Monday, January 20, 2014

He's got a really good point . . .

. . . and a really good case study in cost-benefit analysis I should use early next semester.

Charles Lane uses his column in the Washington Post to question why the Olympics should still even be taking place.

I would tone it down. Instead of abolishing the event, I would stop the farcical exercise in having countries bid for games they break their backs to afford putting on (Lane refers to how Montreal took 30 years to finally pay off the games it hosted: Olympic Stadium is derided as the Big Owe in that city). The IOC should settle on two sites, one for winter and one for summer, as permanent host venues for the games. Greece would have my vote for summer. Winter . . . something Scandinavian associated with the Olympic ideals would suit me fine. If we could take the host-city-bidding out of the mix, I think we would minimize many of the problems Lane raises.

No comments: