Tag: Subsidies

The government should play no role in film or art generally, for many of the same reasons it should play no role in religion. (The government should universally prevent force and fraud, as by pursuing thieves of artworks, but in such cases the government’s actions do not bear on the nature of the art.)

Earlier this month, the Denver Post published the article by Jason Blevins,“Colorado’s new film commission chief wants to boost state’s movie-making incentives.” While the first part of the piece reads like cheerleading for the idea, finally Blevins mentions a critical study. And he quotes Harris Kenny, “Basically, this thing has become an arms race. I call it a race to the bottom.”

I wrote up some comments at the time that I thought I’d reproduce here:

Getting the state involved in cinema is a bad idea. Direct subsidies, as with the proposal to impose a special tax on movie tickets, unjustly forces Coloradans to finance films against their will. This violates not only their economic liberty but their right of free speech, which includes the right not to support ideas one opposes. Discriminatory tax programs unfairly tax some businesses more than others. The government should tax everyone the same low rate, not play favorites.

Moreover, playing favorites doesn’t pay off in the long run, because it just spurs an expensive bidding war with other states. The impact on tourism is murky at best, especially given the direction of resources away from other possible tourist activities.

If the government wants to promote business in Colorado, it should offer appealingly low taxes and fewer hassles to all comers.

Today the Denver Post published a story by Jason Blevins claiming that corporate welfare for the tourism industry is responsible for the growth of Colorado tourism. I sent him the following letter:

Dear Mr. Blevins,

Your “news” article is essentially a regurgitated news release from bureaucrats and a company paid by the state to promote tourism funding.

Why didn’t you report:

a) Longwoods [the “research firm” cited in the story] is paid by the state to promote (“research”) state tourism funding.

b) Longwoods has a history of exaggerating the impacts of state tourism funding.

c) This year [meaning the previous year] Colorado also had good snow and record population (drawing visits to friends and family).

No doubt state tourism funding has increased tourism to the state. But you’re hardly reporting the whole story.

Thanks, -Ari

Here I add some additional points.

* As the Mercatus Center reviews, people are moving from less-free to more-free states, which also generates visits by people contemplating a move here.

* State funding for tourism crowds out private efforts to advertise tourism. Tourist attractions are perfectly free to pay for their own advertising, and to coordinate with others for broader campaigns.

* On the moral level, it is wrong to force people to finance corporate welfare for tourism against their wishes. It’s the job of government to protect people’s rights, not maximize tax revenues or tourism.

***

RussK commented June 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM
All good points. I’d like to mention that I have never been affected–to my knowledge–by Colorado state tourism advertisement. Everything I know about the state, and the things that I’d do there, was learned from word of mouth. Sometimes I think that state advertisement for tourism is more for promoting the state to its own residents. For example, I’ve lived in Minnesota for nearly two years, and I have seen countless advertisements about vacationing in the state; that seems absurd to me, as I’m already here.

Today’s Denver Post publishes some thoughtful letters on “public” broadcast funding.

While my own letter did not make the mix, I though it worth reproducing here:

The Denver Post argues PBS and NPR offer good content that “most Americans” wish to fund with tax dollars. But our nation is established on the principle that the rights of the individual may not be violated by majority rule. Just as “most Americans” cannot rightly prevent an individual from speaking, so the majority ought not force individuals to finance speech against their will. Elmo does not need a bandit’s mask, he needs freedom from political meddling.

Am I the only one creeped out by Obama’s loving references to Mother Russia? He can’t get enough of his “czars,” and now we are supposed to be inspired to greatness in a “Sputnik moment.”

Yes, even the socialist Soviet Union could produce a functional space vehicle, the Sputnik. Meanwhile, the Soviet government oppressed, starved, and looted its subjects for the benefit of elite rulers. Like the Egyptian pyramids, the Sputnik was impressive, but I wouldn’t want to live under the government that produced it. Notably, to the degree that the Soviets succeeded at anything, they did so mostly by accepting help from the West, stealing intellectual property from the free world, and permitting its people to violate Communist principles by trading on the underground market.

Of course Obama did not mean to imply that we should strive to model our own efforts after those of the Soviets. Instead, he alluded to the American response of the moon missions. He may not have noticed that the last moon walk was in 1972, and the federal government has made little progress toward space exploration since then. Thankfully, private space companies are now kicking off a real space race.

Here’s what Obama said:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology –- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

In other words, Obama wants central planners to redirect forcibly seized wealth to corporate welfare for medicine, technology, and energy. Because if there’s one thing you can say about the Soviets, it’s that they proved the efficiency of central planning. But forcibly transferring wealth from those who earn it to those adept at kissing bureaucratic ass does not “create jobs” or benefit the economy; it takes resources out of the free economy to benefit the politically connected. Obama would know this if he bothered to check in with Bastiat or Hazlitt.

It is indeed telling that Obama wishes us to draw inspiration from the “achievements” of the Soviet Union. But neither our economy nor our liberties can handle much more of Obama’s Soviet-inspired controls.

***

Comment

Anonymous January 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM
One of my economics professors penned the following couplet. He called it “Cheops Law.”

Screams of Slaves cannot Diminish,
The Grandeur of the Works we Finish.

c. andrew