We certainly don’t need to have everyone driving BMWs before thinking about hosting the Olympics. My feeling, though, is that problems like hunger should have a higher priority than they do.

Or, to look at it from another angle, what minimum standard of living would we want EVERYONE to have before we started spending on things like the Olympics?

Eric

You make some good points. It is very difficult to argue the relative merits of different government projects. I think this again comes down to the problem that we can’t measure value objectively.

From the perspective of addressing needs, I’d agree with the fellow with the van delivering blankets. The first priority should be to make sure everyone is fed and warm. Only once people’s basic needs are taken care of should we launch into frivolous things like funding Olympic games.

The only argument that I can see in defense of spending on things like the Olympics is that it is supposed to foster economic growth by promoting Vancouver and Canada on the international stage. If by spending the $100,000 on the Olympics, economic productivity can be increased, maybe we can buy more blankets and food in the long run. I don’t think there is any compelling evidence that events like the Olympics even manage to pay for themselves, however.

I think the problem is that there are lots of people who like things like the Olympics. If we had to wait until we solved the problem of poverty before hosting the Olympics, we would never do it.

One clarification: when you are talking about community spending, are you talking about government program spending funded by taxes?

I’ve always found government spending decisions to be very tricky. Governments support a lot of things. Healthcare, education, and poverty are normally at the top of the list. Why should government fund high school athletics or programmes to create audio books for visually-challenged citizens if there are shortcomings in healthcare or education, or if there are people living in poverty?

There are fairly often opinions presented in the media where an individual representing a wronged group makes a comparison between spending decision.

A recent one in British Columbia was: “My grant of $75,000/year was just canceled. I use it to operate a non-profit program to drive a van around a poor area and distribute blankets and food to people living on the street. Meanwhile, the government just spent $100,000 to print brochures for the coming winter olympics! Isn’t the government horrible!”

Somehow, I think we have to, as a society, spend on some of the little things too, but it’s hard to justify when there are direct comparisons like this.

Eric