[racktash]

Art and culture is extremely valuable, but is often not profitable / sustainable. Banking is important to society too, but it's already well compensated!

[AlexandrB]

I think there's a danger in removing art from any kind of market mechanisms because it can lead to some very navel-gazing output that appeals to very few. In the long term, this kind of art would lead to making this kind of UBI unpopular and would undermine the whole thing. Not a lot of taxpayers are going to be on board with paying someone to can their own feces[1] or submerge religious icons in piss[2] for example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

[account42]

Art and culture is extremely valuable. But the kind of art and culture supported by government programs tends to be less so.

What would also be much more valuable than creating art is making that art available to everyone including for the purposes of producing more art. If the art subsidies came with a condition to release the art to the public domain then I would be much more for domain-specific funding.

[cm2012]

Being an EMT is incredibly important to society but poorly compensated, why not them?

[racktash]

Both are important, both are unprofitable, both (in my opinion) deserve public funding.

[whimsicalism]

let’s decide the proper compensation for all jobs based on how much ordinary people feel it is noble/valuable and then pay people accordingly.

food commodity trading? idk sounds speculative and ignoble to me, probably don’t need it - more money for the artists!

[racktash]

Strawman.

Some things need funding despite being unprofitable. Not everyone will agree, but I believe art/culture (including often unprofitable forms thereof) are worthwhile, and should thus receive public funding (to some degree). I believe the same about justice, policing, education, research etc.

None of this rules allowing a freeish market to operate where doing so "delivers the goods".