FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Simple Question 2
Simple Question 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Personally I would rather an Olympic games than Millions of pounds a day spent on maintaining a pointless nuclear deterrent." Pointless? It's done the job it was built to do. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What was Simple Question One? As regards this question there are no doubt people struggling etc but I doubt the money spent on the Olympics and the failed World Cup bid would have made any difference to them. "Yet overseas aid money would????????? | |||
| |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well" actually I do  | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. " It's our national Capital city. Somehow I don't think the 2012 Birmingham Olympics would have had the same appeal for the Olympics committee... | |||
"What was Simple Question One? As regards this question there are no doubt people struggling etc but I doubt the money spent on the Olympics and the failed World Cup bid would have made any difference to them.
Yet overseas aid money would?????????"I doubt it....there will always be people struggling in this country!!  | |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well actually I do " | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. It's our national Capital city. Somehow I don't think the 2012 Birmingham Olympics would have had the same appeal for the Olympics committee..." \Couldn't agree more. Good luck to London. | |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well" ...... and space. | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. It's our national Capital city. Somehow I don't think the 2012 Birmingham Olympics would have had the same appeal for the Olympics committee... \Couldn't agree more. Good luck to London." B'ham couldn't have raised the bribe money. | |||
"What was Simple Question One? As regards this question there are no doubt people struggling etc but I doubt the money spent on the Olympics and the failed World Cup bid would have made any difference to them. "What? You don't think £15bn spent on such as Hospitals and Staff, on decent housing, urban renewal etc, around the country would have made any difference to "them". Unbelievable. £100k per annum would pay for 3 or 4 stonemasons, or one failed athlete. What would most folks want, which would have the longer lasting legacy. | |||
| |||
" ....... Always shifting goalposts! " Maybe England could try that for the next World Cup. | |||
" ....... Always shifting goalposts! Maybe England could try that for the next World Cup." Possibly the only way we will win! How many years of hurt is it now? 47? | |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well" The monarchy pays for itself so I don't think it is. | |||
| |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well The monarchy pays for itself so I don't think it is. " For every £1 we spend on the monarchy we get £20 back from tourists.  | |||
"The private sector sponsorship that came in for the Olympics would never have come in for food banks. The construction work on Rio would not have happened without the investment on the construction here. I don't know about the failed World Cup bid so no comment. " Ah yes, major sponsors such as Coca Cola and McDonalds, whose sole reason for sponsoring was to increase their trade and profits, causing life damaging obesity around the world, often in poor developing countries. What a legacy. Such a noble and worthwhile cause. | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. " and Weymouth for the sailing.. and the folks who worked on the infrastructure from various parts of the UK.. ditto some of the products used to build said infrastructure.. | |||
| |||
"What was Simple Question One? As regards this question there are no doubt people struggling etc but I doubt the money spent on the Olympics and the failed World Cup bid would have made any difference to them.
What? You don't think £15bn spent on such as Hospitals and Staff, on decent housing, urban renewal etc, around the country would have made any difference to "them". Unbelievable.
£100k per annum would pay for 3 or 4 stonemasons, or one failed athlete. What would most folks want, which would have the longer lasting legacy. "I don't know the final cost of the Olympic games..there are many figures bandied about. Some of the cost was from the Lottery fund and some was from Central Government...the taxpayer. Of course some of it may have benefited those less well off.. OP mentions food banks..I really don't think that it would have changed the current situation if the Olympics had not occurred. The money would not have been ringfenced to provide a weekly shop for those that use them. | |||
| |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home." What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though? | |||
| |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though?" Obviously you didnt read the press or watch tv then. None so blind as those that will not see eh? | |||
"Research how much was spent on the Olympics and the failed world cup bid. This country wastes a small fortune and then has people struggling and using food banks. " anyone know how much the olympics generated? | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though? Obviously you didnt read the press or watch tv then. None so blind as those that will not see eh?" I myself employ Two Polish and One Slovakian workers, they spend their money here in the UK because they have settled here. They spend their money just like you, just like everyone else. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Giving our money to Bongo Bongo land" Leave Birmingham out of this.... | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though? Obviously you didnt read the press or watch tv then. None so blind as those that will not see eh?" If Polish workers are given a job surely.if they want to send their wages home they can they have earned the money  | |||
