The first I heard of it was here, where there was a piece about how this guy had been mocking this guy, guy number two being Tate Galleries boss Nicholas Serota. Serota faces cuts in state funding for The Arts, i.e. for himself and his enthusiasms, and he is not happy. He calls this “blitzkrieg”, clearly having never heard of Godwin’s Law. So, the pips are starting to squeak. Maybe this Cameron chap is not quite as bad as Perry de Havilland says.
The last time I read the Guardian very regularly was in those far off days before the internet, for its cricket coverage. Critics of pieces like Serota’s might be allowed about one or two short letters, next to three or four longer and very supportive ones, or ones claiming that the idiot argument in question wasn’t idiotic enough. How times have changed. What struck me most about this week’s Serotage was the number of commenters who weren’t impressed by his arguments.
Which can be summarised as: The Arts is (a) good, and (b) good in particular for “the economy”. But if The Arts is so good for the economy, why does The Arts seem to depend for its very survival on state subsidy. If the economy loves The Arts so much, why can it not pay for it? Cutting subsidies for The Arts would be a mere pinprick for The Arts if The Arts was economically successful, not a blitzkrieg.
Subsidised art – The Arts – does indeed depend upon a continuing flow of subsidy, but art itself is a far sturdier thing. Many commenters said how much they dislike The Arts of the sort that Serota presides over. Fair enough. I dislike Serotanism not so much because I hate The Arts as because I love art, and think that The Arts gets in the way of art far more than The Arts contributes to art, in much the same kind of way that I think subsidised car companies were bad for the British car industry, or that I think that NASA has got in the way of and continues to get in the way of space exploration. The Arts crowds out art, in other words. Serota thinks that art depends on The Arts. Well, as several of those commenters pointed out, he would, wouldn’t he?
If I understand Mr Cameron’s attitude correctly, he will be rather pleased about this particular squeaking by this particular pip. You see, he will say to the poor, in answer to their squeaks about the cuts they are now facing. Consumers of and practitioners of The Arts are also suffering. We are spreading the pain.
But will Cameron contrive any kind of economic recovery, or merely a softer-than-might-have-been landing into the swamp of permanent economic stagnation, followed by more sinking? Are these cuts really cuts as in less state money, or merely cuts as in not as much of an increase in state money as had been hoped for? My opinion about that being that the first can, for those directly involved, feel a lot like the second, as more people get sucked into the state money business and away from having productive lives. Between them, all these people do go on getting more and more, but for many an individual state money chaser, it may really be a cut. And even dashed hopes must feel a lot like genuine cuts, if you have already spent the money you had hoped to get.
Often these stories are not backed up by an example of how art (or anyhting else for that matter) can succeed without state funding.
This is a great article by Simon Heffer where art has not only survived but blossomed without state help. In addition the member of the Orchestra know they are productive and providing a valuable service for the simple reason that people value it enough to pay for it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8038171/The-sweet-sound-of-a-self-sustaining-orchestra.html
At the level of local government these are real cuts. My own council is cutting £40m by Christmas with another £120m or so to follow. How much of that money will end up in nice cosy pet projects for national politicians to crow about I don’t know, but on the performance of the past shower and the present lot, I’m not optimistic. The abolition of many of the quangos for example will not see the state doing less – they are simply taking those activities back into government, where they will continue but will be much less visible.
Brian, there is also the point about how, as Sean Gabb has trenchantly put it, The Arts are a passion of what he calls the “Enemy Class”, or that Ian B has called the “proggies”. The discomfiture of this class, and more important, the defunding of it, is a key social/cultural thing.
Ironically, of course, Cameron and his circle might be thought of as classic examples of this class; I don’t know much about Cameron’s interests in painting, sculpture, music or literature, but I’d bet that he is considered to be “one of us” by the pro Arts Council bunch. But perhaps he might be trying to revive an older, more creditable tradition of encouraging patronage of arts by wealthy individuals, as happened in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Then again, I may be reading too much into all this. I usually do.
Well said Brian!
It really isn’t about the money as much as the culture of the thing. The money is a drop in the ocean.
One of the things that worries me abot the Camercuts is the extent to which they will be cosmetic. Example:
Minister says such and such costs 200m a year and we’re going to half that. Sounds impressive if you think a million is a lot of money. It isn’t in the context.
Do you see what I’m getting at? It’s like in America a lot of people believe Bush got them into the financial mess with his wars. Expensive, yes but if they were pissing money up a wall his assorted “social programs” were using a fire-hose.
Its hard to see the argument against politically-based
subsidies when all the political parties in this country aim to featherbed homeowners with ever-increasing house prices to keep their votes: older homeowners get a tax free capital gain in their principal asset; younger ones get the promise of the same in return for shelling out circa 100k upfront for the land under their residences.A good range of arts venues does much to enrich a town, private sector investment having fled ,so maintaining them with a revenue-neutral tax on the land values would seem in order,since they and other public sector assets such as schools do much to enhance land values.
