Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think what nik- and others are trying to point out is that the existence of any "multiplier effect" of large sports stadiums on local economies is anecdotal. I would expect this effect is something that is quantifiable, and if so, then there really shouldn't be any problem with publishing these figures. I don't know much about this, but I am at the outset dubious regarding the positive economic impact of privately owned sports franchises more generally. You seem convinced of it, and I would like to know why.
|
I agree that it is anecdotal. Attempting to draw direct links from one investment to other pods of growth is essentially unprovable. However, the proof is in the growth of our economies overall:
Businesses create jobs and wealth. Businesses and their employees pay taxes. Pretty straight-forward. It is the fundamental principle of investment. The ONLY reason to take the risk of investing capital is growth - an expected return. And every day, trillions is invested because growth happens. Pretty straight-forward.
Governments generally don't invest, however, they
are in a position to lend funds to capital-intensive projects. And the return is not just the interest, but also a larger economy on which to tax, along with some sort of a presumed better living experience or whatever.
This is essentially - in simple, internet sentences - the basis on which our economy, and capitalism in general, works.
Some people don't seem to agree. Why, I don't know, because the evidence, while anecdotal, is also insurmountable. Nonetheless, some don't. That is their prerogative.
As a business owner, and investment manager, I understand that business profitability
is wealth creation. It is the backbone of the economy and the primary source of growth.
IMO, having governments support, and lend resources to, capital-intensive projects, is a useful and production function for said government to partake in. Growth benefits everyone.