2012 Olympics Ceremony - let's not throw away over $300mil?

[Johannas]

I don't hang out in off topic much, but i had something to say which i felt had to be said.

 

The 2008 Olympics Opening Ceremony cost over $300,000,000 US dollars.

 

Before i "rant", please take a minute of your time to read this article

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7550583.stm

 

 

 

Britain plans to match/beat the amazing ceremony that the Chinese put on. I think this is awful.

 

 

 

Now....

 

 

 

I wont bother explaining the situation in many parts of Africa, but i'm sure many of you know that there is extreme poverty. Rich countries like the UK and the US lend money to Africa, which they cannot pay off, leaving them in even more debt... This will never be resolved unless we cancel our debts with them.

 

 

 

Africa faces conflict, disease, bad infrastructure and corruption - how much more can we let this go on for?

 

 

 

"We should not be intimidated," Jowell said. "We will do something just as wonderful and just as extraordinary.

 

 

 

...so that's at least $300 million US dollars down the drain.

 

 

 

"It is our turn now and we look forward to it. It is a huge challenge but it is one that we will rise to and emulate."

 

 

 

...poverty in Africa is a huge challenge, how about we look at that before we blow millions of dollars into the sky with fireworks and colourful displays?

 

 

 

My idea.

 

I think instead of a massive ceremony, 1 single firework should be set off. This would symbolise many things, and show that we care for the world. Then we should give the other $300,000,000 to less economically developed countries.

 

 

 

I know the African population is over 900 million people, but $300 dollars per family of four will make them completely self sufficient and they wont have to worry about poverty ever again. It would buy them an Ox, a few hactares of land and some seeds.

 

 

 

That's $75 dollars per person.

 

 

 

That's 4,000,000 people who would be free from poverty in Africa if in 2012 Britain gave 100% of it's opening cermony funds to them.

 

 

 

That one firework would send shivers down my spine, not sure about you guys though.

 

 

 

Discuss.

[The Observer]

How are they going to make sure it doesn't go to the Warlords and dictators?

[Lenin64]

Well it's not like all that money is disappearing into thin air. It's still in circulation, and I think individual people give more than governments, anyway. Maybe not.

[Lenticular_J]

Who would deliver the money? Who's to say the governments in Africa won't keep the money?

[Johannas]

How are they going to make sure it doesn't go to the Warlords and dictators?

 

 

 

Who would deliver the money? Who's to say the governments in Africa won't keep the money?

 

 

 

I don't know, but giving it out to various charities who would hand it out to village leaders/families might be safe. Anyway, i know there's a lot of corruption - but i think they would make sure it's getting handed over securely.

 

 

 

Well it's not like all that money is disappearing into thin air. It's still in circulation, and I think individual people give more than governments, anyway. Maybe not.

 

 

 

So what if other people are giving money? The more cash they get the better it is for all of them. And it will be disappearing into thin air as we discovered in the BBC link...

[Koo]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

[Johannas]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

 

 

 

I'd rather my tax money go to starving African children than a massive ceremony.

[warren211]

London got the 2012 Olympics? Damn, I was rootin' for Chicago. Oh well. At least its not our 300 grand.

 

 

 

I like the idea of giving the money to Africa, but I'm hoping that whoever gets the money will put it to good use.

[Johannas]

London got the 2012 Olympics? Damn, I was rootin' for Chicago. Oh well. At least its not our 300 grand.

 

 

 

I like the idea of giving the money to Africa, but I'm hoping that whoever gets the money will put it to good use.

 

 

 

You mean 300 mil? Not grand. ;)

[warren211]

^Oops, my bad. I actually thought the ceremony cost 300 grand. When I typed it, it sounded rather inexpensive for a great ceremony.

 

 

 

300mil?!?!?!?! Ok now THAT is money we need to put to better use than fireworks, lip-singing children, and dancers/drummers.

[Johannas]

^Oops, my bad. I actually thought the ceremony cost 300 grand. When I typed it, it sounded rather inexpensive for a great ceremony.

 

 

 

300mil?!?!?!?! Ok now THAT is money we need to put to better use than fireworks, lip-singing children, and dancers/drummers.

 

 

 

Glad you feel the same way as i do :)

 

I'm logging off for the night, keep your opinions coming in.

[1_man_army]

What I really dislike about the 2012 Olympic organisers, is how they try to justify the spiraling cost of the games by claiming they will bring economic development to the whole country. Like any tourist is going to come to the Olympics in London and spend their cash in Slough (or anywhere else outside London), same goes for the Commonwealth games. I don't mind them hosting sporting events in principle as long as the costs are kept down and they don't try to patronise us with this national economic benefit rubbish.

 

 

 

On the subject of using the money to help impoverished nations, I think it would be better to remove or at least dramatically reduce the amount of debt that third world nations owe (getting rid of tied aid would be particularly useful) rather than just throwing a random sum at the problem. Unfortunately this won't happen as having nations indebted to you gives you a great amount of power over them.

