Reason.com: Put a question to any two economists and you will get three answers back. That old joke is not very funny, and it is even less accurate. On some topics economic analysts are, if not unanimous, at least largely in accord.
Example: sports stadiums. As the St. Louis Fed pointed out earlier this year, 86 percent of economists agree that state and local governments "should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises." Study after study has found that giving public money to pro sports teams brings little to no return on the investment—and sometimes actually induces negative effects on the local economy.
1 comment:
I understand, from a designer and creator's point of view, the attraction of film subsidies. It is a nice incentive to film in certain states (like the article stated, in Georgia). But it seems like now, more often than ever, film producers and directors hold aesthetic over price. They look for locations that look right, rather than locations that will cost them the least amount of money. Well funded productions anyway. I do not think local governments will reap that many benefits from small independent film productions anyway. The point is, film subsidies are a waste of local governments' resources. Virginia especially could reallocate the money that is going towards film subsidies towards relieving the opioid epidemic of coal country. Or towards the public education system. It seems like partisan and non partisan budgetary and policy review boards agree that film subsidies are a waste of time. Yeah that's it.
Post a Comment