Do you think the olympic games are a waist of tax payers money in an economic re

1. 66

   Ninasvoiceposted 11 years ago

   Do you think the olympic games are a waist of tax payers money in an economic recession?

   replyreport
2. 90

   CyclingFitnessposted 11 years ago

   Definitely not if they're run right. The gains to the UK economy and that of London potentially as a result of the games can far outweigh the economic cost. As well as improvements in population morale and health.
   
   There was no economic reccession when the games were bid for in the case of London

   replyreport
3. 60

   iharrybrook10posted 4 months ago

   The question of whether hosting the Olympic Games is a wise investment, especially during an economic recession, is a topic of ongoing debate. There are arguments both in favor of and against hosting the Olympics during challenging economic times. Here are some points from both perspectives:
   
   Arguments in favor:
   
   Economic Stimulus: Proponents argue that hosting the Olympic Games can stimulate economic activity. The construction of infrastructure, such as stadiums and transportation systems, can create jobs and generate income.
   
   Tourism and Business Opportunities: The Olympics can attract tourists and business investments, potentially boosting the local economy. The increased visibility of the host city on the global stage may attract visitors and encourage businesses to establish a presence.
   
   Legacy Infrastructure: Hosting the Olympics can lead to the development of new infrastructure that can benefit the city in the long term. Facilities built for the Games can be repurposed for other uses, such as sports events or community activities.
   
   Arguments against:
   
   Cost Overruns: One of the main concerns is the potential for cost overruns. The initial budget estimates for hosting the Olympics are often exceeded, putting a strain on public finances. This can be particularly problematic during an economic recession.
   
   Misallocation of Resources: Critics argue that the massive investment in hosting the Olympics could be better spent on essential public services, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure projects with more immediate and widespread benefits.
   
   Temporary Economic Boost: Some studies suggest that the economic benefits of hosting the Olympics may be overstated and that the positive impact is often temporary. Once the Games are over, the host city may face challenges in maintaining the newly built infrastructure and sustaining the economic gains.
   
   Ultimately, the decision to host the Olympic Games during an economic recession depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances of the host country and city, the level of public support, and the ability to manage costs effectively. It's a complex issue with both potential benefits and risks, and different people may have varying opinions on the matter. I picked some points from https://vatcalculatorg.com/

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Good to see both side of veiws. It get to be used as a political game like keeping the Russian away and boycotts. Otherwise I love watching the Olympics, the best of the best and the amazing things they can do with their bodies.

      replyreport