| |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home." All of the cash? So they didn't need to spend money on food ans housing here ans they didn't pay tax through the wages they earnt? | |||
| |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though? Obviously you didnt read the press or watch tv then. None so blind as those that will not see eh?" Obviously someone is swayed by tv and media scaremongering rather than actually knowing people who work here ans spend their money here. | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. What a ridiculous assumption to make....why I am I not surprised though? Obviously you didnt read the press or watch tv then. None so blind as those that will not see eh?" Where is your evidence that they were mostly Polish and your evidence that the money was sent home, also how do you know where home is? I read the papers but I don't watch much television and I saw nothing to suggest that most of the workers were Polish. Perhaps you could provide a link to the articles. | |||
"Sending money home must be OK. Mo Farah, a great British* hero if ever there was one, is in favour of it. *not too sure about the British bit." Why aren't you sure about the British bit? | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. All of the cash? So they didn't need to spend money on food ans housing here ans they didn't pay tax through the wages they earnt? " good point but hey there's none so blind as will not see  | |||
| |||
"Sending money home must be OK. Mo Farah, a great British* hero if ever there was one, is in favour of it. *not too sure about the British bit. Why aren't you sure about the British bit? " Born in Mogadishu (sp), lives in US. I suspect, had he not been a top flight athlete, he'd never have got beyond Yarl's Wood. | |||
"The huge hole in any argument suggesting all the money spent hosting the Olympics was wasted fails to recognise much of the 9 billion cost was spent procuring goods and services that helped create British jobs and protect British jobs in British companies who supply those goods and services..... The money spent was not wasted,,,,, ........... " Isn't that the argument FOR International Development spending, the argument many Fabsters refuse to accept? | |||
"Personally I would rather an Olympic games than Millions of pounds a day spent on maintaining a pointless nuclear deterrent. Pointless? It's done the job it was built to do." Onny. You have to stop this. I bloody well agree with you again.
Where's me bloody pills? | |||
| |||
"The huge hole in any argument suggesting all the money spent hosting the Olympics was wasted fails to recognise much of the 9 billion cost was spent procuring goods and services that helped create British jobs and protect British jobs in British companies who supply those goods and services..... The money spent was not wasted,,,,, ........... Isn't that the argument FOR International Development spending, the argument many Fabsters refuse to accept?" If by offering overseas development aid we actively encourage the governments of those countries receiving aid to buy British good and services to assist with a their long term strategy to create an self supporting economy where they no longer rely on aid …. Then yes, it’s a got to be a good thing for everyone… | |||
| |||
" Isn't that the argument FOR International Development spending, the argument many Fabsters refuse to accept? If by offering overseas development aid we actively encourage the governments of those countries receiving aid to buy British good and services to assist with a their long term strategy to create an self supporting economy where they no longer rely on aid …. Then yes, it’s a got to be a good thing for everyone… "I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” | |||
" Isn't that the argument FOR International Development spending, the argument many Fabsters refuse to accept? If by offering overseas development aid we actively encourage the governments of those countries receiving aid to buy British good and services to assist with a their long term strategy to create an self supporting economy where they no longer rely on aid …. Then yes, it’s a got to be a good thing for everyone…
I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation:
“Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country”
"It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....! | |||
" I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....! "Naturally it will take a while, especially for the states that are receiving the aid and misusing it. | |||
" I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....!
Naturally it will take a while, especially for the states that are receiving the aid and misusing it.
"Only time will tell..... after-all its not like Britain as a whole hasn't benefited from the corruptive influence of its ruling classes over the centuries……. Much of our economy has its base in exploitation…. Remember slavery !!! | |||
" I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....!
Naturally it will take a while, especially for the states that are receiving the aid and misusing it.
Only time will tell..... after-all its not like Britain as a whole hasn't benefited from the corruptive influence of its ruling classes over the centuries…….
Much of our economy has its base in exploitation….
Remember slavery !!!
"Of course - and it may be argued that the ruling class is still exploiting it's working class.. Additionally it may be argued that it is in the best interests of the developed nations to maintain the divide that they've so hard in establishing. I suspect things will improve once the ruling classes of the developing nations that are receiving aid, use it to help their own nation a little more, and exploit their own citizens a little less. | |||
" I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....!
Naturally it will take a while, especially for the states that are receiving the aid and misusing it.
Only time will tell..... after-all its not like Britain as a whole hasn't benefited from the corruptive influence of its ruling classes over the centuries…….
