6 ms·

Why Would Anyone Want To Host The Olympics?

45 points by Qtz 13y ago

Ueland 13y ago
Interesting that it got published just now(8th). Oslo,Norway just voted yes to ask the government for financial guarantee in order to try to get the Vinter Olympics in 2022.
netcan 13y ago
Current politics seems to demand that everything be an investment. Education, roads, stadiums. It is supposed to create growth. Stimulate. Save on future healthcare or welfare costs. etc. Realistically, the way to think about almost all government spending is consumption. By spending on health we (hopefully) get to be healthier. By spending on entertainment we are more entertained. The Olympics or any other public prestige projects are like when billionaires and dictators do stuff, but for cities and nations. They get to feel prestigious. Prestige might have some economic benefits but thinking of it that way misses the point. Prestige is an end in itself.
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  It's a question of how much happiness you generate for the cash. The UK Arts Council gets about £500million to spend. The Olympics cost the UK 18 times that much. If the Olympics also produces 18 times as much happiness, then that's a worthwhile investment. If not, then maybe that money could have been better spent elsewhere.
  - teekert 13y ago
    Flawed logic, that "18 times" depends on the initial 500 million so the cut-off happiness value is now determined by the initial investment? Nope. The only way to determine if it makes sense is if there is way to specify happiness per pound for the olympics. I for one couldn't care less about the olympics by the way.
- ddeck 13y ago
  And let's not forget that governments don't act in isolation. There are numerous corporate interests (primarily construction) that stand to benefit and many government systems incorporate some form of lobbying. Japan in particular is notorious for it's collusive relationship between politicians and businessmen, with regular bid rigging or no bidding at all for public works contracts.
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Istanbul would be a perfect place for an Olympics, except Erdogan ruined it for them. Did you know that Istanbul is already third most internationally traveled city?
- fsniper 13y ago
  Even though I'm very anti Erdoğan I would not be happy If we got the Olympics with or without Erdoğan. Our Economy is projected as a heaven and Turkey as in growth but on the contrary it's way too bad and currently sky diving. Putting one more economic burden as big as the Olympic games would be catastrophic. We are nearly paying taxes just to breath. (exaggeration yes but not too well off.) Getting the games would mean more "temprorary but never to be lifted" taxes to fund the games but in realty just for making more funding for politicians. I'm really happy for Istanbul to loose and feeling bad for Tokyo to win.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - zenyfish 13y ago
      "As of today" Turkey is the "most vulnerable" country to a stop in capital inflow.This means Turkey is on a very fragile balance.Just google "capital-freeze index" and check out the economist.com graph.Maybe Erdogan controlled media is lying to you.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - fsniper 13y ago
      Taking "Ministry Numbers" into account is the most vulnerable thing to do in Turkey right now. According to them Turkish Lira was rock solid but it just sank 15% in a day a few days ago.
      - 13y ago
nemesisj 13y ago
I think there's an important psychological dimension that's often missed from these calculations, particularly for countries that have a chip on their shoulder. It's a way for the entire world to be focused on something that you're doing well (hopefully) for a few weeks. Before the Beijing olympics many Chinese would ask you how you liked China, and when you replied, "yes" they would say China is "luo hou", which means backward. China is still luo hou to most who don't live in the richest eastern seaboard cities, and being able to watch China do something amazing for weeks on end is more than worth the 40 billion that was spent. Lets not forget that in developing countries, massive investments are often sped up just to get the opportunity to bid - in 1999, the Beijing subway was almost nonexistent. Today it's one of the largest systems in the world, and was largely constructed prior to the Olympics. Other improvements included the Beijing airport. Of course, you could say that I'm cherry picking the Chinese olympics as one of the few examples, and maybe there aren't many advantages for a city like Tokyo or London, but even here in the UK, many people were inspired and proud of how their country handled the events. That may not be worth what it cost, but it is worth something, and I think it's a bit bizarre that the Economist seems to be puzzled as to why these events poll well with voters.
- m0a0t0 13y ago
  You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics. Leading up to it I thought it was going to be a bit rubbish but when they actually started there was a sense of national pride. The problem is that the pride only lasts for a few months. After that I was (and many other people were) back to thinking it was a massive waste of money and the only place that would benefit was London. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that if you had asked me during the Olympics I'd say let's do it again, but before or after? Not a chance
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    "You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics." I've been told by a relative, who works for the government to "sell" UK businesses internationally, that the London olympics are widely regarded as a model of how to "do it right". I don't know (and he didn't say) whether this makes it more possible to achieve long-term economic benefits that offset the cost of the event. I'm probably sceptical about that.
