Dying2077
Student
- Oct 6, 2023
- 109
ClaudeCTTE
Misunderstood...
- Aug 22, 2023
- 264
Because a stadium generates more income for its owners, whereas building 10,000 homes does not.
For the government, it's cheaper to have the poor on the streets than to build them houses. When someone has a lot of money, sometimes instead of donating it or spending it on luxuries, they prefer to acquire assets to generate more money. Let's say the stadium is an asset, so in the long term, it can benefit the owners and potentially recoup their investment, which wouldn't happen when building homes for the poor. Although honestly, I'm not sure if the homes could also be used as assets, as if people had the income to buy those 10,000 houses, it might generate profits.
For the government, it's cheaper to have the poor on the streets than to build them houses. When someone has a lot of money, sometimes instead of donating it or spending it on luxuries, they prefer to acquire assets to generate more money. Let's say the stadium is an asset, so in the long term, it can benefit the owners and potentially recoup their investment, which wouldn't happen when building homes for the poor. Although honestly, I'm not sure if the homes could also be used as assets, as if people had the income to buy those 10,000 houses, it might generate profits.
Ideally- there should be enough money to pay for the housing and the stadium. That money should probably be going to hospitals and schools too. Still- I guess our governments think we need distraction as well as the core essentials.
I expect they act as show pieces too for an area. They try to demonstrate how wealthy and successful the area is. (Even if it isn't.) I guess it creates jobs too and draws in tourism.
Not being a massive sports fan myself, I'd personally prefer to see that money go elsewhere- it likely is at least partly tax payers money too. Still- imagine this world with no leisure. No museums, no parks, no leisure centres, no cinemas. No interesting architecture. Basically- nothing excessive- only the basics needed to live. I think there does need to be some balance. It's just that- more than likely- the balance is wrong.
Plus- I doubt our governments particularly like poor people! They probably prefer to spend their money where they will get a better return.
I expect they act as show pieces too for an area. They try to demonstrate how wealthy and successful the area is. (Even if it isn't.) I guess it creates jobs too and draws in tourism.
Not being a massive sports fan myself, I'd personally prefer to see that money go elsewhere- it likely is at least partly tax payers money too. Still- imagine this world with no leisure. No museums, no parks, no leisure centres, no cinemas. No interesting architecture. Basically- nothing excessive- only the basics needed to live. I think there does need to be some balance. It's just that- more than likely- the balance is wrong.
Plus- I doubt our governments particularly like poor people! They probably prefer to spend their money where they will get a better return.
