Autoblog

Big Rocket @ Mar 11th 2008 9:33PM

Dazza, a few items for your consideration:

1) Most Olympic host cities *lose* money by hosting the Olympic games. The only notable exception is the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

"The real lesson to be learned from the L.A. experience was that the Games can be staged with minimal use of... tax dollars if they use existing facilities... Of course, most cities don't have the athletic facilities or the tourist infrastructure to hold an event the size of the Olympics. Moreover, most city leaders would prefer to use the Olympics as a justification to build a new stadium... But, as Atlanta and Salt Lake City have shown, building new facilities usually means investing tax dollars. And using tax money to build venues for elite athletics raises questions about whether those same tax dollars might not be better spent on crime prevention, street repairs, or other things that directly benefit city residents."

Link:
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2002/01/07/OlympicOpinions/Debunking.Olympic.Myths.About.Economic.Prosperity-161658.shtml

2) Just because Ken Livingstone was the mayor of London when the city was experiencing an economic revival, it doesn't mean the mayor did anything to achieve the economic revival. As I had written before: Correlation does not imply causation. If you wish to bolster your support of Ken Livingstone, please feel free to give examples (web links would be appreciated) in which the mayor or his cabinet introduced legislation, economic initiatives, and/or policy changes that positively impacted London's economy.

3) Just in case you get tired of listening to Americans criticizing Ken Livingstone, here is what a fellow Londoner has to say about her mayor. As you can see, not every Londoner is as enthusiastic about Livingstone as you are.

Link:
http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2006/04/the_ultimate_no.html