3 ms·

Or, the event provided thousands of people with jobs, including many builders, civil engineers, rail engineers, software engineers (BBC iPlayer), broadcast engi

Or, the event provided thousands of people with jobs, including many builders, civil engineers, rail engineers, software engineers (BBC iPlayer), broadcast engineers and the area around the park now has high-speed internet access, new accomodation, TV studios (that BT have bought cheap for their sports coverage, thus breaking Sky's stangle-hold on some UK sports coverage) and commercial space some are touting as the next Shoreditch (TechHub are looking to set up shop). As for the military presence, it's debatable about this. Do you deploy the defences and the Spies so you're able to react and protect, should anything occur? Or do you take a chance that something won't happen (like the Boston bombing, 9/11, 7/7, Munich Olympics, Manchester bombing occuring during Euro '96) but if anything does happen, accept that the damage is likely to be much higher (potential many people dying in the worlds spotlight)? Personally, I'm happy to accept that the people making these decisions are (hopefully) privy to a lot more information than I am and, generally, I'm happy to trust them with my personal safety allowing me to enjoy the worlds greatest sporting event. Also, general point regarding military spending; Military things are generally so expensive because of all the clever work that goes into designing, testing and building them. Again, think of how many people the 'military machine' employs, all that expertise on rocketry, nuclear physics, cyber skills, communications, etc. As an added bonus, Military organisations, especially spooks, employ a high percentage of natives, so you're effectively giving jobs and money to your direct neighbours, friends and relatives and not some foreign Chinese industrial Goliath.

toyg 13y ago
The "spying as stimulus" argument is debatable, considering most of the "spying infrastructure" (and military as well, these days) is still bought from abroad; regardless, it's well known that military spending can be a net positive in economic terms, but do you really want to live in a country where everyone is directly or indirectly hired by the military? That's basically the XX-century Nazi/Soviet model, not exactly the happiest societies around. Regarding actual infrastructure work: if the target was regeneration, surely it would have been cheaper to build it anyway and just give it away for free, which wouldn't have required a massive (and massively expensive) security effort, all the G4S-style jobs-for-cronies and so on? Personally, I'd rather see the State undertake real infrastructure work on clear and honest terms, rather than having to wait for some international sport mafia rolling into town so that money can be spent.
- _mulder_ 13y ago
  >Personally, I'd rather see the State undertake real infrastructure work on clear and honest terms Yes, I agree with this. "Waste" is the misallocation of resources whereby you don't get as much benefit from choosing A and you would from choosing B. I would certainly rather see money and resources spent on civil engineering projects, like HS2, broadband rollout, CERN, new Motorways than old military technology. However, tying to sell this to the public is where it gets hard, selling a sporting event seems a lot easier than selling a Nuclear power plant. >but do you really want to live in a country where everyone is directly or indirectly hired by the military? This hardly describes the UK, we have an average defence budget that is being cut more and more almost on a daily basis. It's tiny compared to the US. >considering most of the "spying infrastructure" (and military as well, these days) is still bought from abroad I'm assuming from your comment you're from the UK, in which case we are that 'abroad'. Defence and cyber engineering is one of our few exports, for better or worse.
  - toyg 13y ago
    Unless we manufacture hard drives, I'd say we still buy most stuff from abroad. And yes, our defence budget is small compared to the US, but looking at how this budget is used in the States, I'd say keeping it small is a good choice: the less bombs we have, the less likely we are of dropping them on random countries (yes we went to Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also pulled out much earlier exactly because of budgetary constraints). This is the problem with weapons, real or cyber: once you make them, you'll want to use them one way or another.

toyg 13y ago

The "spying as stimulus" argument is debatable, considering most of the "spying infrastructure" (and military as well, these days) is still bought from abroad; regardless, it's well known that military spending can be a net positive in economic terms, but do you really want to live in a country where everyone is directly or indirectly hired by the military? That's basically the XX-century Nazi/Soviet model, not exactly the happiest societies around. Regarding actual infrastructure work: if the target was regeneration, surely it would have been cheaper to build it anyway and just give it away for free, which wouldn't have required a massive (and massively expensive) security effort, all the G4S-style jobs-for-cronies and so on? Personally, I'd rather see the State undertake real infrastructure work on clear and honest terms, rather than having to wait for some international sport mafia rolling into town so that money can be spent.

_mulder_ 13y ago
>Personally, I'd rather see the State undertake real infrastructure work on clear and honest terms Yes, I agree with this. "Waste" is the misallocation of resources whereby you don't get as much benefit from choosing A and you would from choosing B. I would certainly rather see money and resources spent on civil engineering projects, like HS2, broadband rollout, CERN, new Motorways than old military technology. However, tying to sell this to the public is where it gets hard, selling a sporting event seems a lot easier than selling a Nuclear power plant. >but do you really want to live in a country where everyone is directly or indirectly hired by the military? This hardly describes the UK, we have an average defence budget that is being cut more and more almost on a daily basis. It's tiny compared to the US. >considering most of the "spying infrastructure" (and military as well, these days) is still bought from abroad I'm assuming from your comment you're from the UK, in which case we are that 'abroad'. Defence and cyber engineering is one of our few exports, for better or worse.
- toyg 13y ago
  Unless we manufacture hard drives, I'd say we still buy most stuff from abroad. And yes, our defence budget is small compared to the US, but looking at how this budget is used in the States, I'd say keeping it small is a good choice: the less bombs we have, the less likely we are of dropping them on random countries (yes we went to Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also pulled out much earlier exactly because of budgetary constraints). This is the problem with weapons, real or cyber: once you make them, you'll want to use them one way or another.