Much of our economy has its base in exploitation….
Remember slavery !!!
Of course - and it may be argued that the ruling class is still exploiting it's working class.. Additionally it may be argued that it is in the best interests of the developed nations to maintain the divide that they've so hard in establishing.
I suspect things will improve once the ruling classes of the developing nations that are receiving aid, use it to help their own nation a little more, and exploit their own citizens a little less.
"The pace of change is something you either except or challenge, but turning away form those in need until such times as you feel a fair balance has been created does little to show compassion towards those trapped in a life of suffering and hardship now ... | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. " so manchester didn't benefit when it had the commonwealth games.... and sheffield didn't benefit when it held the world student games... and glasgow wont benefit when it holds next years commonwealth games.... I hate that arguement because it shows people have very short memories.... | |||
" I agree, it does sound like a good thing, and really ought to be a way of closing the rich/poor divide, or at least enabling developing countries to find ways of sustaining themselves...but this quote often comes to mind when I think of the possible reality of the situation: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country” It took many hundreds of years to close the gap in the UK....!
Naturally it will take a while, especially for the states that are receiving the aid and misusing it.
Only time will tell..... after-all its not like Britain as a whole hasn't benefited from the corruptive influence of its ruling classes over the centuries…….
Much of our economy has its base in exploitation….
Remember slavery !!!
Of course - and it may be argued that the ruling class is still exploiting it's working class.. Additionally it may be argued that it is in the best interests of the developed nations to maintain the divide that they've so hard in establishing.
I suspect things will improve once the ruling classes of the developing nations that are receiving aid, use it to help their own nation a little more, and exploit their own citizens a little less.
The pace of change is something you either except or challenge, but turning away form those in need until such times as you feel a fair balance has been created does little to show compassion towards those trapped in a life of suffering and hardship now ... " | |||
"Research how much was spent on the Olympics and the failed world cup bid. This country wastes a small fortune and then has people struggling and using food banks. " land aquisition at its finest ...I wonder who will coin up when ' public appathy ' demands some of these white elephants are decomossioned through neglect /non use ?...The millenium dome.....and The superfast new very unpopular railtrack ...... built for profit windfarms ......where there's a scheme ...there's a schemer ! | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. " Wrong! Some events were held elsewhere. The football for example was held in Cardiff. | |||
"That's not exactly what I said - simply put - What IF governments of countries whose citizens are suffering great hardships are not using the aid they receive on building their nation? What if “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country”? However, if a government such as ours is able to channel the money directly towards the people that need it, by way of humanitarian groups etc...then it would only be human to support such an idea. If the answer to the two questions I posed is negative - then once again - it would only be human to support the aid going to help those in need. Compassion with foresight is a decent course of action I feel. " The British government does not have a mandate to interfere with a foreign governments internal policies,,, We can only offer advice or use political diplomacy to influence their actions or in-actions… So by maintaining our aid policy we are able to add leverage to our desire of helping them create a social and economic structure aimed at reducing corruption and elevating poverty and suffering in their country… We can of course turn our backs on this objective or stand on the side-lines banging a drum demanding unless we are given the right to dictate where every penny of the aid goes we won’t provide it….. But I doubt such action would have the desired effect of creating a new sense of fairness in the minds on those who are presently enjoying a corruptive existence in those countries ,,, nor do I think it would do anything to help those who’s lives are blighted by poverty and suffering.. | |||
"I bet it would. Only London benefited. so manchester didn't benefit when it had the commonwealth games.... and sheffield didn't benefit when it held the world student games... and glasgow wont benefit when it holds next years commonwealth games.... I hate that arguement because it shows people have very short memories...." Or it may be because some people have a more selective digestive system. The real issue surrounds what you mean by 'London' or 'Manchester' etc. The people? The city? The accounts? | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home." ???? Where did you get that fact from?? NOT all the workers were Polish.  | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home. ???? Where did you get that fact from?? NOT all the workers were Polish. ""Most" and "NOT all" aren't incompatible. | |||
| |||
" nothing like politics to create a storm.... except maybe religion...... need more pop corn, carry on xx" passes nel a pack. Buy the 6 pack 1s comes in really handy round here | |||
"Research how much was spent on the Olympics and the failed world cup bid. This country wastes a small fortune and then has people struggling and using food banks. land aquisition at its finest ...I wonder who will coin up when ' public appathy ' demands some of these white elephants are decomossioned through neglect /non use ?...The millenium dome.....and The superfast new very unpopular railtrack ...... built for profit windfarms ......where there's a scheme ...there's a schemer !" ahem...factcheck time the millenium dome was actually sold on at a profile... and became the o2 village... the o2 in london is actually the biggest indoor non-football arena in europe....... can you tell me one of the london venues that is actually being decomissioned please.. (the olympic stadium is being reconfigured and will but will still be used for football, the 2015 rugby world cup, the 2017 iaaf world athletics, and athletics will still have a 50 year lease to use the stadium in the summer the copper box has gone to brasil.. the hockey stadium is still use, the velodrome and swimming pool will be used for the public..... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But surely the Dome was built in Britain from components which were manufactured in Britain by British companies contracted to carry out the construction employing British workers who were paid wages that were subsequently spent in British shops or on British goods and services keeping British people employed and providing British families with financial security,,,, … So where’s the problem with that …. Eh! "The security guards were Polish
PS I doubt much, if any, of the steel used in the construction was British made. We couldn't even find UK made steel for the Queensferry Crossing.