bsullivan01 13y ago
On top of my head: not all is lost. So if it costs $50 Billion, a lot of it is recouped via jobs, taxes, infrastructure that would have been built anyway, tourism etc. Some is lost but that's life. There's the "Made in Japan ...USA, China" brand and other geopolitical benefits as well. So money might be lost or it will be lost but so what? Greece has no business in doing them but Japan, China, USA, Russia and countries alike can afford to lose a (relatively) little bit of money for indirect benefits. Sometimes people buy a Lexus when a Toyota does the job just as well, or eat a $100 per head restaurant instead of a $7 Chinese buffet. Are they dumb? Politicians also win, there's euphoria in Japan right now and those involved will see some benefits, just as those been seen during the opening ceremony, medals etc.
- psutor 13y ago
  Although economically true these days, I found "Greece has no business in doing [the Olympics]" ironic.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    I meant to say that bigger countries can absorb a loss, smaller ones like Greece might even go down (at least faster) because of Olympic losses.
visakanv 13y ago
Same reason you'd host any sort of expensive party. To look cool and feel cool. A lot of international politics make a lot more sense when you remember we're all in high school.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Actually, I was very skeptical about the London Olympics before the event. However, I thought the whole thing went splendidly and arguably did give the whole of the UK a bit of a lift in national morale just when we really needed it. Compared to other megaprojects that we seem to be happy to splurge taxpayers money on (e.g. silly aircraft carriers) it actually seemed pretty good value for money.
  - Dakuan 13y ago
    Pretty much. Even the most negative people had their cynicism utterly crushed.
  - dingaling 13y ago
    Current estimate for the QE Carrier project is £5.5 billion, or about 60% of what the Olympics cost. In comparison to a few weeks of enabling professional athletes 'perform' , the carriers should give at least 45 years of service life. A tangible contribution to UK security, rather than just a TV event. I'm not a fan of how the carrier project has been managed but to say it's worse value than the Olympics surprises me.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Well, I'm not a fan of the carrier project or the utterly idiotic way it was managed. If I'd been given the chance to give my vote on the Olympics I'd have said "no" - but given the fact that it was a done deal I decided to enjoy it.
tofof 13y ago
Only an economist could ask a question of the form "why would anyone want to do <activity without clear economic benefit>?" I wonder how they manage to reproduce.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Are you suggesting that hosting the Olympics is a terminal goal, like having children is?
  - netrus 13y ago
    Being entertained is, as feeling a global spirit of humanity, as being proud to be a good host to the world. That are a lot of positive emotions I connect with the Olympic Games. It's quite expensive, but you only do it all 20-odd years (considering also Winter Olympics and Soccer Worldcup). Some modesty is in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events anymore.
    - 3825 13y ago
      I understand that as a community we need children but personally I don't see myself having kids. >Some modesty is in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events anymore. This might be another reason to do such events (haven't read the article yet). To make people think the city is "happening", to retain people and dissuade them from leaving for seemingly more fertile pastures.
- acheron 13y ago
  They've figured that out too. Behold, economist Bryan Caplan's book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids": http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465028616/ http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
JanezStupar 13y ago
First prestige and second corruption opportunities. Basically its like a high school party for cool kids, with an added bonus that some of the cool kids get a lot of money at the expense of others.
rayiner 13y ago
If I were a mayor, hosting the olympics would seem like a good way to shove infrastructure improvements past all the NIMBY assholes that always block them.
Lucadg 13y ago
politicians love big money moving around so they can grab a bit for themselves. Many big projects in Italy shows this seems to be the main, if not unique, drive for events like the Olympics.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
codeulike 13y ago
Its a bit like saying why would anyone want to host a huge dinner party.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  Except that etiquette would dictate that the individual host foot the bill for a huge dinner party, whereas the taxpayers foot the bill for the Olympics.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Anyway, UK taxpayers don't foot the bill for Beijing Olympics - so it's their (UK as a whole) choice to offer to throw the huge dinner party, or just visit someone else's party.
  - codeulike 13y ago
    Yes, but in the metaphor, individual = country ... so that is taken for granted.
fatihpense 13y ago
Also for Turkey, It means government gets an excuse for building landmarks to north Istanbul. Expanding city and continue benefiting from a never-ending real estate gold rush in Istanbul. Both bidding of big projects and real estate benefits will go to "friends" of government. Also they will use this excuse for removing poor people, and destroying houses that have much higher real estate value than their residents.
decasteve 13y ago
If you have most of the infrastructure already, like Sydney, it makes sense. Whereas Montreal is still paying debts from hosting the Olympics in 1976.

