olympics deprecation thread

It should also be pointed out, as nobody else has done so, that we got these Olympics in 2005, when times were fat. Pulling out wasn't really an option after that.

The idea that the money spent on these Games - a staggering amount, it has to be said - might otherwise be spent on hospitals, schools, etc strikes me as a bit naive. It wouldn't have been. Knowing the current government, it would have been spent on tax cuts for their rich friends.

More money would be saved by cancelling vanity projects like Trident (according to a March article in the FT, £84 BILLION could be saved over the next 50 years if we canned this pointless endeavour - link here) or by closing the tax loopholes for the super-rich and big corporations. According to research published last week, and reported widely by the media across the world, this costs all of us (those of us who meet tax obligations) THIRTEEN TRILLION POUNDS. See here

There's also something to be said for the old theory that nothing beats hard times like a bloody great big party.

You're absollutely right that advertising is good for those companies...but who actually pays for it? The consumer.

Promoting a brand does not improve the quality of the product. Nor does it reduce the price. How is spending money to do neither of these things efficient? It is just a waste of consumers' money.

At best, advertising simply informs consumers of the choices and features. This could be done quite cheaply. What we see today is just a collosal waste of money. I'm not saying that companies don't have to advertise to be successful, just that we would be better off if they didn't. Advertising creates no overall value. Value is destroyed by frictional cost of producing advertising that simply annoys us all.

Ad execs create relative value for the companies that engage them, but only because "everyone else" is doing it. Better off if no-one did it. Seriously.

Yes, everybody stop advertising.  While we're at it, get all countries to get rid of their arms and create world peace.

Oh Yes, disgusting MucDonalds and Coca-Cola really are ripping off the public, cheap sugary diabetes in a bucket and crap quality fatty food causing obesity, cancer, heart disease, death by dying, and the HNS bill for the tax payer in the Billions.

BMW’s are a prestige car that doesn’t primarily do price tag value for money... but you should ask, Winky what he thinks of them, personally i prefer BWV’s myself, far more in tune with good quality of health and totally non-polluting too.

Debs

So is Chateau Mouton Rothschild ripping off the public by selling a product known to cause addiction and liver disease?

Maybe it will change in the Stadium but the sponsorship is pretty invisible so far.

Benefits of BBC coverage perhaps?

If you can afford to get liver disease from drinking Mouton-Rothschild, then you're doing very well indeed financially.

I take your, and Debs' points here, but it is certainly true that it would be easier to stay alive if all there was to eat and drink was McDonalds and Coca-Cola than it would be if there was nothing whatsoever to eat and drink.

So, in moderation they do not necessarily do any of those things. 

And there is plenty of evidence (although not real proof) that alcohol consumption in moderation, especially via red wine, is actually beneficial. Life is not quite as black and white as people need it to be for arguments to work.

The evidence is reasonable that a small amount of regular alcohol reduces the risk of vascular disease compared to drinking zero. The 'red wine' specific effect (much repeated and believed) is actually less convincing.

Amongst all the things we tell people not to do the one thing hugely supported by evidence that you should do at all ages is to take regular vigorous exercise. It improves short and long term health in a whole variety of measurable ways. 

Bruce

I agree. Not much apparent at the venues at all. The cable TV coverage here is about 40% ads, though.

Well, yes. It is a reasonable analogy.Tremendous waste in both areas. Nothing of value created, but companies and nations must, unfortunately partake in advertising and defence spending just to maintain position. In social sciences it is sometimes known as the "red queen effect" where one must run furiously just to stay in place.

Sorry to hijack again, not really, but 2 golds in one day so far for TeamGB!!!!!!!!

(Sir) Brad must be a shoe-in for the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year now.

Jono

Interesting fraca in the women's badminton. Competitors were adopting a strategy designed to maximize their chances of winning (sandbagging in order to draw weaker competitors in future matches), but were disqualified because it wasn't entertaining enough. Follow the money......

Superb ride from Chris Froome too. Well done boys!

Brilliant decision - it was great to see them thrown out - they were both rubbish, couldn't serve as well as me that's how dreadful they were, and deserved to both lose, which they did - another victory for London 2012 - I can't believe just how wonderful these games are. 

