

   Disagree. I have never been pregnant so I have never needed obstetric services. No have I ever required an organ transplant. However I don’t begrudge a share of our taxes going to help people who do need these services.

   “For example, Radio-Canada (a francophone television network) is funded by the government. I don’t care for television, but it’s popular enough, though far less than its private counterpart, TVA. This goes to show that a private network can indeed provide these services, and apparently, in a way that is better linked to the wants of people (and let’s not speak of the popularity of US-based television shows).”

   Again, disagree. Australia has a similar organisation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, http://abc.net.au, which runs 2 TV channels, 7 sound networks (2 of which are web streaming only), an extensive web site, but its content, especially in the case of radio, is quite different from anything provided by commercial broadcasters.

   To equate the two kinds of service is like saying in the US that because there is Fox News you don’t need National Public Radio, although its audience is eight times that of Fox.

   Interestingly NPR is not government funded, but it is not provided by a commercial enterprise either. (In 2003 Ray Kroc’s widow gave an endowment of $200 million, the largest gift ever to a US cultural institution. This has given it a degree of financial stability.)

   “Agricultural subsidies are well-supported, in some countries the mix between Church and State is encouraged by the people, but the popularity of policies can not, in itself, serve as a justification.”

   Popularity is often an important element of justification, but it needs to be balanced against collateral harm that the policy might cause. Agricultural subsidies are popular among US the farmers who receive them. They are also popular among US congressmen and senators who receive large campaign donations from subsidy recipients, but they are not popular among farmers in Mexico and elsewhere who have been driven off the land by subsidised US products that are priced lower than farmers’ cost of production.

   A new crisis was subsequently created when the US introduced a subsidy for corn-based ethanol, causing the price of corn to skyrocket on world markets.

   And if there was a referendum asking US taxpayers whether they wanted $20 billion a year of government money to go mainly to a few hundred farmers, I’m not sure there would be overwhelming support.

   Interesting article on subsidies at http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=315

   Good article also on US health system reform at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

   Comment by MikeM — April 4, 2009 @ 3:57 AM

5. I concede that there’s a good case to make in favour of having a public news organisation such a the BBC and others like it.

   However, this case does not justify subsidising a sitcom.

   Comment by admin — April 12, 2009 @ 12:26 AM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website