**** knows what'll happen if HS2 goes ahead. | |||
| |||
" **** knows what'll happen if HS2 goes ahead." To me going ahead with HS2 would be a mistake but I'm all for investing a similar amount of public money in widespread infrastructure projects across the whole UK | |||
"The only available statistics on how much money the Olympics has made for the country are from studies that have been commissioned by the government, and we all know how trustworthy the coalition is. I for one think that spending £24 billion to watch people run, jump, swim and chuck stuff was well worth it. "of course you do know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit dont you Hmmmm | |||
"The only available statistics on how much money the Olympics has made for the country are from studies that have been commissioned by the government, and we all know how trustworthy the coalition is. I for one think that spending £24 billion to watch people run, jump, swim and chuck stuff was well worth it.
of course you do know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit dont you Hmmmm "I always thought Ronnie Corbett was the lowest form of wit | |||
"The only available statistics on how much money the Olympics has made for the country are from studies that have been commissioned by the government, and we all know how trustworthy the coalition is. I for one think that spending £24 billion to watch people run, jump, swim and chuck stuff was well worth it.
of course you do know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit dont you Hmmmm
I always thought Ronnie Corbett was the lowest form of wit " | |||
" **** knows what'll happen if HS2 goes ahead. To me going ahead with HS2 would be a mistake but I'm all for investing a similar amount of public money in widespread infrastructure projects across the whole UK "this !!! | |||
"I suppose you think the monarchy is a waste of money as well The monarchy pays for itself so I don't think it is. " | |||
" **** knows what'll happen if HS2 goes ahead. To me going ahead with HS2 would be a mistake but I'm all for investing a similar amount of public money in widespread infrastructure projects across the whole UK "I'm not convinced HS2 is the answer either, especially since nobody seems wholly sure what the question is and whilst I'd like to see other areas of the country get some investment too I wonder if we'll be seen as spreading too little too thin to do any good. Add in the fact that just about anywhere you plan to spend any money building stuff - the natives come out in droves and threaten to eat you. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So, if the referendum had been Olympics or new schools and hospitals, how would you have voted? " Schools and hospitals. If sport has a use it's at the mass participation - not elite level. " Likewise, if the choice was, no army redundancies or keep the (not) independent Nuclear Deterrent, how would you vote? Whom is it supposed to be deterring?" The trick is never to say. Once a Vanguard Class boat leaves the Clyde - there's very few people know where she is or who she's deterring. She might be sitting off Argentina or Arran or Anywhere. So long as potential enemies don't know which, the deterrent is working. | |||
"Schools and hospitals. If sport has a use it's at the mass participation - not elite level" Except that one leads to another. | |||
"Schools and hospitals. If sport has a use it's at the mass participation - not elite level Except that one leads to another." Yeah, but you don't need world class facilities for those just starting out. I might be wrong but I doubt Farah had Olympic standard facilities when he started running. It'll be interesting to see how many of those queueing up now to use the Chris Hoy velodrome actually take up cycling seriously. | |||
"Schools and hospitals. If sport has a use it's at the mass participation - not elite level Except that one leads to another. Yeah, but you don't need world class facilities for those just starting out. I might be wrong but I doubt Farah had Olympic standard facilities when he started running. It'll be interesting to see how many of those queueing up now to use the Chris Hoy velodrome actually take up cycling seriously." It's not so much the facilities though as the events and the exposure to inspire children to get involved. The infrastructure just helps. But obviously it needs investment at grass roots too. | |||
"So, if the referendum had been Olympics or new schools and hospitals, how would you have voted? Schools and hospitals. If sport has a use it's at the mass participation - not elite level. Likewise, if the choice was, no army redundancies or keep the (not) independent Nuclear Deterrent, how would you vote? Whom is it supposed to be deterring? The trick is never to say. Once a Vanguard Class boat leaves the Clyde - there's very few people know where she is or who she's deterring. She might be sitting off Argentina or Arran or Anywhere. So long as potential enemies don't know which, the deterrent is working." I beg to differ. I understand the mechanics of the hidden submarine and the range of a trident missile. Who wants to invade us - and even if they wanted to who would actually go ahead? If they did would the Americans (who have the final say so) let us 'go nuclear'? I believe policy is still no first use of nuclear weapons - so can only be used against another nuclear power in a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario. It also has no deterrence value against nutters, religious or otherwise, who acquire one or more nuclear weapons. | |||
