how's hosting olympics as a good economic investment?
Xah
on Olympics, often nations wants it to be hosted in their country.
The hosting country often spends huge amount of money (some billions
USD) in preparation for the game. Typically building entirely new
sports stadiums and transformation infrastructure etc.
judged by how countries are competing to host the event, i gather that
over all it is beneficial to the country.
My question is, can anyone provide particulars?
For example, sport stadiums are not that important structure for a
nation's economy, and these modern ones cost millions of dollars to
build... does anyone know, that besides issues like proudness and
psychological satisfication, does hosting Olympics actually constitute
a economic investment? How so?
PS convenient Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
remysun
was unfortunate, because of the tourism drop from terrorism fears.
Montreal went overbudget. Who knows what Moscow did. But most sites
since then have learned from Montreal's mistakes. LA set the standard
for getting something out from hosting the games, and hey, they've got
smog problems too.
James
> For example, sport stadiums are not that important structure for a
> nation's economy, and these modern ones cost millions of dollars to
> build...
Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
stadiums all the time? What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
Why is Washington willing to foot the bill for some losers like the
Nads.
Bob Ward
Yeah! We never had any smog before 1984!
Greg Goss
>On Aug 14, 9:01 pm, Xah <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, sport stadiums are not that important structure for a
>> nation's economy, and these modern ones cost millions of dollars to
>> build...
>
>Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
>stadiums all the time? What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
Didn't a multi-ton chunk of concrete fall out of the ceiling once?
Once the first bit falls, can you trust the next chunk not to fall out
when the crowd cheers especially hard?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
plausible prose man
> On Aug 14, 9:01�pm, Xah <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, sport stadiums are not that important structure for a
> > nation's economy, and these modern ones cost millions of dollars to
> > build...
>
> Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
> stadiums all the time?
Because the people who make the decisions don't have to spend their
own money, and the general public complacent to the extent it's not
illiterate in matters of economics, and too disorganized to sway an
election to the extent its neither of those things.
> What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
It presented relatively few opportunities to loot the public
treasury.
> Why is Washington willing to foot the bill for some losers like the
> Nads.
Because Washington doesn't really foot the bill at all.
Greg Goss
>James wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 9:01?pm, Xah <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For example, sport stadiums are not that important structure for a
>> > nation's economy, and these modern ones cost millions of dollars to
>> > build...
>>
>> Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
>> stadiums all the time?
>
> Because the people who make the decisions don't have to spend their
>own money, and the general public complacent to the extent it's not
>illiterate in matters of economics, and too disorganized to sway an
>election to the extent its neither of those things.
>
>
>
> > What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
>
> It presented relatively few opportunities to loot the public
>treasury.
I thought that the looting got voted down? At least that's what the
song implied.
http://www.bobrivers.com/audiovault/tunes/seattletunes.asp
A long, long time ago
I can still remember
When Ken Griffey used to crack that smile
When Johnson pitched we had a chance
When Edgar hit, the moose would dance
And maybe we could win one, once in awhile
But August always made me shiver
A pennant they could not deliver
Bad news from Nintendo
They’re saying Sayonara
I can’t remember if I cried
When the owners said “At least we tried”
But something hurt me deep inside
The day the M’s said “Bye”
So bye-bye to those Mariner guys
We tried to pass a levy but the votes came up shy
There were lots of other cities who were willin’ to buy
They were promisin’ the moon and the sky
They’d put up a ballpark outside
Did you buy a season’s pass
Or did you tell the M’s to kiss your ass
I hate to say “I told you so”
Hell, I can’t believe the team left town
There’s nothing left but Seafair Clowns
And could the Seahawks be the next team to go?
Well, I know the players make a lot
And the owners claim they don’t make squat
They both deserve to be boo-ed
Because the fans are getting screwed
It would’ve only cost us each ten bucks
For an outdoor stadium with a roof that shuts
But it looks like we’re out of luck
So kiss the M’s good bye
Looks like we’re singin’
Bye-bye to those Mariner guys
We don’t want to pay a levy for a sporting franchise
We’re sorry boys we think the cost is too high
You’ll have to play the Dome or goodbye
It looks like it’s the Dome or goodbye
I read it in the Sporting News
That they won the series with Sweet Lou
The big parade’s a week away
And the players I admire most
Drink champagne, give a toast
Too bad they’re on the other coast
Too bad the M’s said “Bye”
No more swinging
Bye-bye to those Mariner’s guys
We tried to build a ballpark
But the plan wouldn’t fly
We’re sorry boys we don’t like taxes that high
So it’s got to be the dome or goodbye
It’s gotta be the dome or goodbye
Too bad we are singing
Bye-bye to those Mariner guys
We don’t to pay a levy for a sporting franchise
We’re sorry boys we think the cost is too high
It’s gotta be the Dome or goodbye
Peter Konnecke
Sydney's was paid for in full by the end of 2002.
