A.) Here is a classic example of the Broken Window fallacy at play. M. de Lamartine, a Frenchman who is a strong advocate for theater and arts subsidies, gets absolutely blasted by Bastiat who argues that public spending does not just make everyone richer; the money has to come from somewhere. Subsidizing the arts industry means that in effect your desubsidizing other, more important industries (examples given were carpentry, blacksmiths, etc.). So, arguing that this stimulus creates lots of jobs is incorrect because you're using money from taxpayers who are losing these 60,000 francs which are going to the prospective painters, actors, etc. I think it's interesting how you can apply this fact to the economy today when you hear about the economic stimulus. It just makes me think a little bit about where that money is really coming from.
B.) During this time, which industries do you think required the most subsidies and why?
Where did these subsidies come from? Were the more successful businesses the ones that ran off of pure profit?
Did taxes go up when subsidies were required to stimulate new/struggling industries?
C.) The reason for reading this article would have to be its application of the Broken Window fallacy to the arts industry in France and how even back then there were economists who understood that this stimulus money had to come from somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment