Thank goodness. The family have buggered off again back to the UK - I love them, but they're deeply irritating at times. Now to rub my hands in glee at the prospect of a New Year's Eve in Paris. Fireworks from the Eiffel Tower? Oh yes.

Oh, they are pretty and probably bring out the child within but, oh, what a waste of money. I understand that when in Sydney someone lights the blue touchpaper for the NYE bash it is the culmination of efforts expended at the expense of many sponsors. This is all well and good but, to be honest, I can't remember the name of any sponsor of any previous display. I don't think that the people involved were being philanthropic so plebeian level deduction tells me that they wasted their investment.
I suspect that I'll come across as some sort of curmudgeon but I'm not like that really. While the money spent on these exercises of excess is probably small, imagine the difference a few million quid or dollars could make if that were invested in something like rescue services, paramedic equipment or, God forbid, even some sort of research into the whys and wherefores of everyday life. *folds up soapbox and leaves*

Postscript: The leaves became caught up in the soapbox due to the amount of hot air generated by your correspondent.

[Dujon] "research into the whys and wherefores of everyday life"? Until that point, I was agreeing with you, but that sounds like a bigger waste of money than fireworks to my untrained ear.

I did say "God forbid", Phil. ;(

No. That makes me seem flippant. Surely, though, those who spend money on advancing their public profile (you like that? It's PR speak.) would be better off putting such funds into something that matters. We have a couple of helicopter rescue services in my neck of the woods; everyone knows the NRMA and Westpac choppers and appreciates them.

[Dujon] Yep, so many things do seem to be largely justified by accountants, rather than common sense, or a sense of "what's right If the sponsors of said pyrotechnics provided transport and viewing platforms for those with learning difficulties, say, rather than just paying some money to be associated with a fun event, I think their names and products/services would be better remembered.
When I try to advance my public profile (honest, I do), I spend my money on an event, and organise it myself, and then try to get the advertising for free through media coverage. Even if the event only breaks even, the knock-on effects of repeat trade and wider awareness are worth the effort and expense.

OK, Phil, you can put away the sarcasm. I admit that I did get a bit carried away and for that I apologise, though I do not resile from my original premiss.
It's been 2008 for a few hours now so I shall wish you all the best for the new year. Peace?

Eeek, I wasn't being sarcastic.

I think those sort of events with forgotten sponsors are part of a much bigger picture - pride in a place, a sense of community, and a general drawing-together of efforts. And no matter how desperate the need for support for a helicopter ambulance service or a hospice, a proper sense of community precedes all. London, or Sydney, or Budapest, or Oban all need to be nice places for people to live in order for businesses and services to prosper there. I think a few fireworks on New Year's Eve are part of that process.

I've just done a couple of minutes of googling, so I don't know how accurate these numbers are, but it seems as if the order of magnitudes are that there were around one million spectators in Sydney, and that the fireworks cost about AUD600,000. I think it is a reasonable bet that those spectators would almost all have been willing to give up at least 60 cents for the pleasure of watching the display, and that the average willingness to pay would have been much much higher.* So it sounds to me as if it was actually a very good use of resources, and not a "waste of money" at all. (This is separate from the question of whether the corporate sponsors get a return on investment; I'm simply asking whether the firework display was a worthwhile use of resources, and if the numbers I saw are right -- or even off by a factor of 10 -- I think the answer is clearly yes.)

* I'm using "willingness to pay" in a technical sense here: think of it as meaning that an individual is equally happy having $x and not seeing the fireworks, on not having $x and seeing the fireworks. Other boring economic discussion available on request.