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

[Ermy]

It's a silly waste of money for something that no one will remember

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And off topic: I was watching this about the olympics.

 

Warning: Contains bad language

 

[hide=]1qNvI2YTvXc [/hide]

[Will H]

Can we put this into Sterling, not Dollars, since that's the form it's going to be spent in (not only that, but some people are getting £ and $ confused!). Here's something we can use:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/london_2012/4025027.stm

 

It's a more complex overview on the costs and the uses of the buildings after the games.

 

 

 

I think that there's some things which can't be solved by just throwing money at it, patience and education is a lot more valuable tool for dealing with 3rd world poverty.

 

Just because large parts of humanity is suffering doesn't mean that we mustn't celebrate it, if cancelling it and spending it on removing the suffering will barely help anyway.

 

 

 

Although I must admit that London wasn't a good idea, we aren't in a position where we can spend that money without repercussions, and we don't need to host it. At least placing it in China helped a nation which did have problems, and yet had enough money to easily afford the Olympics.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

It's a silly waste of money for something that no one will remember

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And off topic: I was watching this about the olympics.

 

Warning: Contains bad language

 

[hide=]1qNvI2YTvXc [/hide]

 

Oh wow, I love Mock the Week, I hadn't seen that one, thankyou! :)

[oegly41]

Yeah, infrastructure, stuff like that!

 

 

 

I believe that the best thing to do is to invest the money in hospitals. That way we can help the sick, more people survive, people will get less children and there is more resources per person. Still, there are enough resources; the only problem is civil wars and corruption.

 

 

 

To Oy_the_Great: I have actually been to Cameroon (reminder: Africa is not a country.). I even supported the economy by buying a wallet for two quid.

[Kenshinjapan]

Yeah, infrastructure, stuff like that!

 

 

 

I believe that the best thing to do is to invest the money in hospitals. That way we can help the sick, more people survive, people will get less children and there is more resources per person. Still, there are enough resources; the only problem is civil wars and corruption.

 

 

 

To Oy_the_Great: I have actually been to Cameroon (reminder: Africa is not a country.). I even supported the economy by buying a wallet for two quid.

 

 

 

Correct, if you build hospitals, then more people will survive. However, the birthrate wouldn't go down since more adult are alive to reproduce. Also, there is not enough resources even for the people already there. If there were, the red cross wouldn't be shipping care packages to these villages.

[Agunimon979]

Alot of you people are missing the point here. They wouldn't just drive into africa and say "Here's $100 go knock yourself out." Obviously the money would be put forwards to hospitals, housing, fresh water, electricity, protection, businesses etc.

[amoeba_009]

I like firecrackers and pretty colours across the sky. And like Ginger said it would cause nothing but regression.

[jackattack]

 

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.

 

 

 

Yet you still do it.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

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.

 

 

 

Yet you still do it.

 

 

 

Including you? Unless you're farming your own food in some deserted place, you're no better than any of us.

[BlueLancer]

 

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.

 

 

 

Yet you still do it.

 

 

 

Including you? Unless you're farming your own food in some deserted place, you're no better than any of us.

 

 

 

Buying locally produced food is an ideal situation. People in scandinavia buying nordic foods, people in Zimbabwe buying southern African foods, people in USA buying american, canadian & mexican produced food, people in Japan buying food produced in Korea, Japan China, etc...

 

 

 

In the current model, food flows out of starving countries into western countries so their food chains can sell it for cheaper (due to low labour costs). It makes no sense. Buying & selling local produce is a big key to solving hunger. (The only question remains, how will the local population earn enough money to buy it)

[Bluejayfan94]

Wow, if I was african I'd think I was rich if I recieved $75. It's too bad that the worlds countries only think of themselves. :cry:

[Lenticular_J]

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.

 

That's why I'm going to Africa after college, me and my friends are planning to go somewhere in Central Africa and just go village to village helping. An idealistic idea to be sure, but hey, we'll do what we can if we can.

[RichieMcD]

300 Million dollars wasn't thrown away, 300 Million dollars was actually invested into Chinas economy by it's government, the money spent on fireworks will help the fireworks company financially, like it will help the agency who organized all the dancers / singers / musicians / others involved.

 

 

 

The 300 Million dollars you want to give to the Africans wont go magically into their hands like you seem to think. What's stopping local warlords / corrupt politicians to send their "goons" out house-to-house to collect the money off the villagers? My guess would be the average person in that circumstance would instantly spend it on much needed food, clothes etc etc, not buying an Ox and more land that is useless without the government installing basic infrastructure like roads / irrigation systems / farmers markets etc etc.

 

 

 

You really haven't thought this through have you?

