The only countries that have spent more than $10B are Greece and China.
Hey P23, why pollute this discussion with actual facts?? Paranoid conjecture and propaganda is so much more expedient.
You'll note it's a new member that has posted these two posts -- including the second which touches on every positive propaganda point an Olympic bid committee puts forward. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that, pending lots of other posts on other threads, that this is a single-issue member shilling for an Olympics. DJThomps, please prove me wrong.
Riverdale, I'd like you to meet NoTO24!
I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that, pending lots of other posts on other threads, that this is a single-issue member shilling for an Olympics.
Riverdale, I'd like you to meet Animatronics!
Logical fallacy. Had the Pan Ams never happened, waterfront development could still have proceeded
My highlighting.
I'd like you to please note the 'could' in your own hypothetical musings. The fact is we don't have to muse!! Waterfront development
did proceed, and in large part thanks to these games. No fallacy about it.
No, the logical fallacy in the debate is this false understanding of an opportunity cost to the games, that funding these games will directly result in a hemorrhaging of funding for social programs or potential transit/infrastructure spending in the city ... let's call it the Sophie's Choice delusion, a false 'either/or' choice that is misleading for two reasons:
1. government funding doesn't work in this way across jurisdictions. The vast bulk of the funding for these games must come in the form of stimulus/injection spending from higher levels of government, levels of government that have underfunded Toronto in this way for decades. This has the net effect of removing the opportunity cost from Toronto's purview and spreading it far wider.
2. there is no opportunity cost to injection funding that is earmarked or targeted in this way. If you take away the 'earmark' - the olympics in this case - there is no funding. Simple. So from a Toronto-centric perspective it is completely irrelevant to claim potential loss to what are essentially fictional funding alternatives (transit or social programs). Again, the opportunity cost exists beyond the city's jurisdiction.