London Olympics Economic Boost Failing to Materialise

abaxas

FTBFun wrote: »

I saw the Olympic torch relay earlier (it went past my office) and am now firmly in the mood for the Games.

You want a coke and a bank loan?

kabayiri

FTBFun wrote: »

I saw the Olympic torch relay earlier (it went past my office) and am now firmly in the mood for the Games.

I am someone who usually skips the opening/closing ceremonies, but I have to say ... Danny B's interpretation has me intrigued.

I will have to tune in for at least half an hour, to see if it really is One Man and his Dog in the centre of London

This quaint interpretation made it onto The Daily Show in the US - I watched it last night. Our American cousins have also taken to knocking the ceremony concept before it has even aired.

Danny B best pull something out of the bag!

homelessskilledworker

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i reckon saving the banks gave more people joy than seeing a few people throwing sticks and running around.

saving the banks basically stopped armageddon. most people would have lost everything. no payments, no savings etc. bad bad news.

The saving of the Banks which were hours from going under in some cases has now made that sector indestructable.

They now believe they have the power of god, that they are just too important to not have. This story is far from finished, we will get all the "I will never do it again" from the Banks who to me sound like scum wife beaters who promise their partners it was a one off until the next time that is.

We will rue the day we bailed the banks out, they will take us to the brink again, even if it is years away, they will reach critical point and in the back of the minds they will hear a voice "Well!!, we are too big to sacrifice, they will help us".

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Why?

(especially in light of the content of rest of your post)

Because it has bought with it economic and social benefits for many.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because it has bought with it economic and social benefits for many.

Did your 'bad self' write the rest of your post as it seems to be at odds with the first part (and your post above)?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Builders, Reps, even Cleaners are having to turn down jobs and void contracts, because they simply cannot get there thanks to higher traffic levels and silly Olympics lanes. So in one way, it's actually hampering peoples abuilities to earn, not providing new ones.

Put simply, we, the media and the government were far too optimistic. With the government it's always going to be different this time....but it never is. Business was far to greedy and have shot themselves in the foot. Reality is now setting in and the reality is people arriving late, or not arriving at all for regular activities. All so some bloke who throws a stick in the air can get to the field on time.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Did your 'bad self' write the rest of your post as it seems to be at odds with the first part (and your post above)?

It's not at odds. I stated it's good for the country to have the Games, but optimism hyped things up and ruined what it could have been.

You can see the good in it, AND see the downfalls. You don't have to fall into the camp of the blind simply suggesting "its good" and "its bad".

You are looking too hard to try and take issue.

A._Badger

But why is it good for the country? Just repeating it is meaningless. Good for whom? Why?

RenovationMan

A._Badger wrote: »

But why is it good for the country? Just repeating it is meaningless. Good for whom? Why?

Because it's GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY!! How many times! Jeeze! You're not listening!

It's like trying to get blood from a stone, getting a straight answer from Devon.

Graham_Devon

A._Badger wrote: »

But why is it good for the country? Just repeating it is meaningless. Good for whom? Why?

I've said above. Social benefits, people getting together. It's not often the whole nation get's to witness something happening, such as the torch relay.

It's got people out there. It's got people talking to each other. Near myself, a whole day was devoted to it, with market stalls being set up, primary school kids made tea towel designs, kids had their faces painted, there was bouncy castles, people mingling together from the neighbourhood, local shops had market stalls (for instance, the farm shops put their produce out and got to sell to a wide range of people who would never enter their shops), charities using it to fundraise and stage events, local beer sampled and sold etc etc.

Obviously jobs have been created.

Tourism, so long as everything goes OK, gets a boost, with London being screened across the world. It's no bad thing for the whole world to have a reminder that London exists as a destination.

Etc etc.

It's cost a hell of a lot of money. We'll not recoup it all, so if you are looking on financial basis only (at a cost level - you can't measure the income at local and regional level created), then it's probably not good for us.

In terms of what I witnessed, I've never witnessed it before. And all because someone walked 200m with a torch.

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've said above. Social benefits, people getting together. It's not often the whole nation get's to witness something happening, such as the torch relay.

It's got people out there. It's got people talking to each other. Near myself, a whole day was devoted to it, with market stalls being set up, primary school kids made tea towel designs, kids had their faces painted, there was bouncy castles, people mingling together from the neighbourhood, local shops had market stalls (for instance, the farm shops put their produce out and got to sell to a wide range of people who would never enter their shops), charities using it to fundraise and stage events, local beer sampled and sold etc etc.

Obviously jobs have been created.

Tourism, so long as everything goes OK, gets a boost, with London being screened across the world. It's no bad thing for the whole world to have a reminder that London exists as a destination.

Etc etc.

It's cost a hell of a lot of money. We'll not recoup it all, so if you are looking on financial basis only (at a cost level - you can't measure the income at local and regional level created), then it's probably not good for us.

In terms of what I witnessed, I've never witnessed it before. And all because someone walked 200m with a torch.

You could say the same for the Jubilee, a royal wedding, or any other national occasion. And we've already established that the economic benefits of the Olympics are nebulous, at best. Indeed, only Salt Lake City (under Mitt Romney, ISTR) didn't wind-up with a huge debt as a result of hosting the games.

The rest is meaningless, happy-clappy, fluffy nonsense.