Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre
This ignores the issue of opportunity cost. Money spent by a national government could be used on other stuff which could benefit both Canada and Calgary more than another winter Olympics. Calgary could do something else with that money.
|
In a perfect world, you are absolutely correct. In reality, it is nearly impossible to get those funds without a catalyst. Whether the Olympics are the best catalyst is very much open to debate, but these catalysts are few and far between. Amazon HQ2 (always a pipe dream), CalgaryNext, and TransMountain pipeline are the only other big money catalysts that come to mind immediately, though I'm sure there are a few others. Each project is very different, but should be assessed on their tangible and intangible costs and benefits (with special attention to who bears the costs and who receives the benefits). All are imperfect, and everyone's rankings/opinions will differ.
Personally, what I like about the Olympics is that the benefits are more widely accessible to more people (though admittedly, mostly intangible benefits) . A bit like comparing a library vs. a new arena - any Calgarian who wishes will have many opportunities to be involved in tons of Olympic activities for free (obviously not talking about attending ticketed events). Building a pipeline will make a few filthy rich people a lot richer, some wealthy people a fair bit wealthier, a lot of people a little bit better off, and a ton of people will get see minor benefits as things trickle out (though also worth noting that there are negatives involved any time an economy is booming too fast).
I'm not saying I think the Olympics is a better investment in dollars and cents (and of course, there will be a similar inverse trend-line starting with biggest benefits to fewest people), but I think the returns it delivers are more evenly distributed, and less easily replicated (ie. you can't necessarily throw a dump-truck of money at something and create the same kind of 'spirit', (for lack of a better word, and I don't mean to sum up Olympic benefits so flighty)...whereas you could throw a dump-truck of money at a lot of other industries and achieve similar returns as building a pipeline (albeit slower and lower returns than a pipeline based on our existing situation).
Quote:
|
Neither side seems to be talking much about stuff like the arts and recreational opportunities of Calgary: what will be gained by the games improvements or what will have to be cut to pay for them.
|
A plethora of arts and recreational stuff is exactly what will come from hosting...of course specifics can't be pinned down yet, probably won't really be for another 5+ years. Will these opportunities be universally adored and executed in the most cost-efficient manner? Almost certainly not (the former being subjective, the latter being inevitable).
Another random benefit that deserves a bit more exposure is improvements to accessibility. The Paralympics are an afterthought, but could result in big improvements for those living with disabilities.