 

 

 

Let's face it, £300M for an opening ceremony is ridiculous, it would be better spent on helping others less fortunate but every nation wants to put on a bigger and better show than everyone else.

[RSBDavid]

IMO I don't think we should give the money to contries of Africa and other TWN(Third World Nations).

 

 

 

• 
   
  [*:2ktqytc5]You are not sure who and where the money will go to. In africa there are cities where in one section people are living in basically cardboard boxes. Yet in the other section, people are living in luxurious homes and areas.
   
   
   
  [*:2ktqytc5]A lot of the people will most likely die of AIDS.
   
   
   
  [*:2ktqytc5] Great Britain is hosting 2012 not us, so how are WE paying for it?

[l0l0lpur32]

I would rather the money was used at home rather than sent to Africa, but I agree that too much money is being used on the olympics.

[Johannas]

IMO I don't think we should give the money to contries of Africa and other TWN(Third World Nations).

 

 

 

• 
   
  [*:3s5f8741]You are not sure who and where the money will go to. In africa there are cities where in one section people are living in basically cardboard boxes. Yet in the other section, people are living in luxurious homes and areas.
   
   
   
  [*:3s5f8741]A lot of the people will most likely die of AIDS.
   
   
   
  [*:3s5f8741] Great Britain is hosting 2012 not us, so how are WE paying for it?

 

 

 

1. I challenge you to find "luxurious homes and areas" anywhere in Africa. I know there is a lot of corruption, but there must be a way of getting it to the people who need it securely.

 

 

 

2. So they need money to educate people about it so less people get it, we can't just sit back and do nothing whilst people are dying - well i can't anyway!

 

 

 

3. I am from Great Britain, and i'm sure alot of people from the tif are - that's not the point though.

[Koo]

IMO I don't think we should give the money to contries of Africa and other TWN(Third World Nations).

 

 

 

• 
   
  [*:boijv0vz]You are not sure who and where the money will go to. In africa there are cities where in one section people are living in basically cardboard boxes. Yet in the other section, people are living in luxurious homes and areas.
   
   
   
  [*:boijv0vz]A lot of the people will most likely die of AIDS.
   
   
   
  [*:boijv0vz] Great Britain is hosting 2012 not us, so how are WE paying for it?

 

1. Charities don't just give money to random people. They use the money to build care homes and stuff (at least the ones I know do)

 

 

 

2. Well that's a great way of thinking about it...

 

 

 

3. I don't know :?

 

 

 

I would rather my money go to some 'people dying of AIDS' than some stupid Olympics...

[1_man_army]

IMO I don't think we should give the money to contries of Africa and other TWN(Third World Nations).

 

 

 

• 
   
  [*:2vcl17jt]You are not sure who and where the money will go to. In africa there are cities where in one section people are living in basically cardboard boxes. Yet in the other section, people are living in luxurious homes and areas.
   
   
   
  [*:2vcl17jt]A lot of the people will most likely die of AIDS.
   
   
   
  [*:2vcl17jt] Great Britain is hosting 2012 not us, so how are WE paying for it?

 

 

 

* Governments/charities tend to know which areas need the cash and which don't and they know which nations will steal and which won't.

 

 

 

* People with aids don't matter? How about working to prevent the spread of aids, helping the children orphaned by the disease, helping fund AIDS education programs.

 

 

 

* I think he was talking about the UK government giving the money, he may have quoted the figured in Dollars but his location states that he's British (or at least lives there) hence, we means British people.

[BlueLancer]

It's surprising people would rather fund a ceremony of a stupid contest of mostly kicking, punching, slamming and throwing various types of balls for no particular reason, than give it to people who would significantly benefit from even a small sum of that total $300M.

 

 

 

The olympics is great to watch, but it's just a contest. It doesn't matter who wins. Heck, if the whole Beijing 2008 olympics got cancelled, it wouldn't matter. It's entertainment.

 

 

 

I love sports but human lives come always before entertainment. Thinking otherwise is extremely arrogant, immature and evil. A human with proper ethics and morals will never put a contest over another person's life.

[Ginger_Warrior]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

 

 

 

I'd rather my tax money go to starving African children than a massive ceremony.

 

While as a socialist I appreciate your concern for global poverty, your argument is sadly based on total naivety.

 

 

 

Even with the issue of dictators and regimes aside, simply giving aid to Africa doesn't work - in fact it actually makes things worse. We flood their economy with 'freebies', but all this does is out-compete the few in Africa who were providing those commodities in the first place, putting them out of business, meaning the poverty just hits harder next year. We give them more aid, and the vicious cycle continues.

 

 

 

One example is agriculture. We have too much food in this country, so he give literally mountains of food to the Africans in aid. This floods their economy with food, putting their farmers out of business. Because they've less farmers, they have less food and the starvation worsens.

