If selling their art lifts the city of Detroit out of the debt that it is in, it would be nonsense to not do that. Art is an important part of culture and society, but rebuilding one of the biggest cities in America takes precedent.
“…has estimated that the core of the collection would sell for $454 million to $867 million.”
That kind of economic boost would do extraordinary things for the city of Detroit. However, like in the article, they have to weigh the costs and benefits. Does the benefit of rebuilding the city outweigh losing generations of culture?
“Is it easier to get into Harvard University than to get a job at Wal-Mart?”
There are also likely more applicants to Wal-Mart as well. I would assume more people would be looking for employment at the largest employer in the country over applying to one of the most prestigious university.
It would appear to be more exclusive, if Harvard had 200 spots open and 2,000 applicants and Wal-Mart had 200 spots open and 10,000 applicants. It is based on the qualifications of the applicants. It requires less to work at Wal-Mart than to go to Harvard, so Wal-Mart will have more applicants. They can’t take everyone.
Think about it, if you are applying for Wal-Mart, you are going to be paid and the company has to invest a significant amount of money when you are hired. On the other hand, you are paying (a stupid amount of money) to attend the Ivy League school, and if they make a mistake they don’t suffer from lasting consequences.
I don’t know if the death penalty should necessarily be changed from what is used today. The question inevitably becomes, “what is the most humane way to put someone to death?” I don’t believe there is a right or wrong way.
The conversation is morbid in of itself. We have advanced greatly from the “drawing and quartering” days. The real question though, is it still a deterrent to crime?
You are killing someone; it is really hard to think about a way in which you are killing someone in a humane way. I would argue that executing someone is better than making that person spend their life in a prison, it ends the suffering.
It is really a though decision. Selling the artwork will be devastating for the city’s museum and future generations. Normally museums are visited to look at the master pieces. Those historical pieces of art that have an unmatched cultural value and that tell a story about human history. Without those pieces, museums will attract fewer viewers and it will make it harder to have new pieces make history. Museums is a dying industry, if Detroit sells is renowned pieces, it will kill the museum.
The historic pieces are worthless if they are exhibit in the dining room of a billionaire. Only a few privileged will have the pleasure of looking at such masterpiece. Although some may claim that a bankrupt city as Detroit has no business in having them, these are part of the human culture. Paintings by Van Gogh, Picasso and Rivera are invaluable. If the city needs money, find other alternatives to get it, but selling the paintings shouldn’t even be an option.
“Would you pay $1,200 an hour to view a painting? People in Detroit are about to do that.”
Only the moneymen there may do this…just a handful of people.
Marriage is good for the heart — that’s the heart organ.
Just this morning I ate a small (1.77 ounce free sample) package of breakfast biscuit cookies that my wife told me not to eat because they are “not good for me.” If I pour a glass of wine for dinner two nights in a row, she gives me the evil eye. If I miss going to the health club for a day, she reminds me I’m putting on weight. All this nagging must be good for my heart!
“It might be that if someone is married, they have a spouse who encourages them to take better care of themselves,”
That is the correlation that I would conclude to. Married couples would be healthier so they can live longer for each other.
So marriage is now good for your health and will keep you out of poverty. Sounds like a good enough reason to get married.
If selling their art lifts the city of Detroit out of the debt that it is in, it would be nonsense to not do that. Art is an important part of culture and society, but rebuilding one of the biggest cities in America takes precedent.
“…has estimated that the core of the collection would sell for $454 million to $867 million.”
That kind of economic boost would do extraordinary things for the city of Detroit. However, like in the article, they have to weigh the costs and benefits. Does the benefit of rebuilding the city outweigh losing generations of culture?
Cronyism and can kicking spending habits leave government bingers selling the house assets to pay down the debt. The place will be bones they’re done.
“Is it easier to get into Harvard University than to get a job at Wal-Mart?”
There are also likely more applicants to Wal-Mart as well. I would assume more people would be looking for employment at the largest employer in the country over applying to one of the most prestigious university.
It would appear to be more exclusive, if Harvard had 200 spots open and 2,000 applicants and Wal-Mart had 200 spots open and 10,000 applicants. It is based on the qualifications of the applicants. It requires less to work at Wal-Mart than to go to Harvard, so Wal-Mart will have more applicants. They can’t take everyone.
Yep. Not everyone would apply for Harvard while almost everyone is qualified to work at Walmart..
Think about it, if you are applying for Wal-Mart, you are going to be paid and the company has to invest a significant amount of money when you are hired. On the other hand, you are paying (a stupid amount of money) to attend the Ivy League school, and if they make a mistake they don’t suffer from lasting consequences.
I don’t know if the death penalty should necessarily be changed from what is used today. The question inevitably becomes, “what is the most humane way to put someone to death?” I don’t believe there is a right or wrong way.
The conversation is morbid in of itself. We have advanced greatly from the “drawing and quartering” days. The real question though, is it still a deterrent to crime?
You are killing someone; it is really hard to think about a way in which you are killing someone in a humane way. I would argue that executing someone is better than making that person spend their life in a prison, it ends the suffering.
It is really a though decision. Selling the artwork will be devastating for the city’s museum and future generations. Normally museums are visited to look at the master pieces. Those historical pieces of art that have an unmatched cultural value and that tell a story about human history. Without those pieces, museums will attract fewer viewers and it will make it harder to have new pieces make history. Museums is a dying industry, if Detroit sells is renowned pieces, it will kill the museum.
The historic pieces are worthless if they are exhibit in the dining room of a billionaire. Only a few privileged will have the pleasure of looking at such masterpiece. Although some may claim that a bankrupt city as Detroit has no business in having them, these are part of the human culture. Paintings by Van Gogh, Picasso and Rivera are invaluable. If the city needs money, find other alternatives to get it, but selling the paintings shouldn’t even be an option.
“Would you pay $1,200 an hour to view a painting? People in Detroit are about to do that.”
Only the moneymen there may do this…just a handful of people.
Marriage is good for the heart — that’s the heart organ.
Just this morning I ate a small (1.77 ounce free sample) package of breakfast biscuit cookies that my wife told me not to eat because they are “not good for me.” If I pour a glass of wine for dinner two nights in a row, she gives me the evil eye. If I miss going to the health club for a day, she reminds me I’m putting on weight. All this nagging must be good for my heart!