On 28 Aug, 17:15, "Gaz" wrote:
[groups trimmed for vague relevancy]
93 million pounds of economic activity and 3000 full-time-equivalents of
jobs do anything for you? See:

http://www.lda.org.uk/upload/pdf/18_...gHillfinal.pdf

tom

ROFL. I doubt, in fact, i would say it was close to zero, the chance that
the event generates more then it costs. More fool you for thinking so.


Traditionally, if someone provides an economic model that demonstrates
a particular outcome (the study above calculated both the costs and
the benefits, determining that the benefits were an order of magnitude
higher than the costs), the appropriate response is to criticise the
specific assumptions used in the model.

The response of saying "rofl, I don't believe that, because even
though I have no evidence I do have a lot of personal prejudices. And
you're an idiot" is not generally considered quite so convincing.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org