Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Governments should not provide financial support to artists For example painters writers or musicians and should let them support themselves Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer

Government funding is sometimes limited, and deciding where to spend this money can become debatable. From my perspective, governments do not need to support artists financially, and the artists should take care of themselves.

First, some might argue that professions like artists create social values and thus should receive financial support from the government. The reason might be that some masterpieces from artists can bring spiritual delight to the general public. But every profession can be beneficial in one way or another – teachers can educate future generations; waiters make dining out more enjoyable. If the government responds to this argument by subsidizing every sector of the economy, it will hardly have much money left to finance more valuable or urgently needed projects. Government expenditure needs to serve the public as a whole because it mainly comprises taxation from the public. The government should aim to reduce poverty and promote sustainable economic growth, which, in turn, reduces poverty. For example, providing affordable childcare services to young parents can allow both parents to work full-time, reducing their financial difficulties. Or, subsidizing electronic vehicle industries to encourage more people to use this cleaner way to travel can protect the environment and create many new jobs for people to earn an income. Both these practices have far-reaching and more realistic benefits than offering financial aid to artists.

Second, artists can be self-sustainable. For each occupation, a market equilibrium balances cost incurred and potential return. For instance, when so many people become artists for whatever reasons, the supply of artworks, such as music or paintings, will increase. One consequence is that since more people are offering the same services to their potential customers, competition will drive down the price, and artists will need to coup with a lower income. Also, as more artworks are in supply, the novelty consumers have when seeing one of these will reduce, potentially lowering their market value. Both these results reduce rewards for artists, discouraging more people from entering artistic fields or forcing some artists to change to a more lucrative profession. When this happens, fewer people will be full-time artists, reducing competition and hence improving their income. This cycle balances the investments made to become an artist and the benefits of being an artist. Therefore, the labor market adjusts the lives of artists, and almost all other professions, making government intervention redundant.

To conclude, the government should spend its money on more beneficial projects rather than offering financial aid to artists, and market equilibrium, not government funding, protects artists financially.