You’re going off topic. My use of the term “outsourcing” has nothing to do with economic protectionism. It was simply stating that much of the money spent on the olympics is money spent locally. Most related jobs cannot be done elsewhere. For example, money paid to construction workers doesn’t leave the local economy immediately.

Of course the olympics politics was “negotiation”. That’s about all it was… little of real substance. I also think you’re wrong about top level meetings being only about publicity. Subordinates really do work harder when they know the big boss is fully behind them. It raises the stakes. It’s human nature.

As for “pigovian”, It’s a college boy term. You probably grew up in Montgomery County (or other affluent county) and went to a decent college. You studied both statistics and economics, and you were probably a business major. You should go to graduate school. That’s it.. pure guesses on my part.

And if you really want to be an intellectual elitist, you need to get out and and see much more of the world. Do a real walkabout while you’re young enough to benefit from it without the ties that responsibility brings. Enjoy your odyssey years (are you a reader of columnist David Brooks?). As for me, I’m flying to Seoul tomorrow and will spend three weeks in the Far East.

Well – yeah. Few people go to just see Olympic sites, but when the world is parked in front of their TV sets looking at your city for three weeks there is alot of opportunity to entice people to your door. See Barcelona for how this is done.

And while you may think it banal, it seems to me that the relative rates of net economic gain and loss are significant in calculating the probability of being able to replicate the gains.

One pf the problems with replicating is that each city pretty much starts fresh. While there are all kinds of lessons learned activities after each event, no one hands over a model and lets the new city run with it. Each city starts with the IOC requirements and then builds from there. The successful ones seem to be those that had a 10 – 20 year plan to leverage all of the infrastructure and publicity.

-The Olympics were hardly “negotiations.” The only people that might have been snubbed were the IOC, and there’s some suspicion that they were miffed by the brevity of the president’s snub; perhaps it might have been better to not go at all then? As for your two examples, the whole point of Reagan’s visit to Berlin was to spit in the Soviet Union’s face, while Nixon’s was preceded by a covert trip to China by Kissinger that laid the ground work (which is exactly what should be happening, if heads of state get involved in diplomacy, it’s at the end, for publicity purposes, nothing more).

-And how exactly does my using the term Pigouvian indicate my age? I doubt a terribly large portion of me age cohort are familiar with the term. If it reveals anything, I can only see it highlighting the fact I am unapologetically an intellectual elitist and prefer to use the terms in which I think rather than speaking to the lowest common denominator.

Yes. Past tense. I could hunt, but so could you. So much of the money involved with the olympics is in the service industry, and that can’t be outsourced.

“As for the presidential issue, care to delineate some of the collateral benefits you envision that couldn’t be accomplished by scaling back the expansive executive role we currently have and leaving things like diplomacy to people trained to do them?”

What you fail to realize is that in many parts of the world, the failure to see the leader in the flesh is considered a snub of the worst sort. You don’t start negotiations with a snub.

“..and I was 8 days old when Reagan went to Berlin.”

I guessed as much when you used the word “pigovian”…

Thanks for the clarification. In my defense, I don’t always agree with Megan. I’d dispute the aptness of glibertarian to describe me (I see myself more in the Hayek mode, staunchly libertarian, but accepting the existence of a safety net designed to ensure basic life necessities are met in the event of market failure).

With regards to the long-term investment view, as far as I know, Olympic sites aren’t really a great tourist draw beyond the Olympics (more along the lines of a bonus when visiting, but not a primary reason to go). If that’s the case, then tourism revenues are fairly immaterial to the total gains. And if the tourist revenues aren’t that important, it suggests that the projects could stand on their own, with or without the Olympics.

And while you may think it banal, it seems to me that the relative rates of net economic gain and loss are significant in calculating the probability of being able to replicate the gains. (i.e. 8 out of 10 cities hosting the Olympics and coming out on top suggests much higher odds for success than 2 out of 10, and if the latter is the track record, cities ought to be a lot more wary of undertaking their own Olympic endeavor).

@LE

I’m not asking this to be sarcastic, but do you have any data to support the assertion they are a net positive? Most of the data I’ve seen suggests otherwise. Also, what exactly is meant by “the overall economy?” The regional economy? The national economy? The international economy? Once again, just out of curiosity.

