41–50 of 127 posts
Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.
having the olympics costs a country X amount, and earns a country Y amount. for some reason I think most people put Y at 0, and say that the country has wasted X (talking only about the 'price tag' of hosting). I can't tell whether people doing that are being dishonest to support a narrative, or whether they actually think that hosting an olympics earns a country nothing. you can argue that Y is often or always less…
I think in this case the author is well-aware of Y: "Though Olympic boosters say the Summer Games allow a city to showcase itself to a global audience, only two Games, both in Los Angeles, have ever made a real profit"
I'm sure you could construct a list that shows no profits ever, and a list that shows massive profits every time (using the same level of evidence for both sides).
the primary issue is that it's extremely difficult to measure costs/profits for something as massive as an olympics. the secondary issue is that people tend to support their 'sides' narrative (keynesian or otherwise).
having the olympics costs a country X amount, and earns a country Y amount. for some reason I think most people put Y at 0, and say that the country has wasted X (talking only about the 'price tag' of hosting). I can't tell whether people doing that are being dishonest to support a narrative, or whether they actually think that hosting an olympics earns a country nothing. you can argue that Y is often or always less…
I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports. The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost. I suppose the same arguments apply for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to imagine that prime real estate like that would be "uninhabited".
'Greece has an extremely large number of islands, with estimates ranging from somewhere around 1,200 to 6,000, depending on the minimum size to take into account. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227.' Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Greece And it would not even have to be uninhabited I guess. Greece is very poor and really needs any investments it can get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with everything you wrote, except for the first 10 words. This isn't a trollish idea. It's a practical solution that solves a real problem. Any time in conversation this topic comes up, I make the same argument that it doesn't make financial sense to move from city to city like a plague.
It’s practical in the sense that it would logically work. But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."
Most people would not give one fat hoot if the whole IOC got left in the dust to whither and die, while a new organization got set up to host similar events in one location.
I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports. The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost. I suppose the same arguments apply for…
Winter Olympics in Greece? Nonsense. Chamonix vs Greece -- there is just no comparison. Very few people plan world class ski vacations in Greece. That's like having surfing competitions in New Jersey. Sure there's an ocean, but that doesn't make it good.
Or alternatively, why must the Olympics be held in one place at all? The infrastructural burdens of large events are massive. The World Cup distributes this burden throughout cities and even regions.
The World Cup requires a country to have 10-14 stadiums when only 2-4 games are played a day. There's no reason for more than 4 stadiums.
Brazil was the perfect example of how these events can hurt citizens and the economy:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33942279
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...