• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tokyo chosen to host 2020 Olympic Games

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tokyo chosen to host 2020 Olympic Games | euronews,

Tokyo has been chosen as the host city of the 2020 Olympics. The Japanese capital, which is the world’s largest metropolitan area in the world and counts more than 13 million inhabitants, has already hosted the Summer Olympics once before in 1964.
Oh well.

I don't know if Japan should have made the bid for the olympics. The country is over 200% of its GDP in debt. if it loses it's AAA credit rating, the country will most likely default, and no, i'm not joking. And the downside is that the last 3 olympics haven't been profitable. Too much expenditure, too little profit.
 

Mr X

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
177
Reaction score
80
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Tokyo chosen to host 2020 Olympic Games | euronews,



Oh well.

I don't know if Japan should have made the bid for the olympics. The country is over 200% of its GDP in debt. if it loses it's AAA credit rating, the country will most likely default, and no, i'm not joking. And the downside is that the last 3 olympics haven't been profitable. Too much expenditure, too little profit.
Since the LA '84 Olympics, only Athens has made a loss. All the others have either broke even or made a profit. As the Japanese are likely to be more efficient than the Greeks, I think it's likely that they will make a profit. At the very least break even.
 

Serenity

Stay Human
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
28,976
Reaction score
25,967
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Congratulations Tokyo. Rugby world cup in 2019 and now 2020 Olympics.

Good stuff!
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,934
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Having been to Japan I can say with absolute faith that the will do a superb job on the Olympics. I remember taking the shinkansen from Tokyo to Hiroshima and my ticket said the train would leave at four minutes after the hour. There was a digital clock read out of the time over the doors of each car. At 03:59 the doors magically closed and one second later as the readout read 4:00 the wheels engaged and the train moved forward. Days later I was at an event at the Tokyo Dome where they said the intermission would last 15 minutes. In the states that means somewhere between 20 and thirty minutes. 15 minutes later the show resumed like a swiss clock.

This will be a precision work of art and I hope to be alive to attend.
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,806
Reaction score
7,881
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Happy for Tokyo but very sad for Istanbul.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since the LA '84 Olympics, only Athens has made a loss. All the others have either broke even or made a profit. As the Japanese are likely to be more efficient than the Greeks, I think it's likely that they will make a profit. At the very least break even.
Well, I took a quick peek at wikipedia before I posted that and here's what i found.

Cost of the Olympic Games - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last 2 broke even, the one before that was barely at a profit because it was in Beijing and it's cheap there, if it had been in a country whose currency is worth more, it would have been at a loss... 2 before that were at a loss and overall, the latest have been either at even or at a loss.

My statement, thus, was mostly correct: And the downside is that the last 3 olympics haven't been profitable. Too much expenditure, too little profit.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Happy for Tokyo but very sad for Istanbul.
It seems they were punished for recent civil unrest. I'm not totally convinced it would have impacted, they have seven years to sort it out.

Paul
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,806
Reaction score
7,881
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It seems they were punished for recent civil unrest. I'm not totally convinced it would have impacted, they have seven years to sort it out.

Paul
Yeh looks like it which is absurd when you think what can happen in 7 years, look at London we had the 7/7 bombings the day after the announcement, the riots and the security issues before the games and we still pulled it off.
 

Fallenangel

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,099
Location
Israel/Russia/UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeay! I was for Tokyo, now I finally got an excuse to visit Japan :D

Fallen.
 

Mr X

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
177
Reaction score
80
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Well, I took a quick peek at wikipedia before I posted that and here's what i found.

Cost of the Olympic Games - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last 2 broke even, the one before that was barely at a profit because it was in Beijing and it's cheap there, if it had been in a country whose currency is worth more, it would have been at a loss... 2 before that were at a loss and overall, the latest have been either at even or at a loss.

My statement, thus, was mostly correct: And the downside is that the last 3 olympics haven't been profitable. Too much expenditure, too little profit.
Sounds like you're including the winter Olympics, which no-one really cares about.
I was only talking about the summer Olympics, since that is what Tokyo Will be hosting.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Oh well.

I don't know if Japan should have made the bid for the olympics. The country is over 200% of its GDP in debt. if it loses it's AAA credit rating, the country will most likely default, and no, i'm not joking. And the downside is that the last 3 olympics haven't been profitable. Too much expenditure, too little profit.
Almost all of Japan's debt is held domestically. And because rates are so pathetic, there's not much of a better option than simply buying more debt. So it's not like foreign debtors are simply going to fire sale and devalue the Yen. Japan will have a problem as its population further ages, but it's hardly comparable to how Western governments are indebted. A majority of US debt is held domestically, but huge portions are held internationally and much of it chases better deals. That's not Japan.

