Outline: In his remarkably talented essay, Bastiat explained his famous Broken Window fallacy and related problems like mobilization, taxes and the arts. He questioned whether subsidies should be given to artists. His point was amazingly unsophisticated that diversion (subsidy) of wealth is not a creation of wealth. He opposed the argument those who tend to eliminate subsidies are not harming art but actually benefiting it.
Economic Concept: I believe what Batiat was struggling about is a simple comment we have already learned in class: Money doesn’t matter, it’s the resources that matters. Furthermore, I think when he says “what is not seen”, he means opportunity cost in modern economic words. What's more, the interesting paradox that those who value art so much may harm art by subsiding it reminds me of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Basically, from my opinion, the idea of this article is not so much complicated as the other articles we’ve read before. But the recurrent concept of Broken Window Fallacy in various situations is even more important for our future study of economics.
3 rhetorical questions:
i. Since we know governmental subsidy is just a diversion, rather than creation, of wealth, why there’s still some politicians arguing the inevitability of these kind of policies? Are they are insane?
ii. What’ll happen if the government stops all the subsidies to art and make the artists lie purely on the outcome of market?
iii. We all know a fallacy that paintings become really precious after the painter's death. Why will this happen?
My opinion:
With no doubts, I strongly agree with his article. The concept is easily understandable.
No comments:
Post a Comment