anir...@gmail.com
If I am not mistaken, sometime in the 1980s (?) perhaps after the
Montreal Olympics that the concept and the spirit of Olympics games
changed from national showcase to a completely profit making
organization. Was that the time when big corporations start to sponsor
the various Olympics events, and the organizers started to receive
bids in return to time spot for advertisements on TVs, for endorsement
of special product brands, or using the word "official product of the
Olympics", etc. I don;t know who actually started to exploit the
events for profit purposes. Before this period, OIympics games were
perceived to be a show case of the country, and a reflection of the
pride of that nation. In contrast, nowadays, when all that matters are
money, profits and greeds, no one seems to care about national pride
any longer. Athletes will go to the highest bidder in getting ads
endorsements.
The good news - government can finance the high cost of Olympics The
bad news - less feel of nationalistic attitudes among the athletes or
too commercialized. I am not sure if the 2008 Beijing Olympics
contains heavy advertisement, but instead it is more of a government
showcase.
bill van
<e1c91522-acff-44a5...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
anir...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been observing how the Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Games
evolved. It has been very much a venture of the local real estate
development industry and their like-minded friends in the provincial
government. That's who organized the bid, rolled over opposition from
local communities and is profiting from it.
Either directly or indirectly, the Games bid has resulted in a new rapid
transit line being built -- not where regional growth patterns said it
should be, but where it serves as a monument for the government; a huge
highway improvement project between Vancouver and the mountain venues at
Whistler that will open up a lot of development along the highway and
cause major traffic problems over time; Olympic athletes' villages in
Vancouver and Whistler that will later become major residential
developments; and many, many smaller projects. We've been going through
a huge construction boom as a result, and we'll see what happens to that
economy when the construction is finished.
The sweet thing for the backers is that all this is being financed to a
great extent with public money on a scale the developers could never get
their hands on without the Games. There is some evidence that big lies
have been told about the costs but the local media are all gung-ho for
the Games and won't dig into it. Local and provincial taxpayers will be
paying off the debt for many years, I think.
The city and region will almost certainly benefit in the long run
through increased tourism and other economic activity and that will mean
more jobs. On the downside, housing on the west side of the region --
near the ocean and mountains -- will continue to be priced out of the
range of local people.
It's not all negative, but it seems to me the overall thrust is to
finance a very large development push with public money that would not
normally be available for this purpose.
--
bill
remove my country for e-mail
D.F. Manno
<0f792e7e-8d54-4039...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
James <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
> stadiums all the time? What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
> Why is Washington willing to foot the bill for some losers like the
> Nads.
Either the prime mover behind a new stadium is a big athletic supporter
(e.g., Ed Rendell and new stadiums in Philly and Pittsburgh), or the
team involved is blackmailing the city, and the politicians fear
retaliation at the polls if they are seen as having let the local team
leave town.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man零 oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
anir...@gmail.com
> In article
> <0f792e7e-8d54-4039-808e-897ca6172...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
> > stadiums all the time? What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
> > Why is Washington willing to foot the bill for some losers like the
> > Nads.
>
> Either the prime mover behind a new stadium is a big athletic supporter
> (e.g., Ed Rendell and new stadiums in Philly and Pittsburgh), or the
> team involved is blackmailing the city, and the politicians fear
> retaliation at the polls if they are seen as having let the local team
> leave town.
>
> --
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man¹s oldest exercises in
> moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
> for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
In our local scenes, the opportunities to build new stadiums, or to
create new athletic complex, etc are purely driven by financial means.
Basically, the richest people in the block are the ones that make big
"honorable" plan (creating opportunities to develop sports, for giving
youth the sport activities, etc). In reality, they just want to take
the advantage to get concessions from the government. They even do not
need to put much of their own capital (big portion of it will end up
from government funding, i.e becomes tax payers' burden in the
future). The bottom line, it becomes a greedy battle among rich people
to come up with a plan to develop sport complex, and opportunities for
"land grabbing" in the vicinity of the complex for their own purpose.
Sort of " I do the financing (not entirely my own money), and the
government will give them free lands to develop for commercial use
plus pay portion of the money to build the venues".
Erich
<dfmanno-B5942C...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0f792e7e-8d54-4039...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> James <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Makes you wonder why many American cities are so willing to put up new
> > stadiums all the time? What was wrong with the King Dome any way?
> > Why is Washington willing to foot the bill for some losers like the
> > Nads.
>
> Either the prime mover behind a new stadium is a big athletic supporter
> (e.g., Ed Rendell and new stadiums in Philly and Pittsburgh), or the
> team involved is blackmailing the city, and the politicians fear
> retaliation at the polls if they are seen as having let the local team
> leave town.
When Denver built a new stadium for the Broncos, the team still had 25
years left on a contract that required them to stay in Denver. Those
favoring the stadium still claimed the team would leave if the proposal
was voted down.
--
Erich