[netcan]

Current politics seems to demand that everything be an investment. Education, roads, stadiums. It is supposed to create growth. Stimulate. Save on future healthcare or welfare costs. etc.

Realistically, the way to think about almost all government spending is consumption. By spending on health we (hopefully) get to be healthier. By spending on entertainment we are more entertained. The Olympics or any other public prestige projects are like when billionaires and dictators do stuff, but for cities and nations. They get to feel prestigious. Prestige might have some economic benefits but thinking of it that way misses the point. Prestige is an end in itself.

[AndrewDucker]

It's a question of how much happiness you generate for the cash. The UK Arts Council gets about £500million to spend. The Olympics cost the UK 18 times that much.

If the Olympics also produces 18 times as much happiness, then that's a worthwhile investment. If not, then maybe that money could have been better spent elsewhere.

[teekert]

Flawed logic, that "18 times" depends on the initial 500 million so the cut-off happiness value is now determined by the initial investment? Nope. The only way to determine if it makes sense is if there is way to specify happiness per pound for the olympics. I for one couldn't care less about the olympics by the way.

[ddeck]

And let's not forget that governments don't act in isolation. There are numerous corporate interests (primarily construction) that stand to benefit and many government systems incorporate some form of lobbying.

Japan in particular is notorious for it's collusive relationship between politicians and businessmen, with regular bid rigging or no bidding at all for public works contracts.