Sorry I wrote that too quick. The WPA as a whole did contribute to the economy I meant to say that the arts component didn't signifigantly contribute to the economy.
Honest questions to be answered based on your opinion (or the opinion of anybody against this package): How much of the $900 billion-ish in the proposal is going towards frivolous programs that you think won't have any effect on the economy? If those programs were removed from the package, would you support it? If the answer to #2 is no, then what other reasons do you have? If the answer to #2 is yes, then is it really worth it to oppose the entire package over the frivolous portions you personally oppose?
That's what I assumed you meant. Just checking. Of course, the arts component did not turn around the economy by itself, but it did employ thousands of people and produced a huge amount of things that are still quite valuable. It was a small part of a larger response But it was not just a jobs program. The unemployment rate was amazingly high. There was little radio, no TV, and nowhere close to the library system we have today. Music and theater and art were not just done to lessen the unemployment roles, but to build communities and help people cope with the hard times. In many cases, it was the only entertainment people had. This is where the dismal science of economics breaks down. You can't put a value on what the program meant to millions of people, much less the opportunity to do work that valued the talents of those hired.
i think the over-riding problem with the package is the timing. most of the money goes toward long term spending, not short term stimulus. i stimulus is just that, a poke in the ribs, something to get the economy going again. it shouldn't be a long-term substitute for normal economic growth. fix that, and i think most of the opposition would climb on board.
I guess they didn't see the gains at the time, but that creative talent formed the foundations of an unparalleled culture industry. There's a lot of value in branding and IP that might not have been fostered in a different situation. It's harder to realize it now that people can get it for free on the net.
I think there were many including Orson Welles who found work through the arts component in the WPA. In addition it provided much more cultural relevant work which in the long run might be more important. I think artistic works left behind is one of the major components that all great civilizations are judged on. Look at the Greek tragedies, sculptures, renaissance paintings etc.
it's too bad movies made in hollywood don't actually employ people. oh wait, what's that? they do employ people? i had no idea.
I'm going to agree with Basso on this one. I don't deny that Federal One created a lot of work for artists and left a great cultural legacy but we are talking about economic stimulus. While I don't think flash in the pan stimulus like giving everyone $600 is the right way to go but I don't think stimulus as nebulous as arts funding is the way to go either. Rimrocker is right that economics is a dismal science but at the moment I think we need to consider tangible returns from this package.
The article I posted above mentions Welles and some others... John Houseman, Burt Lancaster, Joseph Cotten, Canada Lee, Will Geer, Joseph Losey, Virgil Thompson, Nicholas Ray, E.G. Marshall, Sidney Lumet, Moses Soyer, Jackson Pollock, Nikolai Sokoloff, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, Studs Terkel, John Cheever, Saul Bellow, Margaret Walker, Arna Bontemps, and Zora Neale Hurston. Not mentioned above are... Conrad Aiken, Nelson Algren, Malcolm Cowley, Edward Dahlberg, Kenneth Rexroth, Frank Yerby, Eudora Welty, Thomas Hart Benton, Grant Wood, Arthur Miller, Elia Kazan, and Charles Seeger.
I haven't looked at the specifics of the programs included in the proposal(s). I'm curious about what makes you think that most of the money goes toward long-term spending? My impression is that most of the money goes towards projects that will create jobs within the year if not sooner. Is that what you mean by long-term? Also, there are two arguments I've heard for the current proposal that make sense to me. One is that most if not all of the programs have ancillary benefits so that separate from how well they stimulate economic growth they will at least be good things for the country. In other words, even if some of them are possibly too long-term to help now, it is worth it to include them because they will still be a benefit long-term even if they aren't effective as stimulus. So is your objection that you think these programs would never be a good idea, or do you think the economy/country would actually be hurt by their approval right now? The other argument is that the scope of the stimulus needs to be sufficiently large in order to have the necessary impact. So if programs that are too long-term or otherwise won't help with the stimulus are removed from the package, would the result be enough to achieve the goal? What would you propose replace those programs removed, other more suitable programs? More tax cuts?
It's an impressive list. I think it's hard to put an exact figure on how much something like that helps the economy. There are so many people who get employed on the periphery with something like that. Even on the low end of the scale there are concession stand workers at the theater etc.
rj, nobody is arguing that arts funding should be the cornerstone of our economic recovery efforts. However, you are wrong when you imply that there would not be tangible returns from arts funding. It may be small compared to everything else, but there are tangible results as well as benefits that are harder to measure.
Cool page from the National Archives... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/new_deal_for_the_arts/index.html
...if you're gonna criticize the next guy for "Politics of Fear," you might wanna throw in a criticism or two for Bush, who played that angle roughly 8 trillion times.
Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe' [rquoter]In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%. By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package. In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover. This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now. Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82. This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression. Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%. Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s. Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.[/rquoter]
^ I love the whole "well this isn't really that bad, you should run the numbers from earlier!" argument. The economy is not the same as in the 1920's or even the 1980's so the numbers aren't really comparable. There's a lot of reasons for this, but anybody who doesn't think this really, really bad, is being delusional. The number of job losses is fantastic and happening at a record pace, combine this with stagnant middle class wages and below and you get millions of people careening towards poverty level.
There's a couple things I don't understand about the column. First, in the above quote the comparison is made to the 1981-82 recession. The 3.4 million lost jobs is compared to the jobs lost at that time and the 2.2% decrease in the labor force is said to be roughly the same. But doesn't that assume that no more jobs will be lost? Isn't it accurate to state that the current crisis is worse since it is almost a certainty that more jobs will be lost over the next few months? The second question I have is with the column's assertion that Obama's comparisons to the Great Depression are inaccurate. But Obama's remarks have only been that this crisis is the worst since the Great Depression (which means the Great Depression was worse than the current situation) and that if we don't act the current situation could end up being worse. So the fact that the numbers during the Great Depression were much worse than today's numbers don't invalidate Obama's statements at all. What am I missing?
Thank you for posting this. That was my first thought when I read basso's new screed, but now I don't have to post... and I don't think I could have done it as succinctly as you did. Thanks again.