As for the presidential issue, care to delineate some of the collateral benefits you envision that couldn’t be accomplished by scaling back the expansive executive role we currently have and leaving things like diplomacy to people trained to do them?

If you’re asking whether or not I was opposed to them at the time, no I was not. I wasn’t alive to be against Nixon’s visit and I was 8 days old when Reagan went to Berlin. If you’re asking whether or not I think they were the wrong action, yes I am inclined to think they were. The only thing which slightly mediates the wrongness in those cases is the lack of good information and communication technology. The more that expands, the less need I see for in person posturing of this kind. (to some degree I think relative degree of importance matters; the Olympics are exceedingly trivial, the Berlin Wall was a massive affront to human liberty)

Moving on to the biases point, I wasn’t referring to Fox News, I was referring to online news sources, a la Reason, HuffPo, etc.

And 8 years later we’ll see. I’d wager otherwise though.

And as for selfishness, let me ash you a question — who is more selfish? The person who earned something and wants to keep it, or the person who has less who demands a share of what they didn’t earn?

Ein volk.
Ein reich.
Ein Obama.

Come on yourself. Your entire right wing is based on a foundation of fear and selfishness. There’s no ethical or moral underpinning to anything you say or do.

Ein volk.
Ein reich.
Ein Obama.

Not true. It’s just a drain for the city itself, but not the the overall economy. It’s a net revenue generator. It’s just that the people who pay for the games are not the ones who make most of the profit. Think of it as a form of corporate welfare that’s good for the economy.

“Do you really think this is a binary system?”

No. But I think you’ve might quick to dismiss other possible collateral benefits that such presidential travel could provide… and I think that you’re quick in a wholly dishonest manner. Did you object to Nixon going to China? How about Reagan to Berlin?

“At least they’re honest about their biases.”

FOX News honest about their biases??? You’re kidding, right? Fair and balanced?

“it was a reference to people like myself, libertarians and others that opposed it as a matter of principle and would continue to do so regardless of location.”

Your test will likely come in 8 years when a conservative president makes a similar pitch. I’ll bet you will fail that test. Your views will have “evolved” in a convenient manner.

Trade is not just definied as an exchange of literal goods — it also includes intellectual “trade” and you can look at the Atlanta Olympics for how that works. Atlanta was well into growth and development as a regional center of trade and the Olympics (with the accompanying revival of the downtown AND the addition of facilities to local universities really cemented that growth.

But I think that the only way to look at these bids is in the long-term benefits and Atlanta planned for being able to leverage the investments that were made and Nagano didn’t. Barcelona is still a big winner in the tourism category and has certainly grown as a regional trade center too. It isn’t about a “project that would not otherwise get support” — it is about a whole raft of projects that if done well put a community or region on a footing to reap long term benefits in a number of venues. The fact that some do this well and others do not seems banal. Especially here, where Fed funds play an incredibly small role. The vast majority of this investment is made via private funds – willingly invested for its own interests.

While the study is interesting, it doesn’t seem terribly relevant to Chicago as a site – there isn’t anyone alive today that thinks the U.S. isn’t “ready for the prime time” with regards to trade, and considering the U.S. has hosted multiple Olympics in the past, the signaling value from hosting is even more likely to be one of steadily diminishing returns.

Your final point drives home what seems to be a much more realistic reason for why cities try to get the Olympics, at least in America. It’s a lot easier to shove through some project that would never otherwise get the support needed to enact it. Considering, as you noted, the cost-benefit analysis on the Games is sketchy at best and there is strong evidence that the Olympics, at least recently, have been net losers for their hosts, it hardly seems a good way to force through renewal projects (particularly in a post-Kelo world, where the Olympic fervor may well lead to people becoming eminent domain victims as the city tries to “renew” itself into higher revenue properties).

Finally, I find some amusing irony in your joining “glibertarians” with a “perpetual Eyore-ian view of the world.” As I understood it, the phrase “glibertarian” was a reference to overly optimistic beliefs in the efficacy of the free market, a read of the libertarian mindset pretty far-removed from Eeyore’s dour pessimism. He strikes me as more of a Hobbes-ian authoritarian conservative.

