""Real artists, musicians, and writers aren't valued in society. Arts, music, and literature programs are cut from our schools unless you live in a wealthy school district"."
Don't these two sentences seem at least a little contradictory to you? If wealthy people pay for such programs for their kids...surely they value them.
My point is simply that the very fact that people can and do pay for these things is pretty strong evidence that they are valuable. People rarely voluntarily buy that which they do not value.
"Also, in the mainstream marketplace artists aren’t valued as they once were."
As measured how?
Actually, a dollar has the same value regardless of how many of them you have; they are worth one dollar. And if they have any value at all, the very fact that someone spends a bunch of them on something proves that they value that thing.
I'm not asking you to define what art is. I'm asking how you come to the conclusion that artists aren't valued as much as they used to be.
It's also a very simple concept that 1 dollar has a value of 1 dollar. The issue here is that "value" has multiple meanings. Economically, value is usually measured in units of money.
That does not demonstrate that they value a dollar differently. It demonstrates that they do not have command of the same number of dollars.
It's true that the buying power of the dollar changes over time; that is not the same as saying that it's value is different for different people. To a poor man, a dollar is worth one dollar. To a rich man, that same dollar is worth...one dollar.
So your evidence is mostly anecdotal? To be clear, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, I'm just making sure I understand your claims and the basis behind them.
Chuck Cheesman
AKingsbury
Cindy