45 points by Qtz 13y ago

Interesting that it got published just now(8th). Oslo,Norway just voted yes to ask the government for financial guarantee in order to try to get the Vinter Olympics in 2022.

netcan 13y ago

Current politics seems to demand that everything be an investment. Education, roads, stadiums. It is supposed to create growth. Stimulate. Save on future healthcare or welfare costs. etc. Realistically, the way to think about almost all government spending is consumption. By spending on health we (hopefully) get to be healthier. By spending on entertainment we are more entertained. The Olympics or any other public prestige projects are like when billionaires and dictators do stuff, but for cities and nations. They get to feel prestigious. Prestige might have some economic benefits but thinking of it that way misses the point. Prestige is an end in itself.

AndrewDucker 13y ago
It's a question of how much happiness you generate for the cash. The UK Arts Council gets about £500million to spend. The Olympics cost the UK 18 times that much. If the Olympics also produces 18 times as much happiness, then that's a worthwhile investment. If not, then maybe that money could have been better spent elsewhere.
- teekert 13y ago
  Flawed logic, that "18 times" depends on the initial 500 million so the cut-off happiness value is now determined by the initial investment? Nope. The only way to determine if it makes sense is if there is way to specify happiness per pound for the olympics. I for one couldn't care less about the olympics by the way.
ddeck 13y ago
And let's not forget that governments don't act in isolation. There are numerous corporate interests (primarily construction) that stand to benefit and many government systems incorporate some form of lobbying. Japan in particular is notorious for it's collusive relationship between politicians and businessmen, with regular bid rigging or no bidding at all for public works contracts.

guard-of-terra 13y ago

Istanbul would be a perfect place for an Olympics, except Erdogan ruined it for them. Did you know that Istanbul is already third most internationally traveled city?

fsniper 13y ago
Even though I'm very anti Erdoğan I would not be happy If we got the Olympics with or without Erdoğan. Our Economy is projected as a heaven and Turkey as in growth but on the contrary it's way too bad and currently sky diving. Putting one more economic burden as big as the Olympic games would be catastrophic. We are nearly paying taxes just to breath. (exaggeration yes but not too well off.) Getting the games would mean more "temprorary but never to be lifted" taxes to fund the games but in realty just for making more funding for politicians. I'm really happy for Istanbul to loose and feeling bad for Tokyo to win.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - zenyfish 13y ago
    "As of today" Turkey is the "most vulnerable" country to a stop in capital inflow.This means Turkey is on a very fragile balance.Just google "capital-freeze index" and check out the economist.com graph.Maybe Erdogan controlled media is lying to you.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - fsniper 13y ago
    Taking "Ministry Numbers" into account is the most vulnerable thing to do in Turkey right now. According to them Turkish Lira was rock solid but it just sank 15% in a day a few days ago.
    - 13y ago

nemesisj 13y ago

I think there's an important psychological dimension that's often missed from these calculations, particularly for countries that have a chip on their shoulder. It's a way for the entire world to be focused on something that you're doing well (hopefully) for a few weeks. Before the Beijing olympics many Chinese would ask you how you liked China, and when you replied, "yes" they would say China is "luo hou", which means backward. China is still luo hou to most who don't live in the richest eastern seaboard cities, and being able to watch China do something amazing for weeks on end is more than worth the 40 billion that was spent. Lets not forget that in developing countries, massive investments are often sped up just to get the opportunity to bid - in 1999, the Beijing subway was almost nonexistent. Today it's one of the largest systems in the world, and was largely constructed prior to the Olympics. Other improvements included the Beijing airport. Of course, you could say that I'm cherry picking the Chinese olympics as one of the few examples, and maybe there aren't many advantages for a city like Tokyo or London, but even here in the UK, many people were inspired and proud of how their country handled the events. That may not be worth what it cost, but it is worth something, and I think it's a bit bizarre that the Economist seems to be puzzled as to why these events poll well with voters.

m0a0t0 13y ago
You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics. Leading up to it I thought it was going to be a bit rubbish but when they actually started there was a sense of national pride. The problem is that the pride only lasts for a few months. After that I was (and many other people were) back to thinking it was a massive waste of money and the only place that would benefit was London. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that if you had asked me during the Olympics I'd say let's do it again, but before or after? Not a chance
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  "You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics." I've been told by a relative, who works for the government to "sell" UK businesses internationally, that the London olympics are widely regarded as a model of how to "do it right". I don't know (and he didn't say) whether this makes it more possible to achieve long-term economic benefits that offset the cost of the event. I'm probably sceptical about that.