(and to clarify a bit more, I’m a libertarian, but much closer to the public choice theory libertarianism of Megan McArdle than the strident free market absolutism of Ayn Rand)

Well there’s the problem right there. Glibertarians with their perpetual Eyore-ian view of the world. But I love the irony of said glibertarian actually using a news report from PBS to bolster his argument.

However, if you read through that article, you find this:

Still, there are some indirect benefits that are associated with being host to the Games. In a study Spiegel recently co-authored called “The Olympic Effect,” evidence from past Games indicates that host countries receive a substantial and permanent boost in their international trade. On average, international trade for host countries increased 30 percent after the Games.

Interestingly, even countries that simply bid for the Games receive a similar boost. “It’s not the velodromes and the construction expenditures [that benefit countries],” says Spiegel. “It’s the signaling effect — that when countries try to host the Olympics, they say ‘we are a country ready for the prime time.’

“Each city is different,” making it difficult to compare costs and benefits, says Holger Preuss, a professor at the Institute of Sport Science at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. But “if you are looking to use the Olympics to promote your city as a destination for tourism or international investment, [hosting] is good.”

The publicity boost from the Games is also often cited by organizers who claim that tourism receipts will increase for hosts not just during the Games, but after — Barcelona being an oft-cited post-Olympics success story. Chicago 2016, the official organization for the city’s bid, commissioned a study that predicts the Olympics will produce a $19.2 billion economic impact on Cook County, where Chicago is located, largely in tourism and job creation.

Everyone who pushes one of these projects — whether you are talking about Riverfront development or the construction of a new highway or development to support hosting the Olympics have to do cost/benefit analyses. These are notoriously imperfect — especially for projects whose realization horizons are very far in the future. The PBS article cited gets why cities bid for the Olympics — they are looking for a long term boost in tourism of all kinds. Success in this is not across the board, but it certainly does happen. Besides, American Olympics are largely paid for by private sponsors, and while tourism is highly desired, lots of bidding cities see the Olympics as a venue for revitalization of portions of cities or a way to build infrastructre for communities that might need it.

That said, I didn’t have a dog in his race. But there are reasons why cities bid for this and the immediate revenue is probably the smallest part of it.

where were the cheers when NYC got knocked-out for the 2012 games?

can’t answer than, can you?

shut up

“No, because it is a net revenue generator. It’s a lot of money being pumped into a local economy. If this wasn’t so desirable, why do you think all these cities are trying so hard to host the Olympics??”

Actually no, the Olympics consistently end up being a net drain. With frequent overruns, few cities end up recouping any profits after the athletes have gone home. Even cities that cite surpluses, such as 1984 host Los Angeles and 1998 host Calgary, often don’t include total expenditures in security and indirect costs in the final tally. And other cities find themselves far in the red. Montreal, host of the 1976 Summer Games, only finished paying off its Olympic debt in 2006. Officials in Nagano, Japan, spent so much on the 1998 Winter Games that they destroyed their financial records.

“Diplomacy is best done in person. Even as he “lost”, he did get a lot of press and he did meet a lot of people. That’s a good thing. Do you really prefer a president who doesn’t travel much except to goof off in Crawford, TX???? Right…”

Do you really think this is a binary system? Just because I don’t like how Obama did something, it doesn’t mean I like how Bush did it either. Overall I’d like a president who recognized the president’s role is meant to be minimal and left diplomacy to real diplomats (and I’m skeptical that Olympic horse-trading really amounts to diplomacy). The Cult of the Presidency is massive enough already, I’d appreciate a president that did something to disabuse people of it.

“Then why were these VERY SAME people pulling for America when Bush was (ineptly) trying to land the Olympics for New York??? Where was FOX News on this one? Oh yea. They were rooting, big time.”

And those same people wanted the Olympics in Chicago, because they personally stood to benefit, even though it would be bad for the city as a whole. As for Fox News, I’m fully aware that their positions often flip depending on the politician in question. It’s part of why I don’t watch TV news and get my news from a number of online sources. At least they’re honest about their biases.

“Not in this case… NIMBY opposition is local. These aren’t the NIMBY folks.”

That wasn’t meant as a reference to local opposition, it was a reference to people like myself, libertarians and others that opposed it as a matter of principle and would continue to do so regardless of location.