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

[mrpez]

$300 will make a family of four completely self-sufficient? For maybe a few weeks or months you mean, right?

[Wisp]

Ok, let's think. 300m for a government is not much at all. Currently the US is in a several trillion deficit, and let's take just one trillion apart.

 

That's 1000 billions. Each one of those billions is 1000 millions. One trillion is a million millions. If it was the US paying 300 million, it would have no noticeable impact on anything.

 

I don't know what England's GDP is, but 300 million is nothing for a first world country.

[infintebajan]

seriously, i can't believe the original poster is so so 1950ish...., if you want to help them out then hell yeah send them your money. Let's all be glad that the op isn't anywhere near any government, those ideals are the kind of ideals that really sends both countries in the toilet. Most people in Africa will die of aids. In 100 years there probably won't be an africa for you to donate to, Find the cure for aids if you really want to help them

[redhaloguy]

300 Million? Holy [cabbage] that's a lot of [bleep]ing money

 

 

 

How long was that show like 20 min? I really think something simple and cheap could entertain someone for that amount of time?

 

 

 

Olympics are sports anyways. Someone is always boasting on how there country kicked [wagon]. When those people went through so much training. We just sit on our butts and tell everyone where better. POINTLESS!

[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.

 

 

 

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...

 

Actually, the article said absolutely nothing about where the money will go. And what makes oyu think it would go to Africa in the first place?

 

 

 

I do, however, agree that that's more than a pantload. That's 12 pantloads, a bucketload, and a pair of coveralls. WQay too much for a 20 minute ceremony.

[ThurinEthir]

 

1. I challenge you to find "luxurious homes and areas" anywhere in Africa.

 

Ever heard of northern Africa? Areas in countries like Tunisia and Egypt aren't as luxurious as those in the USA and UK, but they're sufficient. If we're talking sub-Saharan Africa, then hm...Just wanted to make sure your impression of Africa wasn't way off.

 

I'm sure if it was possible, and as easy as you make it sound, some country would've given Africans money already. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Japan (?) donated $1 billion (?) to some countries in Africa. (1 billion total, not to each country) I don't know what ended up happening with that, but it doesn't look like it solved much. The US could hand over a few billion if they wanted to, but it simply wouldn't work just like that. Unless humanity really has reached a new low. Doubt it though...

[nomadmike]

$300 million better be spent on massive fireworks.

 

China's 30 thousand seemed...small to me. :twss:

 

 

 

Just giving Africa that money wont help. It might seem to help at first but as stated above it hurts in the long run. :cry:

 

 

 

If only life had an Easy Button for everything.

[Rebdragon]

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.

 

The President is little more than a victim of circumstance, even with the war. Clinton got lucky on the upturn, Bush didn't, stuck on the downturn.

 

 

 

The economy goes through highs and lows over time, it's just what naturally happens [a recession has not last more than 15 months in decades; national economic 'swinging' happens relatively rapidly]. It's basic economics mate.

 

 

 

Sorry, the ignorance and the same old anti-Bush crap I hear everyday just triggered something and forced a response. Please, continue.

[Lionheart_0]

Although it would be nice for the money to be better spent, the Olympics are also a sign of power. Who has the most powerful athletes, which country is beating which. In the end it's just as important as who has the most fire power. It's about countries trying to show off their power ans wealth. If you have a crappy ceremony, you look like a crappy country. Look at China, the little girl singing was a fake, she was only a pretty face put there to mouth the words.

 

 

 

 

 

As long as the government spends most of the money on services from it's own country, in the end the country keeps the money, and it ends up being a good thing for the economy. People are getting paid.

[llamster]

I can't believe noone noticed this line, including the OP.

 

 

 

London 2012 officials have admitted they will not be able to commit the same resources to their opening event.

 

 

 

That means they will spend LESS than three hundred million dollars. Besides which, three hundred million dollars is barely anything. I'm sure you've heard of the Minneapolis bridge collapse a year ago. The new bridge is costing about 200 odd million, over half as much as the 2008 opening ceremony for just one bridge.

[mrpez]

africa's net worth as a country (natural resources included, of course) is insanely high.

 

 

 

your suggestion to give each family several hundred dollars is, to be honest, very juvenile and naive. given the time we're all living in, it should be apparent that throwing money blindly at a problem will not solve anything. on top of that, giving money to families, no matter how much it is, wont really do anything for the country as a whole. before thoughts of flinging millions of dollars to africa come into play, there needs to be a stable government to handle it.

[Wisp]

300 Million? Holy [cabbage] that's a lot of [bleep] money

 

 

 

How long was that show like 20 min? I really think something simple and cheap could entertain someone for that amount of time?