[reaper88888]

As other people have said, just handing some country in Africa 300 million would do more harm than good, as would buying products and giving those. All you are doing is flooding the economy with cheap products, driving local businesses into the ground. And if you hand out the money, even if you give it to individual families, and even if it isn't taken by a warlord or corrupt government, all you are doing is driving them further into a hole, because with these continual handouts, people will use that money to buy food, and once it is gone, they go back to starving. They still have horrible living conditions, they still don't have a job or source of food, they just will live a while longer. What needs to be done is bring in truly large sums, billions of dollars (This is NOT very much, compared to the annual budgets of many superpowers), and develop the infrastructure. Don't funnel in money or products; dig wells, build better homes, set up plumbing and water treatment plants, give people seeds and animals, help them develop the land for farming, bring in outside workers to set up businesses that they can work in. Allow them to sustain themselves, rather than being propped up by foreign money.

[JeremyM]

its not like all the money just disappeared. a lot of workers who built the nest in china were living in poverty and this was their only job.

 

 

 

i still like your idea though.

[Agunimon979]

Is everyone ignoring my post? The money obviously WON'T JUST BE HANDED OUT, it would go forward to build hospitals, homes, produce medicine, fresh water etc....

[oegly41]

Is everyone ignoring my post? The money obviously WON'T JUST BE HANDED OUT, it would go forward to build hospitals, homes, produce medicine, fresh water etc....

 

I saw your post! Infrastructure for the win! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Anyhow, Africa(here treated as a continent, not a country) is very rich on resources, the climate allows African farmers to have several crops per year, and it is not as dry as some people claim. The problem is corruption; unethical leaders and globalisation forces workers to work for less, meaning that they have to struggle more than they usually would have to.

[Cup Lion]

I like the idea of saving the 300 million dollars. Not sure what should be done with it, but that kind of money shouldn't be used like that. I like the single firework thing, too.

 

 

 

I don't feel like going into how the money should be put to use. Just some other way instead of an opening ceremony.

[warren211]

As reaper said, handing out the money won't do anything but bring a temporary end to the suffering, which inevitably continues again. Africa can't rely on charity. We need to (cliche alert) help them help themselves. Giving food won't solve anything, they'll starve sooner or later again. But giving them the land, and seeds, and animals to give a continuous source of food is much better. But with all the corruption, improper use of natural resources, it will take a lot more than 300m to solve everything.

[llamster]

As reaper said, handing out the money won't do anything but bring a temporary end to the suffering, which inevitably continues again. Africa can't rely on charity. We need to (cliche alert) help them help themselves. Giving food won't solve anything, they'll starve sooner or later again. But giving them the land, and seeds, and animals to give a continuous source of food is much better.

 

 

 

That's what charities are there doing right now, actually. But they could always use more help.

[re4p3r1]

i doubt just giving money to Africa will help much, whether it is giving them money individually or use it to build schools, hospitals, etc. Afterall who controls those things?? The government. Thats what has to be changed in Africa. Not every country has a nice little system that the citizens can rely on.

[Ginger_Warrior]

 

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.

 

 

 

Yet you still do it.

 

Actually, my family has never bought from those stores. The Empire is also the sole reason I refuse to be called British. Not all of us take delight in dominating the world to our will, jack. ;)

 

 

 

Nevertheless, living my idealist socialist lifestyle in a capitalist structure would be totally naive. Hence why the system needs to be changed.

 

 

 

So please don't bother inferring I'm a hypocrite when my life and everything it stands for clearly says otherwise.

[chris20085]

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.

 

The main thing which causes this is globalisation making it so small local companies can't compete against big multinationals, allowing monopolies to form due to lack of competition and manipulate prices/wages and to some extent, economies. The way I see it, the problem isn't really competition, it's lack of it.

[jackattack]

 

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.

 

 

 

Yet you still do it.

 

Actually, my family has never bought from those stores. The Empire is also the sole reason I refuse to be called British. Not all of us take delight in dominating the world to our will, jack. ;)

 

 

 

Nevertheless, living my idealist socialist lifestyle in a capitalist structure would be totally naive. Hence why the system needs to be changed.

 

 

 

So please don't bother inferring I'm a hypocrite when my life and everything it stands for clearly says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay so? My family has never shopped at wal-mart. Does that make me special too? And you actually refuse to be called british? Do you prefer english or something? England isn't that bad of a place. The food is terrible but that's nothing to be ashamed of.

[RSBDavid]

When America first came to be, we had very little. We managed to build our infastructure, power and wealth over a long period of time. Africa's government is partly to blame for their poverty.

 

 

 

I went on a mission trip a long time ago to Niger. We went from mansions worth millions, to shacks and huts worth nothing basically, within an hour of each other. We went to a resturaunt in the richer part of the country, and we saw these "rich kids" throw 5 dollars (american) worth of food away.

 

 

 

If we were to send Africa millions of dollars, the government would be the first and last ones to see it. The 'elections' of the government are rigged. "Vote fo this person who be shot".

 

 

 

(will add more)

[Julius47108]

London got the 2012 Olympics? Damn, I was rootin' for Chicago.

 

 

 

A bit off topic but never the less: Chicago may get the 2016 ones, right now it's between: Tokyo Japan, Madrid Spain, Chicago United States, and Rio de Janeiro Brazil.

 

 

 

And on topic when they put this money into the ceremony they want to impress the other nations and show that they are good hosts. Plus there are plenty of rich people that could give 300m to Africa.