"............... She might be sitting off Argentina or Arran or Anywhere. So long as potential enemies don't know which, the deterrent is working. I beg to differ. I understand the mechanics of the hidden submarine and the range of a trident missile. " Differing is fine. "Who wants to invade us - and even if they wanted to who would actually go ahead? If they did would the Americans (who have the final say so) let us 'go nuclear'? I believe policy is still no first use of nuclear weapons - so can only be used against another nuclear power in a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario." The trick, as I pointed out above, is never to say. " It also has no deterrence value against nutters, religious or otherwise, who acquire one or more nuclear weapons. " That may or may not be the case. There's certainly no deterrence without it. With luck we'll never need to find out. | |||
With regards to the point made here...firstly there is no certainty that the components were manufactured in Britain, nor the companies being British though this might be true -in fact I think the main construction company is a British Multinational).
I feel that it's a massive assumption to presume that much of the money generated through these ventures, stayed in the UK...notwithstanding the wages which may have been spent locally (ideally in local smaller supermarkets, so the money is circulating around the local economy for longer than if money is spent in mahoosive Asda/Tesco type chains:see Idea behind Brixton Pound), and this is more likely than the assumption that the profits (which likely make up the largest share of money) were reinvested back into the country.
The purpose of the state or anyone spending money is for money to be spent on something useful, not to simply to create jobs... Particularly when the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Essentially, the questions some posters are asking is that could the money have been better or more efficiently spent? Did the costs outweigh the benefits. These are fair questions to raise - and though I'm not sure how easy the answers are to come by, to simply assume that most of the money spent was was retained and continued to circulate within in the British economy without anything to substantiate this is...well unwise at the very least.
The following excerpt from an old book on economics, illustrates the importance of the unseen consequences of the decisions we make, particular economic ones. Apologies for its breadth.
"Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never bro- ken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of hav- ing a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye."
"But surely the Dome was built in Britain from components which were manufactured in Britain by British companies contracted to carry out the construction employing British workers who were paid wages that were subsequently spent in British shops or on British goods and services keeping British people employed and providing British families with financial security,,,, … So where’s the problem with that …. Eh! " | |||
"The purpose of the state or anyone spending money is for money to be spent on something useful, not to simply to create jobs... Particularly when the costs will outweigh the benefits." Bit heavy going to read through all that (so I didn't sorry) - but I disagree with this premise. The purpose of the state isn't to spend money. And define 'useful'? | |||
| |||
"The purpose of the state or anyone spending money is for money to be spent on something useful, not to simply to create jobs... Particularly when the costs will outweigh the benefits. Bit heavy going to read through all that (so I didn't sorry) - but I disagree with this premise. The purpose of the state isn't to spend money. And define 'useful'?" | |||
| |||
"I guess so - but then that phrase 'useful' isn't ever going to be agreed among 65 million people or so. But then the Government is ultimately accountable back to those people. Or that's the theory at least!" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Thank you so much for your pm... Ill reply to the points you made following a quick nap
With regards to the point made here...firstly there is no certainty that the components were manufactured in Britain, nor the companies being British though this might be true -in fact I think the main construction company is a British Multinational).
