By economic liberal, I should be more specific in that I mean economic liberals who identify as some sort of creative type who wants to be active in the market. In other words, an artists who wants to market oneself.
Now, as a traditionalist conservative, who identifies right on a number of issues, I’ve made it no secret that economically, I’m a card-carrying “East Coast Liberal” type; I believe in regulated capitalism with a reasonable safety net to safeguard the poor. But I am also a realist. I realise that the higher the tax rates are, the less activity there will be for the private sector. Is it possible for a non-laissez-fair economy to still achieve growth? You bet it is, history proves this. But because those of us who prize creativity want to present what we come up with to the market, it would seem that the liberal economy in some form could slow that down a bit.
Have they ever done any studies on how politics affect the entertainment/creative industries? Some claim that an artist who truely goes for his self interest should be libertarian. But I disagree, because Europe has always been more artsy than the US and coincidentally, has always been more economically tempered. Also, if such a statement was true, why do you suppose the VAST majority of creative types, are at least somewhat liberal?
I think this conflict is worth looking at. Discuss!
Categorized | Affiliate Marketing 101
How Do Economic Liberals Reconcile Higher Taxes With Diminished Avenues For Creativity?
Posted on April 9, 2012.
I fail to see any correlation.
Look, current tax rates are as low as they have been in decades. I don’t see that doing wonders. I do see a government that is not adequately financed. The economy has done much better in the past, during periods of much higher taxation.
There has to be some sort of a middle ground and a compromise. If we have no government, we would have complete artistic freedom until the bullets start flying.
To answer that, I’d have to know what the situation was for artists under Eisenhower, when the tax rate was 90% for the top bracket. The problem with the arts right now isn’t so much the money as that they are being hurt by the luddites who want to condemn all the “elitist” people, like people who go to college, etc. I don’t think taxes are causing that.
One thing I do know is that down through the ages, many artists have supported themselves by attracting patrons.
USSR
I’m sorry, but how do you support capitalism, and then claim that you are a realist at the same time?
Have you ever read any Karl Marx, or scientific socialism? If you read his criticism of capitalism, you will see how almost all price transformations come from an imaginary demand for surplus value and profit.
The circulation Money-Commodity-Money in it’s self is a complete illusion. This is called the “circulation of capital” which at times ceases to be a circulation of capital in it’s self, when certain stages of circulation cannot be turned into capital, leading to the falling rate of profit. Prices in capitalism never reflect any real source of value. Prices don’t even reflect production costs, they reflect the “market” instead. After this, value ceases to be something of an objective reality, and becomes something bound to the subjectivity of man. Even Adam Smith and other bourgeois economists admit this.
You are correct about higher taxes, in that they don’t help with the profit rates of capitalists. But this is not always the case; often in capitalism you have a group of lobbyists and corporate lawyers influencing the parliamentary system. They can “pigeonhole” these high taxes by creating loopholes and tax deduction systems. The fact that you admit this one simple thing, however, says nothing about your “realism.”
I don’t see how being a liberal or conservative makes one more creative; both can be very creative, I don’t think politics has much to do with this. Actors need to have an open mind I think, otherwise they can’t become their characters. Yes, there are more liberal actors than conservative actors it seems but it depends on what is seen as art or what is viewed as creative.
One example of politics in movies is Oliver Stone’s Platoon. One of the first anti-war movies, that even won Best Picture in 1986. This movie was very controversial too and many pro-war types did not like it at all. It took Stone 10 years to get it the screen. Platoon present Vietnam soldiers as heroes, it presented them as fighting against each other as much or more than the enemy. It presented the soldiers as flawed, unsure, capable of doing horrible things. They weren’t storming up some hill with an American flag looking for glory; they were trying to stay alive on jungle maneuvers and digging themselves fox holes to lie in wait in the pouring rain. Sgt, Barnes (Tom Berenger) was the veteran killing machine, he was the hardened, take no prisoners soldier who didn’t care if his own people even got injured. At one point Barnes tells Chris and the others “Death, what do you all know about death?” Sgt Elias (Willem Dafoe) was the easy going veteran , intelligent, but he doesn’t really believe in what he’s doing anymore. “We’ve been kickin’ a** for so long it’s about time we get our a**es kicked, ” he tells Chris as they watch the stars. As Chris (Charlie Sheen) says in the ending ” In the end we fought ourselves”…Stone is a Vietnam veteran, this movie reflected many of the feelings that anti-war protesters felt.
Yes they have done studies about how politics affects the entertainment industries. These are more specifics instances where politics affected the entertainment industry.
Google: “Hollywood Blacklist: 50’s”, “Charlie Chaplin exiled”, ” Reagan and Hollywood”, ” Golden Age of Hollywood: Politics”, ” Oliver Stone: politics: movies”, ” The Red Scare: Hollywood” “WWII movies during WWII”, ” Europe: politics: movies”, ” Politics and the Adult Film Industry”, ” Michael Moore: politics: movies”, ” Stanley Kubrick: politics: movies”, ” Spike Lee: politics: movies”.