I do agree that Japan was a bad choice purely out of costs. Japan is going to have to build more hotels, more venues and more transportation to handle this. That's going to cost billions. For the same reason Istanbul was right to be removed.

Madrid however, should have been given the games because the actual amount of new construction needed was very, very low. Not LA low, but way less than either of the other two. I still think the Games needs to move to a rotating permanent city system, preferably some cities that can handle both the winter and the summer games. If only 6 cities total were handling the Olympics, the costs could be easily spread out among multiple games making it far less of a money pit and putting some sense of order. 2 cities handle summer only, 2 winter only and 2 do both. Then it just rotates between them and because you know exactly when you're coming up again, it's easy to plan.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Almost all of Japan's debt is held domestically. And because rates are so pathetic, there's not much of a better option than simply buying more debt. So it's not like foreign debtors are simply going to fire sale and devalue the Yen. Japan will have a problem as its population further ages, but it's hardly comparable to how Western governments are indebted. A majority of US debt is held domestically, but huge portions are held internationally and much of it chases better deals. That's not Japan.

I do agree that Japan was a bad choice purely out of costs. Japan is going to have to build more hotels, more venues and more transportation to handle this. That's going to cost billions. For the same reason Istanbul was right to be removed.

Madrid however, should have been given the games because the actual amount of new construction needed was very, very low. Not LA low, but way less than either of the other two. I still think the Games needs to move to a rotating permanent city system, preferably some cities that can handle both the winter and the summer games. If only 6 cities total were handling the Olympics, the costs could be easily spread out among multiple games making it far less of a money pit and putting some sense of order. 2 cities handle summer only, 2 winter only and 2 do both. Then it just rotates between them and because you know exactly when you're coming up again, it's easy to plan.
It is true that the majority of Japans' debt is held domestically, but Japan is still running a deficit and who are the people who are buying all this new debt? Foreigners. Increasingly so. By next year, nearly 10% of Japans' debt will be held by foreigners.

While I do agree that Madrid would have been overall better, I don't think that the idea of having a fixed city system is a good thing for the sole reason that you cut out competition.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
While I do agree that Madrid would have been overall better, I don't think that the idea of having a fixed city system is a good thing for the sole reason that you cut out competition.
But you seriously cut costs down. And if a city wants to no longer host, they could probably do a transfer for 10 games or something. This whole new city thing is horribly expensive.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But you seriously cut costs down. And if a city wants to no longer host, they could probably do a transfer for 10 games or something. This whole new city thing is horribly expensive.
The costs aren't defined by the olympic commission. It's the countries who keep playing a dick-measuring contest to see who can make the most expensive stadium and stuff.

A country shouldn't apply if it doesnt' think it's ready or that it can bear the cost. The prestige boost isn't all that great really and the economic benefit brought by tourists and commercials and advertisement, as we have seen, barely makes it worthwhile when it does make a profit.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The costs aren't defined by the olympic commission. It's the countries who keep playing a dick-measuring contest to see who can make the most expensive stadium and stuff.
Not entirely. The IOC won't award the Olympics to a city that neither has the facilities nor will build them, so the cost is already built it in to applying for the games to the IOC. The mere cost of hosting the games is outrageous purely because of the necessary infrastructure. Without it, or the plans, you can't mount a decent proposal.

Sure, China and Russia are kind of in a pissing contest, but Vancouver was horribly expensive and the Canadians hardly went all out. Moving to a 6 city Summer/Winter would drop the costs down by reusing the same facilities over and over again rather than the one shot deal. And it would give cities incentive to maintain them...unlike Athens and Beijing. You ever visit the Bird's Nest after the Olympics? Place is falling apart. What a waste of money.

A country shouldn't apply if it doesnt' think it's ready or that it can bear the cost. The prestige boost isn't all that great really and the economic benefit brought by tourists and commercials and advertisement, as we have seen, barely makes it worthwhile when it does make a profit.
Hence why the permanent city rotation makes a lot of sense from a cost viewpoint.
 

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hosting such a mega event is not about profitability. The next leg of the F1 begins here this Sunday. Five years after the F1 was held here, the glamorous event is turbo-charging the local economy more than ever.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Congratulations Tokyo. Rugby world cup in 2019 and now 2020 Olympics.

Good stuff!
I'm not sure this is a good thing considering all the radiation.
 
Top Bottom