I feel that it's a massive assumption to presume that much of the money generated through these ventures, stayed in the UK...notwithstanding the wages which may have been spent locally (ideally in local smaller supermarkets, so the money is circulating around the local economy for longer than if money is spent in mahoosive Asda/Tesco type chains:see Idea behind Brixton Pound), and this is more likely than the assumption that the profits (which likely make up the largest share of money) were reinvested back into the country.
The purpose of the state or anyone spending money is for money to be spent on something useful, not to simply to create jobs... Particularly when the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Essentially, the questions some posters are asking is that could the money have been better or more efficiently spent? Did the costs outweigh the benefits. These are fair questions to raise - and though I'm not sure how easy the answers are to come by, to simply assume that most of the money spent was was retained and continued to circulate within in the British economy without anything to substantiate this is...well unwise at the very least.
The following excerpt from an old book on economics, illustrates the importance of the unseen consequences of the decisions we make, particular economic ones. Apologies for its breadth.
"Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never bro- ken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of hav- ing a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye."
"Hey I admire your intent to put your case by copying excerpts from ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlitt “ The broken window fallacy” to try and make a salient point…. Even if it seems OTT wide of the mark when used to challenge the intention of my post... But in answer to your concern about the nationality of the major contractor McAlpine/Laing Joint Venture (MLJV) formed between Sir Robert McAlpine and Laing Management to build the dome was a British enterprise employing British workers constructing a British project.. | |||
"Well I think the Olympics where worth ever penny, right from the opening ceromny to the end. The brought this country together all be it for a short time, the inspiration it must be for able bodied and disabled sports men" | |||
"Most of the workers were Polish. Sent the cash home." Doesnt surprise me.  | |||
"Thank you so much for your pm... Ill reply to the points you made following a quick nap
With regards to the point made here...firstly there is no certainty that the components were manufactured in Britain, nor the companies being British though this might be true -in fact I think the main construction company is a British Multinational).
I feel that it's a massive assumption to presume that much of the money generated through these ventures, stayed in the UK...notwithstanding the wages which may have been spent locally (ideally in local smaller supermarkets, so the money is circulating around the local economy for longer than if money is spent in mahoosive Asda/Tesco type chains:see Idea behind Brixton Pound), and this is more likely than the assumption that the profits (which likely make up the largest share of money) were reinvested back into the country.
The purpose of the state or anyone spending money is for money to be spent on something useful, not to simply to create jobs... Particularly when the costs will outweigh the benefits.
Essentially, the questions some posters are asking is that could the money have been better or more efficiently spent? Did the costs outweigh the benefits. These are fair questions to raise - and though I'm not sure how easy the answers are to come by, to simply assume that most of the money spent was was retained and continued to circulate within in the British economy without anything to substantiate this is...well unwise at the very least.
The following excerpt from an old book on economics, illustrates the importance of the unseen consequences of the decisions we make, particular economic ones. Apologies for its breadth.
"Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never bro- ken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of hav- ing a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye."
Hey I admire your intent to put your case by copying excerpts from ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlitt
“ The broken window fallacy” to try and make a salient point….
Even if it seems OTT wide of the mark when used to challenge the intention of my post...
But in answer to your concern about the nationality of the major contractor McAlpine/Laing Joint Venture (MLJV) formed between Sir Robert McAlpine and Laing Management to build the dome was a British enterprise employing British workers constructing a British project..
"The nationality of the business wasn't my concern, in fact I mentioned that there was a British element to it. Although a cursory google search indicates that Laing management is based in Illinois. Regardless of this, as I stated, it's not a given that much of the money spent (nearly £800m) on the construction of the dome (of which wages formed an unknown amount) remained in circulation or was reinvested in the UK. The point of the whole thread is...was it public money well spent..? The point of the excerpt was, as mentioned before, to highlight quite cogently, and in a way I never would be able to, the importance of considering all consequences. Just as the broken window appears to benefit the community, it can be seen from a different perspective, that it has actually had a detrimental impact. Similarly, with the case of the dome. You've simply answered that the dome has added value to the economy, the questions posed by some posters however asks whether it added value to the economy relative to the cost. I have no idea. As economics often relies inductive reasoning, and figures beyond the final cost aren't available, I can't say I'm for or against it without taking a leap of faith in accepting the government is an efficient organisation who knows what it's doing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"If it was John Laing they're very British and fund a lot of charitable work." | |||
| |||
