I’m thinking of adding a policy to the public services section where the government subsidies art. maybe also another one for sport. here’s what I’m thinking:
The arts subsidy will please liberals. It will slightly upset capitalists, as its a subsidy and against their principles. Maybe it will upset the poor and socialists, who feel there are better uses for government money? In the UK, most arts subsidies are spent on the opera, and are thus popular with the wealthy. Is this normal?
If we assume arts subsidies include film, this could be a way of promoting national culture. should this be good for international relations? Should arts subsidies stimulate a film industry and have a long term positive effect on GDP?
A sports subsidy will please parents slightly, as it means better sports facilities for the kids. it will also improve lifespan slightly by encouraging healthy kids. It will have a slight negative effect on capitalists because of the whole subsidy thing. Will a sports subsidy reduce crime slightly by getting kids off the streets?
What do you think?