 

 

 

Olympics are sports anyways. Someone is always boasting on how there country kicked [wagon]. When those people went through so much training. We just sit on our butts and tell everyone where better. POINTLESS!

 

show was about five hours, including the countries coming in.

[Kenshinjapan]

Ok, let's think. 300m for a government is not much at all. Currently the US is in a several trillion deficit, and let's take just one trillion apart.

 

That's 1000 billions. Each one of those billions is 1000 millions. One trillion is a million millions. If it was the US paying 300 million, it would have no noticeable impact on anything.

 

I don't know what England's GDP is, but 300 million is nothing for a first world country.

 

 

 

Someone beat me to it :-# . 300 million is just a drop in the bucket.

 

 

 

Also, has anyone ever thought of what the Olympics does for the world? Countries are united in a peaceful environment to compete in games. Also, because China was the host country, they removed a great deal of the pollution in Beijing. Even with the hundreds of millions spent on the preparation of the games, a lot of the money will be made back through ticket sales and tourist attraction. If they can seat 10,000(?) people and sell each ticket for up to thousands of dollars, the host country could be in for a treat. Not to mention the Chinese workers that got jobs from constructing the stadiums and selling souvenirs. While Africa didn't get any money, a country with starving people that benefit from these games and can actually stabilize their own economy gets my vote.

[redhaloguy]

300 Million? Holy [cabbage] that's a lot of [bleep] money

 

 

 

How long was that show like 20 min? I really think something simple and cheap could entertain someone for that amount of time?

 

 

 

Olympics are sports anyways. Someone is always boasting on how there country kicked [wagon]. When those people went through so much training. We just sit on our butts and tell everyone where better. POINTLESS!

 

show was about five hours, including the countries coming in.

 

 

 

Still 5 hours is still enough time to be entertained and not spend a bunch of money on it. What is that like 2 movies (Grindhouse)

 

 

 

I only saw 20 min of it. So I'm sorry :-w

[Agunimon979]

The opening ceremony was a big performance of bleep IMO. What, they're shooting fireworks off celebrating the fact that innocent people are suffering? Are the drummers parading that other people are dieing and they aren't?

[Kenshinjapan]

The opening ceremony was a big performance of bleep IMO. What, they're shooting fireworks off celebrating the fact that innocent people are suffering? Are the drummers parading that other people are dieing and they aren't?

 

 

 

And what do you suggest that we do? Are we not allowed to celebrate anything and enjoy ourselves when someone in the world is going hungry? If that's how you feel, I suggest you sell your computer, house, car, and anything else you enjoy in life? Why? Because having fun is apparently wrong :| .

 

 

 

There are just some things you can't fix with even billions of dollars. Taking away something as innocent as the Olympics makes matters worse.

[warri0r45]

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.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be a powerful message for this contest that's supposed to unite people of all backgrounds to cut all spending on the opening ceremony and just run pictures of abject poverty for a couple of hours.

 

 

 

However, realistically speaking Ginger_warrior has a good point. To help with poverty in Africa, you simply can't throw money at them. Giving them incentives and a helping hand to lift themselves off the ground is the only way I can see good being done.

 

 

 

You have to teach them to build schools, farms, houses and give them the opportunity to help themselves stimulate their economy. Welfare should only be for those who can't help themselves. Any large scale reliance on welfare payouts (charity) can only breed dependance and stifle initiative and responsibility.

 

 

 

I think a bit of tough love and a little less hippie love is in order when it comes to Africa.

[Wisp]

The opening ceremony was a big performance of bleep IMO. What, they're shooting fireworks off celebrating the fact that innocent people are suffering? Are the drummers parading that other people are dieing and they aren't?

 

No offense, but I find this to be a very, very stupid comment.

 

If I am happy about something in my life, am I celebrating because I am not dying, yet people somewhere else are?

 

The Olympics are one of the only times when so many people of so many countries come together peacefully, and it is a celebration of humanity, if anything.

 

On the fourth of the july are Americans celebrating that they aren't in Iraq dying? No.

 

If I have a birthday party, am I celebrating that I am not going hungry? No.

 

There are people suffering everywhere, in America, in England, in China, in South Africa, and everywhere really.

 

I am sad to say there will always be suffering, there will always be people dying. If no one died for a year or so, so many more would die the next year, there would not be enough resources to go around,even if there weren't enough the year before aswell.

 

Without death there would not be life, unfortunately. Death, interestingly enough, enables life.

 

 

 

The olympics probably generate more money than they cost, from ads, tickets, sponsorships and so on.

