Some people think that the government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere. To what extent do you agree with this view point?

It is argued that

government

expenditures should go on something more beneficial than arts.

This

essay disagrees with the statement because they have to preserve

art

and by doing

this

they will gain much more money. Protecting

art

should not be seen as a poor investment by the

government

in charge.

This

is

due to

the fact that arts represent the history of a certain

country

and its national legacies. These are elements that we cannot forget to protect

due to

the fact that if we do not do that, every building, statue or painting is going to be destroyed or damaged.

For example

, historic buildings,

such

as the Colosseum or the Pantheon located in Rome, would not be here nowadays without the spending from the

government

to maintain them.

On the other hand

, by doing

this

governments will gain more money than the one they have spent. Since all the arts will be taken care of, people from all around the world may decide to visit a specific

country

to view its

art

.

This

is going to make the economy circulate, not only because tourists will go to specific museums or sites, but mainly because they will pay for other things,

such

as restaurants, public transport or hotels, significantly improving the wealth of the

country

. Take,

for instance

, cities like Rome that are famous for their

art

, without it, nobody would visit them and it would gain nothing,

whereas

with it Rome is one of the most visited cities and

as a consequence

, the

country

gains a lot of capital. In conclusion, I don't think that it is a waste of capital to invest in

art

, because

this

is going to prevent

art

damage and the

government

will as well gain more money than the one it spent.