Nacre

Premium Members
  • Content count

    992
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Nacre last won the day on January 10

Nacre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

145 Excellent

About Nacre

  • Rank
    Gold
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    w/ the pygmy rabbits
  • Interests
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

4288 profile views
  1. It's not the facilities that are the problem, it is the public money spent on facilities. In the rest of the world teams generally have to spend their own money on stadiums and arenas, or they use modest public facilities. Only in North America (and somewhat in Australia) is "welfare for billionaires" provided for sports team owners and their stadiums. Minnesota taxpayers have spent $350 million on a baseball stadium, $145 million on an NCAA football stadium, $498 million on an NFL stadium, $170 million on an NHL arena and $104 million on an NBA arena. Taxpayers in the UK meanwhile have spent/will spend nothing on the football stadiums for Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, etc. Of course the best answer is to do what New York has done. If politicians were smart they would not waste taxpayer money on either an Olympic Park or NFL stadiums.
  2. I don't think we will see another US city bid for the Olympics if Los Angeles loses. American cities spend too much on domestic sporting venues to be able to afford the cost of additional Olympic facilities. (Even Minneapolis could have built all of the Olympic venues for the cost of their two football stadiums.) New York is the only other viable city, but New York does not want the games. Miami, Houston and Washington are also not suitable due to climate. It's not fair to the athletes to subject them to the risk of heat stroke competing in that much heat and humidity.
  3. IIRC the English papers were very critical of spending beforehand (and about the Olympic Stadium afterwards) but were very positive during the actual Olympics themselves. Of course part of that is due to London doing a great job with the games. But I think Vancouver did a decent job too: they couldn't do much to control the weather or stop an athlete from dying in a freak accident in an extreme sport. And yet they were hammered in the media. In any case I don't think any city should host with the idea that they are going to garner good publicity. Every minor failing is blown up into a mountain (we are all going to contract the Zika virus!!!) and most of the successes ignored. (Like Brazil managing to pull off a decent Olympics during a massive economic and political crisis.) Thinking it will be any different for South Korea seems silly.
  4. They were pretty vicious with Vancouver too. Every Olympics collects a storm of criticism now. London only treated a bit better because the patriotism of the English tabloids.
  5. The venues exist, but would have to be massively expanded and/or upgraded. Madrid's athletics stadium only seats 20,000, for example. Compare that to Paris or Los Angeles, where little to no public money will have to be spent upgrading venues just for the Olympics. It may be obvious but nevertheless it is true. Cities usually break even on the operational cost of the Olympics. It is the security and capital costs that get them into trouble. The IOC would love to see bids from Madrid, Hamburg, San Francisco, Toronto, etc. But it seems very unlikely that the citizens of any these cities want to spend 5 billion euros/dollars/whatever on stadiums and arenas that will be used for three weeks.
  6. Barcelona had the huge advantage of the Olympic Park built for Expo 1929. Madrid would need to construct too much. It is the same reason Los Angeles has been successful with the Olympics while New York has not: without the USC campus and its stadium, other venues and dorms LA would not be able to host the Olympics.
  7. "Thanks" to fracking the USA is now a net oil exporter. Moreover middle eastern countries are perfectly willing to sell oil. So there's little reason to invade other countries for oil. Tea Party Republicans are indeed generally nativist and isolationist. It's worth pointing out that the EU itself is a multi-state entity (or multi-national superstate, depending on your POV) rather than a nation state, so people who believe in nationally focused politics rather than internationalism will of course dislike it.
  8. Having lived in both Canada and the USA, I think Canadians are much more patriotic than Americans. But it is expressed very differently: my Canadian friends love all things Canadian (except for Celine Dion) while Americans tend to focus on the power of the USA. For example winning the most medals at the Olympics. As to the "leader of the free world," it is only fair to point out that isolationist conservatives in the USA explicitly do NOT want to be burdened with leading the world. They want to let places like Latin America, Africa and the Middle East deal with their own problems. (For example, in trying to cut off contact between the USA and Muslims.) I have no interest in helping out Trump or his degenerate supporters, but being too interventionist is a charge even I won't make towards American isolationists. And finally, there is no Paris of North America and never will be. But I think Quebec City is more of a French city than Montreal. J'aime le Quebec.
  9. This seems like a very easy "Yes" to me, but I haven't lived in Canada for a decade and I don't know what the state of provincial politics is. Perhaps the eastern provinces will not want to support another Olympics in the west so soon. PRO Canada is fantastically good at the winter sports, merely OK at the summer games, and pretty awful at football/soccer. Canada will probably "win" at Calgary 2026, while the national team would probably not win a single game at a Canadian World Cup. There is a very good chance of a Calgary bid winning. There are fewer competitors than there are for the summer games and World Cup, and Canada has the advantage of pulling in both the Francophone and Anglosphere blocs. (Though many Anglo Canadians can't actually speak much French.) Calgary already has the required sporting venues and would only need to modernize them a bit. CON Canada has already hosted the winter games multiple times, and Calgary itself has hosted before, so hipsters and contrarians may find a Canadian winter Olympic games boring. Even with most of the venues in place, Calgary would still have to stump up a bit of money for refurbishments and perhaps a new village. If Canada wants to host a major event, this is the one it should push for. Quebec could host the IAAF Championships as compensation for the west getting the games again before the east.
  10. It is also worth noting that the political process tends to crush the best candidates. Those who emerge victorious are not the best administrators, but the ones best able to manipulate their party's voters. Being a great mayor or governor requires finding compromises and being a practical leader. Party bases do not want that: they want charismatic firebrands.
  11. 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) The Olympics do not cause an increase in tourism. Some cities (like Barcelona) may experience an increase of tourism after or even simultaneously with their Olympics, but the cause of the tourism increase is the result of something else. Barcelona has experienced a tourism boom from the end of the Franco era opening up the country, a general increase in Spanish tourism, and investment in local tourism infrastructure. Andalucia has had the same massive increase in tourists as Catalonia despite the fact it never hosted the Olympics. If you remove the other factors (such as currency devaluation in the case of Brazil) the Olympics and other mega events usually decrease the number of tourists. The exception to this is winter events, since this is typically the lowest point in the tourist calendar for large cities. Paris, in the summer, is already full of tourists. The tourism industry won't benefit from the Olympics since any gain in Olympic fans will merely displace the normal tourists.
  12. The 4.8% increase in tourism is almost certainly due to the currency dropping 40% to the US dollar in 2016 rather than the Olympics.
  13. The Olympics reduce tourism.
  14. In fact it is a perfectly reasonable idea to have "celebration sites" across the country. The organizers could presumable make $15m per NFL stadium used if they can get enough local volunteers in each city to put on a decent show, so they could get $500 million. Edit: I mean by using stadiums and arenas throughout the USA. The problem, though, is that only one stadium can host the official opening ceremony with the athletes and the IOC delegates. Hopefully that is made clear to the people buying tickets.