The BBC article doesn’t even attempt to establish a causal link: it just states that two things happened at the same time.

Maybe you think they should cut their losses and cancel the Paralympics?

Current estimates are that the London Olympics cost about £11bn
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/26/london-2012-price-olympic-games-visualised

A new Thames Estuary airport, with transport links, to replace Heathrow would cost an estimated £50bn.

As for the replacement of the Trident Submarines:

“Although £3?billion has been spent, and a further £3?billion committed to Trident’s replacement, the Government insists that no final decision has been taken. This will come in 2016, after the next election, when the contracts will be awarded.” [Evening Standard 18 June 2012]

It’s too hot, it’s too cold, it’s too dry, it’s too wet.
People will spend because there are Bank Holidays / A Royal Jubilee/Wedding, Olympics/Paralympics.
Turns out they didn’t due to any, none or some of the above.
I just saw an Emperor walk past – he was stark b#ll#ck naked.
I feel insulted that these idiots presume that publishing any old ‘tosh’ as facts is going to have me sagely telling a fellow commuter – “……….and that’s why the economy is in such a state”.

“The BBC article doesn’t even attempt to establish a causal link: it just states that two things happened at the same time.”

I’ll give you one: people stayed at home to watch the telly. I was wandering around Tesco wondering why it was so empty until someone pointed out the Olympics were on.

Similarly, I used to work at a supermarket, and the place was absolutely dead during the World Cup when England was playing.

“Maybe you think they should cut their losses and cancel the Paralympics?”

Economic impact is not the only factor in establishing whether an event is worthwhile. However, it is one factor. These results appear to counter – indeed, reverse – one of the arguments generally extended for hosting the Olympics.