[dsavi]

Ginger is right. To throw away that much money is immoral, and on the other hand we can't just put the money somewhere in Africa and hope that it ends poverty.

 

 

 

At risk of going against my arrogant teenage stereotype, I suppose education is what is needed most.

[Kenshinjapan]

Ginger is right. To throw away that much money is immoral, and on the other hand we can't just put the money somewhere in Africa and hope that it ends poverty.

 

 

 

At risk of going against my arrogant teenage stereotype, I suppose education is what is needed most.

 

 

 

What do you suggest we do then? I wouldn't necessarily consider wasting money immoral. (Then again, 300mil isn't really that much money compared to the billions beijing prepared for it.)

[Blingkachi50]

More tax payers money wasted :wall:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Twice as many children are born in africa as the number that die. Maybe the solution to the poverty/under provided supplies is that the families should stop having kids =\. Sounds heartless... but the end of humans if over population continues is going to be, well, over population.

[Oy_the_Great]

I've always found it funny that nearly everyone is talking about helping Africa. Talking, talking, talking. I wonder how many of those people have actually been there and did charity work, or who have just been there, or even just donate money too good causes, for that matter. I've been to Morocco, Egypt, Tanzania and Kenia, I enjoyed it as a tourist, but as an economist it struck me that a lot of Africans always work themselves into the same trouble. And it's not their fault, or not entirely for sure. What happened in the colonial period is that the same western values were applied to the African tribal cultures, with slavery for their conquerers as a first consequence. After these tribes fought for their independance, the western people abandoned the countries, leaving them to whoever ceased power first.

 

And this is exactely why it isn't as easy to get Africa out of their misery: the same old same old happens there, generation after generation. The people just can't seem to live as one nation, they always fight over the massive richesses Africa posseses, with one dictator replacing the other all the time. Now, I've often wondered why that doesn't happen in Europe, or Eastern Asia, where hundreds of millions of people can live together without constant war and prosper. It's striking that former poor Asian nations catch up with incredible speed to most Western civilisations. Why doesn't that happen in Africa?

 

I think the answer is simple: it's all part of the culture. Europeans and Asians have the cultural habit of living under the rule of a government, often a democracy. Europe has a history of 2,500 years of democracy, the eastern Asian civilisations have been around for much longer even. But Africans aren't used to living in one unified state, as we Western people are, it's simply not part of their culture. And you can't just expect that to change over a few years time, not even hundreds of years, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

So the problems in Africa are rooted far deeper than you might expect, and you can invest all the money you want in it: without proper help and guidance, it won't solve a thing. I admire people from the Red Cross, but I'm sure most of them in Africa realise that what they're doing is just another drop on a hot plate.

[Johannas]

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.

 

 

 

This is what i was trying to get at, the olympics cost too much money, we need to put the money into schemes like that. I know direct aid is probably not the best way. But the money would be more effective in a place like Africa.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't believe we should just give £300M to Africa anyway. I realise that might sound harsh, but such a stunt would be totally ignorant to what's causing their poverty in the first place.

 

 

 

The African countries where poverty is rife cannot build the infrastructure needed to lift themselves out of poverty because they are simply too poor to have the money to afford investing into that infrastructure. When everyday is a fight for survival you frankly don't have the tangible ability to build wells, or to grow crops for your people to use and eat.

 

 

 

You have to look at what's causing that poverty. Is it droughts? Well, yes, but Africa could produce more than enough food given its ideal climate. Is it AIDS/HIV? That has some impact, but to say poverty is being caused by AIDS, rather than AIDS being caused by the high IMR is a blinkered judgement to say the very least.

 

 

 

The Africans are poor because your big supermarkets - the likes of Walmart and Tesco - are rigging prices and forcing the African farmers to sell to them at an unbelievably low price. If they don't sell, they have no other way of living. It's that simple - sell at the crap price they're offering, or die.

 

 

 

That's why any investment should be put into infrastructure, rather than simply flooding their economies with things they are more than capable of producing themselves, given the investment. If they cannot afford the infrastructure, we should provide that money so they can.

 

 

 

But frankly, we in Britain buy from Walmart (ASDA) and Tesco, so it would be deeply hypocritical for us to sit on our high horse and lecture the world on an issue which we are causing ourselves, and a problem we contributed to in the days of the Empire, by pillaging and raping the Africans from their resources so we could build our economic wealth.

 

 

 

That's capitalism for you. Someone has to suffer in competition so the winners can live prosperously.

[Johannas]

Good point ^^

 

 

 

Surely there are better things to spend 300million dollars on though...