bsullivan01 13y ago

On top of my head: not all is lost. So if it costs $50 Billion, a lot of it is recouped via jobs, taxes, infrastructure that would have been built anyway, tourism etc. Some is lost but that's life. There's the "Made in Japan ...USA, China" brand and other geopolitical benefits as well. So money might be lost or it will be lost but so what? Greece has no business in doing them but Japan, China, USA, Russia and countries alike can afford to lose a (relatively) little bit of money for indirect benefits. Sometimes people buy a Lexus when a Toyota does the job just as well, or eat a $100 per head restaurant instead of a $7 Chinese buffet. Are they dumb? Politicians also win, there's euphoria in Japan right now and those involved will see some benefits, just as those been seen during the opening ceremony, medals etc.

psutor 13y ago
Although economically true these days, I found "Greece has no business in doing [the Olympics]" ironic.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  I meant to say that bigger countries can absorb a loss, smaller ones like Greece might even go down (at least faster) because of Olympic losses.

visakanv 13y ago

Same reason you'd host any sort of expensive party. To look cool and feel cool. A lot of international politics make a lot more sense when you remember we're all in high school.

arethuza 13y ago
Actually, I was very skeptical about the London Olympics before the event. However, I thought the whole thing went splendidly and arguably did give the whole of the UK a bit of a lift in national morale just when we really needed it. Compared to other megaprojects that we seem to be happy to splurge taxpayers money on (e.g. silly aircraft carriers) it actually seemed pretty good value for money.
- Dakuan 13y ago
  Pretty much. Even the most negative people had their cynicism utterly crushed.
- dingaling 13y ago
  Current estimate for the QE Carrier project is £5.5 billion, or about 60% of what the Olympics cost. In comparison to a few weeks of enabling professional athletes 'perform' , the carriers should give at least 45 years of service life. A tangible contribution to UK security, rather than just a TV event. I'm not a fan of how the carrier project has been managed but to say it's worse value than the Olympics surprises me.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    Well, I'm not a fan of the carrier project or the utterly idiotic way it was managed. If I'd been given the chance to give my vote on the Olympics I'd have said "no" - but given the fact that it was a done deal I decided to enjoy it.

tofof 13y ago

Only an economist could ask a question of the form "why would anyone want to do <activity without clear economic benefit>?" I wonder how they manage to reproduce.

randallsquared 13y ago
Are you suggesting that hosting the Olympics is a terminal goal, like having children is?
- netrus 13y ago
  Being entertained is, as feeling a global spirit of humanity, as being proud to be a good host to the world. That are a lot of positive emotions I connect with the Olympic Games. It's quite expensive, but you only do it all 20-odd years (considering also Winter Olympics and Soccer Worldcup). Some modesty is in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events anymore.
  - 3825 13y ago
    I understand that as a community we need children but personally I don't see myself having kids. >Some modesty is in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events anymore. This might be another reason to do such events (haven't read the article yet). To make people think the city is "happening", to retain people and dissuade them from leaving for seemingly more fertile pastures.
acheron 13y ago
They've figured that out too. Behold, economist Bryan Caplan's book "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids": http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465028616/ http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

JanezStupar 13y ago

First prestige and second corruption opportunities. Basically its like a high school party for cool kids, with an added bonus that some of the cool kids get a lot of money at the expense of others.

rayiner 13y ago

If I were a mayor, hosting the olympics would seem like a good way to shove infrastructure improvements past all the NIMBY assholes that always block them.

Lucadg 13y ago

politicians love big money moving around so they can grab a bit for themselves. Many big projects in Italy shows this seems to be the main, if not unique, drive for events like the Olympics.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

codeulike 13y ago

Its a bit like saying why would anyone want to host a huge dinner party.

RougeFemme 13y ago
Except that etiquette would dictate that the individual host foot the bill for a huge dinner party, whereas the taxpayers foot the bill for the Olympics.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Anyway, UK taxpayers don't foot the bill for Beijing Olympics - so it's their (UK as a whole) choice to offer to throw the huge dinner party, or just visit someone else's party.
- codeulike 13y ago
  Yes, but in the metaphor, individual = country ... so that is taken for granted.

fatihpense 13y ago

Also for Turkey, It means government gets an excuse for building landmarks to north Istanbul. Expanding city and continue benefiting from a never-ending real estate gold rush in Istanbul. Both bidding of big projects and real estate benefits will go to "friends" of government. Also they will use this excuse for removing poor people, and destroying houses that have much higher real estate value than their residents.

decasteve 13y ago

If you have most of the infrastructure already, like Sydney, it makes sense. Whereas Montreal is still paying debts from hosting the Olympics in 1976.