 

 

 

If you genuinely want to help Africans, buy products under projects such as the FairTrade scheme, or a charity which actually gives Africans the capability to lift themselves out of poverty. Examples would be groups which build fresh-water wells inside villages, charities which teach villagers how to farm their own produce and provide the seeds to allow them to grow their own food. Groups which construct basic schools to educate children and provide opportunity later on in life.

 

 

 

Apart from sending out a principle, this would do nothing to lift Africans out of poverty, sadly. The global economic system we live in simply would not allow such a solution.

[anim7]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

 

 

 

I'd rather my tax money go to starving African children than a massive ceremony.

 

While as a socialist I appreciate your concern for global poverty, your argument is sadly based on total naivety.

 

 

 

Even with the issue of dictators and regimes aside, simply giving aid to Africa doesn't work - in fact it actually makes things worse. We flood their economy with 'freebies', but all this does is out-compete the few in Africa who were providing those commodities in the first place, putting them out of business, meaning the poverty just hits harder next year. We give them more aid, and the vicious cycle continues.

 

 

 

One example is agriculture. We have too much food in this country, so he give literally mountains of food to the Africans in aid. This floods their economy with food, putting their farmers out of business. Because they've less farmers, they have less food and the starvation worsens.

 

 

 

If you genuinely want to help Africans, buy products under projects such as the FairTrade scheme, or a charity which actually gives Africans the capability to lift themselves out of poverty. Examples would be groups which build fresh-water wells inside villages, charities which teach villagers how to farm their own produce and provide the seeds to allow them to grow their own food. Groups which construct basic schools to educate children and provide opportunity later on in life.

 

 

 

Apart from sending out a principle, this would do nothing to lift Africans out of poverty, sadly. The global economic system we live in simply would not allow such a solution.

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly what I was going to say. Simply giving them stuff hurts the local economy. This is something my econ teacher used to say all the time.

 

What africa needs is a boost in infrastructure. Schools, sanitation and a way for them to earn money. Create jobs by help start businesses there. Those people employ the poor, etc... Example: It is hard to get water/supplies into remote villages. We find a upper middle class man and give him start up money for a water system business. He buys pipes and sets up a system where reservoirs are connected to villages by using african laborers. He pays them a salary, so money is shuffled into the working class. We are injecting a small capital and the economy does its work through employment. Investors in africa provide the salary to these workers by speculating growth of the company. everyone's happy.

[l0l0lpur32]

Simply money into Africa is counter-productive.

[aquariusman]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

 

 

 

I'd rather my tax money go to starving African children than a massive ceremony.

 

While as a socialist I appreciate your concern for global poverty, your argument is sadly based on total naivety.

 

 

 

Even with the issue of dictators and regimes aside, simply giving aid to Africa doesn't work - in fact it actually makes things worse. We flood their economy with 'freebies', but all this does is out-compete the few in Africa who were providing those commodities in the first place, putting them out of business, meaning the poverty just hits harder next year. We give them more aid, and the vicious cycle continues.

 

 

 

One example is agriculture. We have too much food in this country, so he give literally mountains of food to the Africans in aid. This floods their economy with food, putting their farmers out of business. Because they've less farmers, they have less food and the starvation worsens.

 

 

 

If you genuinely want to help Africans, buy products under projects such as the FairTrade scheme, or a charity which actually gives Africans the capability to lift themselves out of poverty. Examples would be groups which build fresh-water wells inside villages, charities which teach villagers how to farm their own produce and provide the seeds to allow them to grow their own food. Groups which construct basic schools to educate children and provide opportunity later on in life.

 

 

 

Apart from sending out a principle, this would do nothing to lift Africans out of poverty, sadly. The global economic system we live in simply would not allow such a solution.

 

Wish my friend was online so I could get the link to a report that shows foreign aid in the form of money has at best no impact. Money isn't what gives a country a successful economy, good government does. Look at the United States. They were one of the richest countries in the world, but George W. Bush has brought them into the biggest financial deficit in their history, after a hefty surplus. They had all that money and built-up infrastructure, yet the US still has a huge financial crisis. Charities and foreign governments needs to insert better government policies to make a Third-world country prosper. Pouring foreign aid into countries makes them dependent on that same aid which was meant to help.

 

 

 

I do think that the money could be better spent elsewhere though, instead of the Olympics. Although, the Olympics today are pretty much just a sign of wealth. How about improving infrastructure in your home country instead of wasting it on an event that will likely be forgotten in a year. Make your country more independent from imports, improve public services, create more public services, invest that money in foreign countries (I think it's Norway that invests almost entirely in foreign operations, turns out they are doing pretty damn good), do something that puts good use to the money.

 

 

 

Oh, and charity work should be up to civilians, not the government.

[Faux]

you better be hiring Pixar with that much dough

[Agunimon979]

300 mil for a ceremony? Wtf? What are we supposed to be celebrating about, the slow and painful death and suffering of other people? Oh yeah thats really worth shooting off fireworks and cheering about :roll:

[Da Pirates]

The world will end a couple months after the 2012 Olympics, so it's not like money matters.