Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
My problem with 5.2B though is a lot of it is spent on externalities like security and operating costs, it doesn't really leave us with anything permanent. I'm a bit dubious on the capital efficiency of the Olympics, it doesn't seem like it compares with just investing the money in infrastructure straight up, even with Ottawa and Edmonton chipping in.
|
That ignores operating income though. When you boil it down, the operations will be within a couple hundred million of break-even either way (a million ways to contextualize it to appear either very profitable or a big loser - the truth is somewhere in between.
What we're left with is:
- more than ideal capital spending that isn't necessarily targeted to the highest civil priorities, however, this is offset by achieving otherwise unrealized funding from other levels of gov't
- the less measurable economic and cultural benefits - again, these can be contextualized to be major or minor...the truth being somewhere in between
- one hell of a party
I might be the king of bad analogies, but let's take another shot: you're at the point in your life where you've saved up a little money for downpayment, and you decide the prudent thing for you to do is to stop living with roommates and buy a nice one bedroom condo downtown. Let's say you've can easily manage a $60k downpayment on a $300k condo for $1500/mth mortgage/condo fees without much risk or change to your lifestyle (very imaginary numbers). The place is smaller than where you live now and doesn't have storage lockers, which will make it difficult for you to manage your skiing and camping equipment.
However...your grandma is wealthy, getting pretty old, and doesn't want to leave her house. A very nice house a few doors down is up for sale - say $600k. She calls you and says she'll give you $100k for a downpayment, plus $500/mth if you'll shovel her walks, mow her lawn, drive her to the occasional appt. and have dinner with her every Sunday. The house is further from your workplace, but still a desirable location. You can make the money work, but it means cutting back on eating out and taking cheaper vacations for a while. The backyard will be perfect for bonfires with friends. There is a hot tub in the backyard that you don't really want to pay to heat/maintain, but it could be fun ...You'll definitely be more stretched financially this way, though, and at more risk.
Both the house and condo have upsides and downsides...and you're not getting exactly what you want either way, but such is life.
If you go the safe 1 bdrm route, you wonder if you'll ever be able to afford a place like the nice one. You're paying more than you want for stuff you don't specifically need at the bigger house, but you feel good about taking care of your grandma (say accessibility improvements related to para-games...) even though you don't always love hearing her racist rants (IOC corruption? Also...let's say she made all of her wealth on cigarette stocks or something).
Neither choice is right or wrong - you know that the ideal thing would be to buy a nice 3 bdrm townhouse located halfway between the two places and still do everything to help your grandma, but she doesn't trust you to visit enough and the money is only available for the big house...
edit: let's add that the big house was recently renovated, but it's kind of tacky, and has some design flaws that you don't mind, but you know make it not an ideal investment...