Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
In regards to your "what?" question, roachboy means that when it comes to market problems, the right often declares there really is no problem...except when it comes to agitating members of one class against another class.
|
As a conservative I have no ax to grind with "rich" people, "poor" people, or anyone in between. My view is, let me do my thing and you do yours on a level playing field. I have no problems with providing assistance for children, the old, and the disabled, nor do I have a problem with temporary safety nets for people in financial difficult situations. You call that conservative view "agitating members of one class against another?"
Quote:
|
In regards to your statement about the history of market economies, if you *have* actually taken econ 101 then you should know the definition of a market economy. No, man has not been involved in a market based economy since pre-historic times and it certainly didn't develop when our pre-historic (or anyone else, for that matter) ancestors decided to share or barter (trade) goods. Each of those are distinct economic systems.
|
I must have missed that day in class. Based on your view, when did humanity develop the first "market economy?" Where?
Quote:
|
Finally, in regards to your bewilderment over how anyone can distinguish sponsorship of NASCAR from sponsorship of the arts, even though he wrote this in his original post so you must have missed it, the main problem is in the fact that NASCAR cars, tools, any merchandise can sustain logos plastered all over them without ruining the aesthetic for most people.
|
When I was a kid, my grandmother watched the Lawrence Welk Show, sponsored by Geritol (I will never forget, the sponsorship is plastered in my brain), she seemed to enjoy the show inspite of the blatant commercialization of Welk's "art". So, I continue to be bewildered.
I am also bewildered by his inability or unwillingness to address the question of what advice he would give a young person presented with a delimma between choosing a career in racing, perhaps leading to NASCAR and ballet. In-spite of the premise seeming to come from a Disney movie, I know many young people who may face these kinds of choices. The ability to compare is essential, I still don't get the point.
Also, as an "artist" I am surprised by the lack of imagination or the inability to see through the "noise" and see beauty in something like NASCAR as an art form. Andy Warhol, as an "artist" was not blinded by commercialism:
Quote:
This is the case with all corporate sponsored activities, as far as I know, whether it be cycling, basketball, or even complete stadiums.
Would you have enjoyed your Phantom of the Opera outing as much if Lenovo, Coke, and Toyota logos were plastered all over the actors' clothes?
|
This is clearly a case of a singular focus. Yes, NASCAR cars have logos, but that is what makes NASCAR unique. Just like an Andy Warhol print, in my view a NASCAR car is a work of art. I would not expect performers on Broadway to appear as a NASCAR car does. But, if $150 ticket was reduced to a $50 ticket and I had to endure a few sponsorships before the performance, I would want to save the money and I might be more inclined to see more Broadway. I am not sure how you folks don't see that.
Quote:
|
Also, I don't think the point was that if you aren't exposed to arts in education you won't learn about whether you enjoy them or not! The point was that all of those activities you learned to enjoy later in your life would not have had playwrights or chefs to make the things you want to consume if they hadn't been exposed to them as legitimate career trajectories when they were in school.
|
Perhaps the problem is that some people can not sell what they believe in. Take NASCAR, basketball, football, rap, fire fighting, etc, have no problems getting young people interested and parents willing to spend time and money. Being real, we both know some activities prefer to be highly restrictive.