Many think that hosting the Olympics is an automatic boost for the economy. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Many economists say that the money it takes to prepare for the Olympics is such a large investment that it detracts from the money brought it from it. At least one positive result is that cities that host or bid on the Olympics almost always increase their national exports by 30% (The Atlantic).
Last year Vancouver’s economy declined by 1.8% in 2009. Different sources say different things about what the Olympics will do to Vancouver this year. The Conference Board of Canada says it is actually expected to boost their economy. ABC News, an American corporation, says that Olympic organizers are feeling the economic crunch. This is the first Olympics since the recession and the International Olympic Committee is even offering money to help cover to deficit, which they rarely do. There are protests being held in Vancouver because many people feel the money should be spent on the education system – and the protestors are threatening to interrupt the Opening Ceremonies.
This economic recession leads people to question the necessity and morality of holding the Olympics. The much-needed money being spent on the games could help with the economy (approximately 3-4 billion dollars, one third less than some years). But would not holding the Olympics depress and panic the world? How far should we go to save money (is what the question boils down to)?
No comments:
Post a Comment