ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
But the most notable existing facility for the 1984 Olympics -- the Memorial Coliseum -- was constructed for the 1932 Olympics. Every city would be more cost effective at hosting the Olympics if they could do it more than once.
The Olympics are a great way to bring diverse people together for a celebration of talent and friendly competition. But as history has proven to us, bringing all of these spectators and athletes into one area at one time has a large price to pay. Over time the Olympics has grown into a commercialized event that supposedly has various benefits for the host city. After reading "Is Rio's Win Chicago's Gain?" it seems like most of these proposed improvements for the city just end up as extremely expensive, yet useless structures that just sit there or take more money to change into usable constructions. As mentioned above, the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics had no debt because they used existing facilities, but that was 1984! It is now 2009, 25 years later; the Olympic event has changed dramatically. They are commercialized, more countries participate, there are more sports, and with developments in technology there is an increased concern with aesthetics and appeal (which of course cost more money for the city). Plans have become more extravagant, but in the long run are just superfluous additions that go beyond normal city needs. Personally, I think that some expense is required to continue this great event; however planning for the Olympics should reflect actual city needs and limit the extra expensive glamour that adds to the debt that is usually associated with this big show.
The full "lap" quote is this:
To me it seems less ridiculous, in context, to assume that she meant she sat on her father's lap watching Olga Korbut during the '72 & '76 olympics, and Nadia during '76. Mrs. Obama would have been 8 and 12 during those olympics.Why take the worst possible interpretation of her words, when it's incredibly easy to understand what she meant?
"Why take the worst possible interpretation of her words, when it's incredibly easy to understand what she meant?"
Because it's fun?
Because he has professional speechwriters who are supposed to make sure she doesn't say dumb stuff abroad?
"Because he has professional speechwriters who are supposed to make sure she doesn't say dumb stuff abroad?"
It doesn't take more than a fair-to-middling IQ to understand what she was saying (ambiguous phrasing notwithstanding). And pointless to interpret otherwise. But it does give the unraveling right in this country more material by which they demonstrate their irrelevance.
SydB and dullgeek,
It helps to have a sense of humor.
Best,
David
"It helps to have a sense of humor."
True.
The other day it was really exciting seeing the Olympic Committee choose the city for the 2016 Olympics. Of course, I follow the Olympics, but I have never really watched when a city actually gets picked. As many Americans were, I was hoping that Chicago would get the bid. Though having never been there, everyone I know who has been to Chicago has said that it is an awesome city. But as we all know, that was not the case. After the bid was given out, I got to thinking about what would have to happen for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.
I have been to Atlanta and have seen Centennial Park. It is a great area but to my knowledge, it is not used anymore; a multi-million dollar facility that is not used. And the most recent games, in China; they had to build many facilities and structures that cost lots and lots of money that probably won’t get used again. The point I am trying to make is that, getting a city ready to host an Olympic event takes millions of dollars. If Chicago did earn the bid and have to build lots of arenas and structures, where would the funding come from? With the economy in a recession, everyone is cutting back on spending. Most of the funding for the Olympics comes from major corporate sponsors that do not have much money to generously hand out. I know that as an American citizen, I would love to have the Olympic Games here at home. But I would not want to have to pay my own money for it. So while it would have been great to have the Olympics at Chicago, it could turn out to be a good thing that it is not in America.
WCU
Hosting the Olympics is a special time and a special honor for any city. With Rio being picked as the first South American city, who knows - after building and fixing all that they are planning to, it leaves open the opportunity for the Olympics to return many years down the road, which is probably the most beneficial for any city, as a previous comment mentioned. This video I found discusses Rio's work and what they need to do to be Olympic ready. http://www.newsy.com/videos/rio_ready_to_roar
I think they'll be able to handle it. Chicago's time will come.
It's not just the public cost. I stayed at a hotel in Salt Lake City that was built for the '02 Olympics. It was a nice hotel, but what made it really nice was the rate our conference paid because they were desperately trying to fill the rooms.