Some would argue that governments should allocate substantial amounts of money to cater for artists, such as singers and movie stars. However, others believe that it is unwise to do so and this hefty budgets should instead be spent on other sectors. This essay will first discuss both these views before coming to the conclusion that government legislators should balance their spending between all areas.
On the one hand, it is believed that spending large sums of money on artists’ performances, such as movies making and music, is a great way of investment. That is to say, governments sponsor arts as a way to generate profits that would contribute to increasing the local income. Artists also play a significant role in promoting the cultures and traditions of their nations through arts achievements and that is why many people consider them as the ambassadors of their heritage and their local culture. Thus, they are worth the money being spent on them. For instance, the latest Indian movie of Sharokhan yielded millions of dollars for the local government and familiarized many people with the Indian culture.
On the other hand, it is believed that government rulers should spend more on other sectors, such as building more hospitals and schools. Spending more money to promote people’s wellbeing is more beneficial because it looks after the local community and the future generation rather than frittering away money on idle art performances that are deemed to be luxurious and recreational. For example, Singapore has become one of the developed nations by dint of improving its standards of living and focusing on the healthcare sector and education.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that both of the latter views are equally valid and governments should balance their spending on human’s essentials and entertainment. Art is an integral part of our lives that amuses and inspires us, while educations and healthcare facilities are indispensable for our existence.
Some
would argue that
governments
should allocate substantial amounts of
money
to cater for artists, such as singers and movie stars.
However
, others believe that it is unwise to do
so
and this hefty budgets should
instead
be spent
on
other
sectors. This essay will
first
discuss both these views
before
coming to the conclusion that
government
legislators should balance their
spending
between all areas.
On the one hand, it
is believed
that
spending
large sums of
money
on artists’ performances, such as movies making and music, is a great way of investment.
That is
to say,
governments
sponsor
arts
as a way to generate profits that would contribute to increasing the
local
income. Artists
also
play a significant role in promoting the cultures and traditions of their nations through
arts
achievements and
that is
why
many
people
consider them as the ambassadors of their heritage and their
local
culture.
Thus
, they are worth the
money
being spent
on them.
For instance
, the latest Indian movie of
Sharokhan
yielded millions of dollars for the
local
government
and familiarized
many
people
with the Indian culture.
On the
other
hand, it
is believed
that
government
rulers should spend more on
other
sectors, such as building more hospitals and schools.
Spending
more
money
to promote
people
’s
wellbeing
is more beneficial
because
it looks after the
local
community and the future generation
rather
than frittering away
money
on idle
art
performances that
are deemed
to be luxurious and recreational.
For example
, Singapore has become one of the developed nations by dint of improving its standards of living and focusing on the healthcare sector and education.
In conclusion
, I
firmly
believe that both of the latter views are
equally
valid and
governments
should balance their
spending
on
human’s essentials
and entertainment.
Art
is an integral part of our
lives
that amuses and inspires us, while educations and healthcare facilities are indispensable for our existence.