Heres a dumb question about 2 adams

[Paul Butzi]

If you believe that the Government is inherently inefficient

Well, I see it like this:

Let's consider two options for delivering money to an arts organization or artist:

1. I write a check for $100, and the next time I am personally in contact with the artist or organization, I hand them the check. Amount delivered to the arts: 100%

2. I pay $100 bucks in taxes. Some number of bureaucrats, paid some salary, deliberate about who should get the money, how much they should get, and when they should get it. The arts organization pays some staffer (or gets some volunteer) to spend time writing up the grant proposal, which is then reviewed by another staff member. Eventually the government, which has held onto the money for some period of time, sees fit to part with whatever remains - let's be generous and say they cough up 90%. Then we deduct the costs of the grant proposal, review, etc. on the receiving end, and we'll say that's another 1%. So now the organization has 89 bucks, after waiting for the money for some long time. 1% is probably low, since most federal money comes with strings which increase overhead (like visits from inspectors, jurors, etc.)

So the way I see it, it's always going to be more efficient for me to just give the money directly.

[jhogan]

I'm a day behind, but I couldn't let this slip by unchallenged:

"Apparently we've been running out of resources and consuming so much that we should be into negative numbers by now, but yet inspite of the dire predictions somehow new resources keep being found and people (and markets) sort things out. And inspite of all the doom and gloom, we now have more people than every, living in more peace and prosperity, with higher literacy and potential, than in the combined history of mankind. Hardly the scenario predicted by so many ecologists in the 60s, 70s, and 80s."- Mr Petronio

Certainly the argument could be made that "we now have more people than every,(sic) living in more peace and prosperity, with higher literacy and potential, than in the combined history of mankind. " This, however, could easily be explained by the simple fact that there are more people living on the planet then ever before. Whether the percentage of such lucky people has increased is far more doubtful, and less likely to be proven by empirical data.

Which leads me to my main point: People holding this viewpoint often betray their myopia in such assertions, and here Mr Petronio is no exception. Certainly, wanton exploitation of the planet's resources hasn't caused a catastrophic decline in human living conditions since the "60s, 70s, and 80s," and may not in the 00's, 10s and 20s.

BFD.

What about the same decades in the next century? And the one after that? How about a thousand years from now? What if markets fail to "sort things out" between now and then? Of course, it's always possible the deity of your choice will come back and rejuvenate things, but what if s/he/it is busy for a while?

The beloved idea that land/air/water can be "owned" and exploited by the "owners" is a dangerous one. At best, we're allowed a form of lease, and it's up to the lessee(s) to care for it during their lifetime(s), not only for their own children, but also for the children of others. For, as history proves, when times get desperate, it is the children who suffer most.

[tim atherton]

Why not fund the war in Iraq like that as well? You could sort of sponsor a soldier - like those world vision orphans.

Then a. those who didn't want to pay for it wouldn't have to and b. every dollar spent would go direct to each grunt to buy new Kevlar or spare hummer tires and you could just cut out all the pesky and presumably very expensive and top heavy bureaucracy at the Pentagon.

Or maybe everyone who wanted could buy a new thermal tile for NASA to keep the space shuttles flying? Cut out all the middle men and contractors making money of the government pork barrel. Or you could bid on ebay on their behalf to buy the parts they need to track down to keep their ancient computers and electronic systems going (no kidding - that's what NASA has to do - but I bet any of us are far better at getting the best price on ebay than some short sleeved, pencil protected engineer in the NASA bureaucracy).

[Oren Grad]

it's a vibe i pick up on a lot. not from most people, but comes up in a lot of the "damn kids these days don't appreciate anything" threads. there's a frequent suggestion that you're not doing anything worthwile unless it involves something old, dificult, or expensive. the same kind of snobbery that was evident when film was invented, when small formats were invented, when digital cameras were invented ... all things that make the endeavor less exclusive.

OK, that's a little clearer. Fair enough. I'll just say that the reason I don't want the government paying for the arts is not because it's elitist or inefficient, but simply because I don't think it's a proper function of government. I find the notion that government should be a general-purpose problem solver that sticks its fingers into every conceivable domain where somebody perceives that society could be improved to be pretty chilling, actually. No entity should have that kind of power or authority.

Tim's right, that's a fundamental matter on which we'll end up agreeing to disagree. But I will vigorously dispute any claim that that it's obvious that government should support the arts, or that anyone who's civilized cannot possibly think otherwise.

[John_4185]

it's a vibe i pick up on a lot. not from most people, but comes up in a lot of the "damn kids these days don't appreciate anything" threads. there's a frequent suggestion that you're not doing anything worthwile unless it involves something old, dificult, or expensive. the same kind of snobbery that was evident when film was invented, when small formats were invented, when digital cameras were invented ... all things that make the endeavor less exclusive.

Kids these days, I tell ya. I'd give your opinion more credibility if you had written it in home-made ink using a quill, or as I had to do as a Neadertal kid - chisel it in stone. But worse was Public Speaking classes - we hadn't developed a functional larynx yet!

But you put your finger on something that has been very clear for a long time. Look at the consistency of a few authors' posts that always have expressions such as "My (insert spendy camera hardware here) - in other words, a clear emphasis on ownership, advertising. It's okay, but not very interesting. So who's taking inventory?

[Paul Butzi]

And while we are at it, what's with this Public Library thing?

Well, the library is free for the taxpayers to use. This is unlike NEA funding, which collects money from every taxpayer, but only the wealthy taxpayers get to enjoy the art.

I'm a big supporter of theatre. But it galls me no end that the cost of tickets (ignoring pay what you can nights and similar attempts to level the field) is as high as it is. All the theatres have student rates, etc. but the fact of the matter is that it's fairly expensive to go and enjoy all that federally subsidized art, and thus the audience is pretty much the upper end of the economic spectrum. I think that's bad for the theatre, and I think it's appalling that when everyone is talking about how the rich are getting more than their fair share, this particular inequity gets a pass.

In comparison, the poorest family in the town where I live can go to the library, get a library card, and enjoy the very same service and access to literature that a wealthy guy can. Beyond that, at least at my library, there are lots of services directed at disadvantaged folks - things like reading programs for disadvantaged kids, literacy programs for adults, ESL classes for the Hispanic immigrants in the area, computers for folks to use.

If you don't see a difference between the two, well, I don't see much point to arguing about it.

[paulr]

"1. I write a check for $100, and the next time I am personally in contact with the artist or organization, I hand them the check. Amount delivered to the arts: 100%"

Paul, I just applied for a New York Foundation for the Arts grant. I figure my chances of getting it around one in a hundred. Not great, but it was worth applying for.

What are my chances of getting a big check out of you??

[Frank Petronio]

Less than zero from me, cuz aren't you using an Ebony?

I'll be damned if I'd give doe money to an ebony user!

[Frank Petronio]

As for Tim's suggestion that the Pentagon is inefficient, well, duh. Why do you think Rumsfeld got so much flack for trying to reorganize the military to fight a modern war instead of preventing the Bolsheviks from invading Germany?

[John_4185]

If you don't see a difference between the two, well, I don't see much point to arguing about it.

Oh, Paul, I swear you are in humorless mood today. Twice you misunderstood me. Read: Facetious. For gosh sake, I work in a library. (Did you know that the word FacEtIOUs has all the vowels in proper order? The things a janitor learns in a library.)

If you can't see that, well, I'll stop.

BTW, we have three libraries in our little town of 30,000 and an awesome state-wide library network for loans. Our smallest public library has a pretty darned good photography collection, too. Brag, brag, brag.