DBC is a troll or mad (or possibly both). I think if he continues to want to drag every issue onto his chosen obsession about taxing land, then it is time to administer the bullet. Fuck off.
I case anyone on this board thinks I am being rude (as this person has complained on another thread just now), I really think it is the height of bad manners to persist in pushing a theory (such as DBC Reed does) on any topic, however supposedly remote.
Coming next: land tax as the cure for AIDS and bad breath. (Sarcasm alert).
I agree Johnathan, it’s terrible when people just keep pushing their pet cranky theory, which reminds me, did you know that Cromwell’s Puritan regime are often defended as being great sponsors of the Arts and Sciences? ;o)
On a more serious note, Bastiat addressed this in one of his essays (I think it’s the class “That Which Is Seen…” regarding state funding for opera houses; the same arguments were used by the statists back then too. Provides employment… enriches the culture of the nation… yada yada…
Isn’t it amazing that, wherever we go, Bastiat got there first?
Why is he not better known?
I think he’s one of the greatest economic writers who ever lived. If I wanted to deprogramme the population from leftist economics, I’d set Bastiat as obligatory study for every school student. I know, statist. I’m just saying…
But Johnathan, isn’t LVT a good way to get art to the masses? After all, if you make the Arts Community pay LVT, it will flee from places of high land value, where the evil rich live, to the squalid housing of the poor lumpenproletariat.
Or something like that. Charge snow the LVT, and it will only fall on land that has no economic value, and not on roads that, as a transport link, provide a key economic value. 🙂
Because he was right, Laird. Everybody’s heard of Marx.
Unfortunately true, Sam.
In point of simple fact ,the discussion was ( a long time ago) about the Arts’ claims to public subsidy so in exploring ways in which a subsidy might be justified and effected, I was not dragging anything in by the scruff of its neck . I suggested that, if the arts had an economically beneficial effect, this might show up in enhanced land values in towns which fostered them , in which case a land tax to support them might not be inappropriate.This was greeted with personal abuse .
I have visited this blog from time to time to listen to reasoned criticism of long held beliefs: I have never got any reasoned criticism.
The trouble with poor Mr DBC is that his attempt to gatecrash the art issue via his land value obsession fails, simply because it is a bit outragous for a local council, say, to build some library or art gallery and then claim that it has raised the land value of the neighbouring area. Well, maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. If the local landowners really did feel that such things would be good for business, then they should help finance the thing (which might indeed happen). No need for any taxes.
Most “public goods” justifications for arts subsidies are questionable anyway, if only because we all have different views as to the worth of a piece of art, and it is simply not possible to arrive at a simple monetary value that might enable us to decide on a tax policy.
I could recast my last comment thus: if a council, say, wants to make the case for some item of spending (such as subsidizing art), then how is it going to be possible to conclusively prove that the value of land in the surrounding area (which begs the question of what is meant by “surrounding area” (how to know what the boundary is?) has been boosted by the arts spending not by something else? How to separate out the different forces at work on land values?
In truth, I can just see how people like DBC and his ilk will use landvalues to justify endless government spending on whatever happens, in their view, to be beneficial to the public realm, always claiming that it has “raised” the value of the land and that the evil landowers should be jolly grateful and pay up. Well, there are things that private businesses do that benefit their neighbours, but they don’t expect a payment for their “gift”.
DBC, Bastiat showed plainly enough that subsidised arts don’t create aggregate benefit, so the point is moot.
@IB Thames Modern does n’t get massive numbers of comparatively wealthy customers to the area? Edinburgh does n’t benefit in aggregate from its Festival?
@JP Why do you have to disaggregate who contributes what to a net rise in land/property values?As long as the tax take covers any subsidies, the town is showing a profit.BTW if a private sector organisation improves the area , it will only do so if it makes an operating profit as well as improving its asset value.
If by that ilk you mean Churchill,Tolstoy,JS Mill etc I am proud to be associated with such worthies.
@IB Thames Modern does n’t get massive numbers of comparatively wealthy customers to the area? Edinburgh does n’t benefit in aggregate from its Festival?
@JP Why do you have to disaggregate who contributes what to a net rise in land/property values?As long as the tax take covers any subsidies, the town is showing a profit.BTW if a private sector organisation improves the area , it will only do so if it makes an operating profit as well as improving its asset value.
If by that ilk you mean Churchill,Tolstoy,JS Mill etc I am proud to be associated with such worthies.
DBC, please read That Which Is Seen And That Which Is Not Seen.t.
“Edinburgh doesn’t benefit in aggregate from its Festival?” is an appeal to only that which is seen.
DBC, I am sure that a lot of galleries, etc, get lots of rich donors and sponsors. Great, and of course there is nothing wrong with firms sponsoring a gallery (although their shareholders might prefer it if a firm carried out its basic fiduciary duty of maximising shareholder returns, rather than organising corporate jollys for their directors).
But on the issue of paying for art via taxes and land values, then if a festival, say, really does boost the land values of an area, then let the organisation responsible make that claim in advance of the event, and spell out that it will levy a specific tax to pay for the festival, and then put this to a vote of landowners who are, after all, going to be affected.
