Bangpuss
Well-known member
So we're saying hosting the Olympics is a good thing because it was a kind of accidental stimulus for the economy? That kind of makes sense, if you believe that we couldn't have done more for the economy with the however many billions that are being spent on an event that lasts one month. As many articles have attested, most of the venues built for the Games don't pass the 'legacy test', meaning they will be useful to the wider community afterwards.
Sure, it put your brother in a job -- paid for largely by taxpayers. But spending so much to build sports venues that won't be much use after summer 2012 is a reckless way to plan an economy / infrastructure. Like lobbyists for the arms industry who claim that it's a vital part of the economy, there are more productive things people could be doing than building sports venues or weapons (which is actively destructive rather than productive). This is especially true when you consider things like toll bridges in Scotland, which have to be funded by the people who use them, and our extremely expensive railways, which could have used that money and benefited us all.
Sure, it put your brother in a job -- paid for largely by taxpayers. But spending so much to build sports venues that won't be much use after summer 2012 is a reckless way to plan an economy / infrastructure. Like lobbyists for the arms industry who claim that it's a vital part of the economy, there are more productive things people could be doing than building sports venues or weapons (which is actively destructive rather than productive). This is especially true when you consider things like toll bridges in Scotland, which have to be funded by the people who use them, and our extremely expensive railways, which could have used that money and benefited us all.