Wouldn't the olympics be good for London's economy? Or does the price of the olympics not offset the revenue?

Dunno, it's not important.

Here, let me take half your income (probably more, when all is said and done) and spend it on things that makes "society" a little richer. Don't want to? Well, you have a choice: either you let me take it; or I take it with a gun; or I throw you in a cell, sell yours goods, and then take it.

Even if there was some semblance or morality about this, it's a massive toss up. Lots of events like these fail to ever generate a profit.

I'm not going to blame Greeks, I'm going to blame statists. No matter how long ago they were around.

3, 4, and 5 have already happened. I couldn't care less if the events made a profit, those things in those points are about liberty, and there's zero price that's acceptable in exchange for those (particularly when there was absolutely nothing voluntary about these exchanges, our overlords always told us that these were the exchanges to happen, and we either like it, or we're not a patriot).

1) It's right up there in the OP: "'Im going to just bullet point some of my views, which range from the Olympics in general, to the specifics of the London Olympics."

2) I don't care about the tourism industry. If the tourism industry wants to invest their own money in improving the tourism industry, let them. Don't take mine.

Also, I'd hardly call an institution that is set to benefit from the Olympics, without having to pay for it, "independent". That's like asking the MPAA to estimate the costs of piracy.

3) It's not an investment in mine, and I don't want anybody else to invest in my future. Let me do that, and you do yours. (Not directed at you, but society in general) Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person, nowadays, who was brought up to accept personal responsibility for my own life.

But, there is a massive difference between countries and products. When Ubisoft spends money marketing their third party Wii games, they spend their own money, money that they've earned - not my money. When the god-knows-how-many-agencies-involved-in-the-Olympics spends money, they haven't earned it, they've taken it, from those that have, without their permission, and, sometimes, without their knowledge.

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/

1. A bit of pride in your country is nothing bad (too much pride is where the problem goes). It's harder to envision from a first world country perspective, but imagine even second-tier countries like Kazakhstan and the winner of that one biking event. A country of meagre means, and you've got someone who can out-bike the best that money can buy, and that's something

2. I'll agree it's getting a bit overblown, but there's the matter of pride again. Just like when you host a house party, you want your home looking good, or perhaps a bit better, than it usually looks.

3. Describe these crackdowns?

4. Again, it's about saving face. It is sad but true that the government will care less about expending a lot of blood and treasure to stop a few riots that relatively few people outside the country really care about, but you sure as hell don't want to be 1972 West Germany, where you clearly don't do enough and then one country's olympic team gets targeted. Terroristic events at the olympics are a point of national embarrassment.

5. You used the buzz-word "wealth creators" and therefore this entire point is automatically invalid.

OK. Surely there are far more important issues in the UK than the games if you claim to base this argument on liberty.

I am far more concerned about the UK becoming more like a soviet state than the olmpics where liberty is concerned.

Even that liberty woman (with the unpronouncable name) carried the flag at the opening. You should have a word with her.

I see but don't agree with your point so I'll kill my argument and leave it at that.

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.