I don’t see why on earth a general tax should be imposed on those – including landowners – in an area where a festival is going on. A lot of people in Edinburgh may enjoy that city’s festival and benefit from it; then again, I know quite a few who regard it as a nuisance, etc. Some may not care either way. It seems to me that your point of view starts with the assumption that X benefits Y, therefore Y should be made to pay, whether they supported X or not.
The danger with your argument about land taxes and art is that I can see it providing a bottomless justification for all manner of government spending schemes which allegedly raise land values. In truth, the simplest option for those who want art spending is to pay for these things from their own pockets or persuade others to do so. Art is not, in my view, a collective good requiring that people be forced to part with some of their money, which is what you are arguing for.
Back to Mr Serota, his discomfiture is encouraging.
@JP
If your aim is to be beastly to Mr Serota,then things are going your way. A hollow victory it may prove to be.
But art does have a rejuvenating effect on de-industrialised area as can be seen in Bilbao or I would argue Texas where the influx of techies to work in computing has been assisted by the growth of the music industry and to some more limited extent by film-makers like Wes Anderson,Linklater and Rodriguez.If you are going to move to find work you may as well go somewhere where you can get some music and something to do in the evening.There is a whole web-site called if I remember Creative Class very much under the influence of Richard Florida which advocates encouraging creative people including artists to move into towns going nowhere industrially to create a kind of vortex (to use an old term) of small businesses and service industries.
If the fear is that Big Bad Government will raise land taxes to subsidise things that don’t in fact boost land values then the pudding is in the eating.Stop doing it.
Of course the arts are a poor example.If the BBG builds new roads and railways,this will put up land values many times over the cost of the infrastructure (see Jubilee Line and Don Riley’s book)so a land tax will recoup the cost..Infrastructure for free!
LVT is a useful tool in the bag ;not a cure-all; really boringly bleedin’ obvious; not a provocation to personal ire.We have property taxes already,you know.
All that it involves is shifting property taxes from the value of buildings plus land to land only.A minor amendment .
DBC,
Cart/Horse misarrangement. If you got the cash in town people will want to spend it on whatever they find fun. In a rational world this would result in the influx of art galleries, theatre, music venues to cater for that need and make a few bob for themselves. That is how it has always worked. Why do we need the government to “help”? Oh, yes, I forget! We need the government to help with everything now don’t we? Well, a few months back I put up some shelves all by myself and Ed Balls and Dave Milliband didn’t turn up to pass me screws or hold my spirit-level.
Johnathon said:
Precisely this argument is used to support massive regeneration projects, like Bilbao. It is used in the US whenever the local baseball or football team want a new stadium, it underpins Government involvement in virtually all Olympic Games (Atlanta being the only modern exception I think). Most times it is garbage and special pleading. Occasionally there is a genuine knock on effect. However identifying which will work and which won’t – in advance – is well nigh impossible.
DBC, yes we do indeed have property
taxes already. So why keep agitating
for ever more?
Ian, well said. Governments are
always trying to create excuses
for such projects. As usual the
taxpayer gets stiffed.
@JP The idea is to shift from a council tax on buildings plus land to a tax on land only on a revenue-neutral basis.
It is actually you who are becoming obsessive about LVT.
No, DBC, I am just obsessive about squashing really, really bad ideas, such as state central planning, land nationalisation (ie, your ideas), Keynesian deficit financing, protectionism, etc. It is true that I have become quite fascinated by your sort of ideas because, dear fellow, you will bring it up on all manner of subjects, all the time. For you, land tax is a sort of magic bullet solution for so many issues of public policy, as in the case of art subsidies. You raised the issue, remember. (You should also have enough sense of humour to realise when we are trying to pull your leg a bit).
Back to the subject of art, consider what happens, as Ian said, when a local or national government proposes some great project, such as an arts festival, or sports event such as the Olympic Games in 2012. Great gobs of public funds are demanded to be spent, and people who share your general outlook pipe up and say, “But the value of the land in the area will go up as a result so let’s tax that and we can defray the cost that way”; then of course there are all the usual budgetary overruns, etc, etc, and what happens if this supposed uplift in land values does not occur to extent necessary? Who gets to pay for any shortfall, hmm?
You guessed right: it is the general taxpayer. And this is pretty much the problem with when things such as Art attain this sort of mystical “public goods” status. Your mistake is very much like the error that Gordon Brown used to make when he referred to public spending as “investment” in the hope that this might make voters less suspicious. Well, we all learned what happened in that case.
Final repetition: I do not see LVT as panacea; it is a useful means of recouping money spent on schools,roads ,railways and art galleries.It involves a minor amendment to Council Tax.
You might consider that I am winding you up before exploding with outrage in such a highly gratifying way at the merest mention of your numerous betes noire.
A good post. And good comments.
DBC, you may not see LVT as a panacea, fair enough, but you seem to raise it in every single instance of such public policy. Give it a miss occcasionally. You’ll find it quite liberating.