justinian said:
Kasz216 said:
justinian said:
Kasz216 said:
homer said:
Wouldn't the olympics be good for London's economy? Or does the price of the olympics not offset the revenue? |
Actually i've seen economic studies that tend to show that's NOT the case.
There was a big push to NOT pursue the World Cup in the US because it was shown that the amount spent usually isn't made back, and then your left with a bunch of stadiums that are never full to capacity or ideal for the things that get put in them.
Well here's a tiny article on it... from the Atlantic... who granted aren't the best when it comes to economics, but i'll look for more sources later.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/3-reasons-why-hosting-the-olympics-is-a-losers-game/260111/
|
The world cup and the olympics are totally different but I can't be bothered to go into that.
Sydney had an estimated economic benefit of 2.78% of regional GDP. And Chinese officials claim to have profited in $146 million.
I would hope London follow the Sydney trend rather than some doom and gloom outlook.
|
That article was about how the Olympics costs people money.
Syndey had an estimated economic benefit of 2.78%... before the games happened.
What does after the fact analysis say though?
http://theconversation.edu.au/hosting-the-olympics-cash-cow-or-money-pit-7403
"Our results revealed that rather than producing an economic benefit the Sydney Games actually reduced Australian household consumption by $2.1 billion."
Keep in mind as well the Sydney Olympics ran 6.6 Billion dollars.
|
Kasz, you can find any analysis to support or defend pretty much any point on the internet.
Here is another study. I don't know if it's correct anymore than anyone can trust your own link:
http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/37406/8/803008.pdf
|
Did you read the link you posted?
The difference was... my article ran a detailed statistical analysis.
Yours... stated pretty much nothing outside of what was caused directly by olympic spending. The construction happened because... they needed to build shit from the buildings.
Compare studies and it's obvious mine holds clearly holds dominance. It clearly refutes a number of the things posted in that paragraph, with an actual study.
