Having been in Dublin when only one formula one car had use of its streets, I can tell you that one car makes a lot of noise. Now if that was multiplied many times over then the noise pollution would be significantly higher. My point is that externalities are often neglected when assessing the worth of an event. Things like heightened traffic jams, air pollution, increased criminal activity, gambling losses and noise pollution are rarely mentioned. Here is one Sydneysider happy that the Grand Prix did NOT come to Sydney. I saw what such a race did to the traffic in Dublin. Such disruption to traffic flows in Sydney would be unbearable. Social costs should always be considered when assessing any sporting event.
It's worth noting that March is the nicest time of year in Melbourne. I remember (a few years ago) as a prospective groom that some reception centres charged extra for a March wedding. Some years it also clashes with the opening round of the AFL season. It's the time of year that you least need to subsidise people to come to Melbourne.
Why are politicians such jock-sniffers? They're bad enough when they outbid each other for manufacturing plants, which I suppose also code masculine. But they're worse with sports teams or sporting events.
Fine on the input-output multipliers. But it would be unfair to blame Leontief for this abuse of his invention. I-O analysis is I guess still a good way of capturing interdependencies, for instance on carbon intensity or material footprint. I dare say it's a lot more transparent to the general reader than a general equilibrium model.
My seat of the pants guess is that if facilities cannot be used for anything else, rent plus the tax on ticket sales (with a bit thrown in for tax on the marginal increase in hotel stays) has to pay for the investment. I guess calculating the residual value of the facility could be tricky
Having been in Dublin when only one formula one car had use of its streets, I can tell you that one car makes a lot of noise. Now if that was multiplied many times over then the noise pollution would be significantly higher. My point is that externalities are often neglected when assessing the worth of an event. Things like heightened traffic jams, air pollution, increased criminal activity, gambling losses and noise pollution are rarely mentioned. Here is one Sydneysider happy that the Grand Prix did NOT come to Sydney. I saw what such a race did to the traffic in Dublin. Such disruption to traffic flows in Sydney would be unbearable. Social costs should always be considered when assessing any sporting event.
It's worth noting that March is the nicest time of year in Melbourne. I remember (a few years ago) as a prospective groom that some reception centres charged extra for a March wedding. Some years it also clashes with the opening round of the AFL season. It's the time of year that you least need to subsidise people to come to Melbourne.
Why are politicians such jock-sniffers? They're bad enough when they outbid each other for manufacturing plants, which I suppose also code masculine. But they're worse with sports teams or sporting events.
Fine on the input-output multipliers. But it would be unfair to blame Leontief for this abuse of his invention. I-O analysis is I guess still a good way of capturing interdependencies, for instance on carbon intensity or material footprint. I dare say it's a lot more transparent to the general reader than a general equilibrium model.
General equilibrium models also start from I-O tables. It's just a question of what assumptions you make to close the model.
My seat of the pants guess is that if facilities cannot be used for anything else, rent plus the tax on ticket sales (with a bit thrown in for tax on the marginal increase in hotel stays) has to pay for the investment. I guess calculating the residual value of the facility could be tricky