Did London Go Bust On The Olympics? [Infographic]

12:30 pm, August 12th | by Amy Tennery

It’s no big secret that the Olympics are an expensive proposition for any host city — one that’s often unjustifiably pricey. Consider the 2008 Athens games, which cost the city $15 billion to put on (a splurge that’s grimly regrettable in light of recent events).

So how will London’s economic landscape shake out at the end of the Summer 2012 Games? Lucky for us, someone crunched the numbers.

This year’s Olympics cost around $14.62 billion — roughly equaling the current gross domestic product of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, according to recent World Bank estimates. This cost is what economists technically call a “shitton.”

Of course, there are upsides for any host city. The Olympics spur on an understandable uptick in consumer spending, tourism and economic output. Can London break even? Read on to find out:

[via

TAGS: 2012 olympics | london olympics

Anonymous

As usual, the costs are grossly underreported (what is the cost of not getting to the hospital in time because of idiotic traffic so people can watch other people play children’s games?) What is the opportunity cost of wasting resources on this silly short term venture rather that something practical (this from a city that is part of the test bed for imposed deprivation, limited energy and water use, etc…) The benefits are grossly exaggerated. 18k more jobs? What? Where? Cleaning things up and tearing them down? It must be. Funny how that is a COST, hmmmm? This sounds suspiciously like the muddle-headed nonsense that everyone knows is wrong but is often cited anyway about someone throwing a brick through a shop window creates work for the glass worker. Stupid.

Search

Podcasts