Great to hear you got your computer fixed Fabio and are back on line.

I love sport and sport achievements and although in younger days I had a go I wasn't of any standard worth mentioning.

I actually think Italian sport is great with so many superb competitors and you have some of the most beautiful cities and the best food.  

I think in sport you have to play the best way you can to try to win - but no cheating and if you lose you shake hands and respect your opponent. So I think we are the same on that view.

The England football team cannot play like Spain because we do not have the technically gifted players - my way to play is not to worry about possession, but simply get the ball in to the penalty area at every opportunity and see what happens - every set piece (free kick, throw) is an opportunity to do this. Of course if we had a modern day Gianfranco Zola or Sandro Mazzola or Gianni Rivera then we wouldn't need to do that we could play through them - indeed if we had Stanley Mathews, Tommy Finney, Jimmy Greaves or Paul Mariner then we could play more attractiveky, but alas those days have gone. I think for us to be undefeated in Euro 2012 was brilliant given the players we have. 

However, London 2012 is different we have some real stars and have organised London 2012 really well and so it is great to be part of it. Although I like Team GB to win ... I still admire the other great athletes wherever they come from. 

Isn't wonderful that Italy and England can play sport against each other and other countries and forget the economic troubles for a while. Both countries will be OK - things will improve across Europe: too many good people for that not to happen. 

Well done Heather and Helen 

And Bradley Wiggins, of course. 

Winky,

My suggestion was in response to your concern about Sponsors influencing the running of the Games.

I am well aware that you don't want the Games, but even without corporate sponsorship, the Games would be enjoyed by a significant portion of the global population. If government funded, the Games could be free of corporate influence

Getting those counties who wish to participate to pay for the Games isn't so far removed from your concept of "let those who watch, pay". Many activities are collectively funded through taxation, even though fewer than 100% of tax payers actually "want" to partcipate or benefit. Lets face it, there are probably very few things, if any, that 100% of a population "want" to contribute to and benefit from. (eg I want to opt out of pathetic renewable energy schemes such as wind farms in the UK - let those who want them, pay extra for their electricity !!)  In democracies, we get to vote every few years to change direction on the big, expensive issues. Anything else would be dictatorship or anarchy.

I am confident you are not promoting either.

Cheers

Don

They were disqualified for cheating. The crowd was booing the teams in question not only because they were providing a dismal spectacle (and many people had paid good money to watch some badminton rather than a deeply cynical attempt at getting a result by deliberately not bothering to make any effort whatsoever)  but also because it was very bad sports(wo)manship. The fans and the media would simply not have tolerated these cynics going on to win medals, and the organisers and authorities knew it.

It was a good decision, driven by a sense of fair play. At least in this case it was nothing to do with sponsors or money.

Sorry Winky, you're beginning to sound a teensy bit desperate now.

I never knew what those fingers symbols meant in women's beach volleyball: It all makes sense now!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/...nals-mean-slideshow/

Thanks for that awesome information Tony.

No they weren't cheating. But it was poor sportsmanship as you say. But ultimately, also as you say, it was the fans and media that created the pressure to throw them out. Those watching are important because of the money.

In non-spectator sport and non sponsored sports, with no pressure from media or fans, would the outcome have been different? I don't know. But Olympics need the spectacle to get the money. No getting around the fact that it is a commercial enterprise, using sporting competition to fill the pockets of the privileged and the corrupt. They can't afford the debacle of this type of gamesmanship. It isn't a morals-driven decision.

I'm not promoting any sort of intervention at all, but merely pointing out the inefficiencies of the current system.

My dislike for corporate sponsorship and expensive advertising applies to most areas. I'll make an exception for corporate support of charities and the disadvantaged. Genetically gifted athletes don't automatically fall into the "disadvantaged" group. I say to professional athletes, "get a job".

In countries like GB, Canada, Australia etc, the majority of tax money goes to things that we generally agree on, like welfare, health care, defence, infrastructure etc. Sure we disagree on the absolute level of taxes and goverment support, but the major categories are fairly obvious.

Socializing sporting competitions goes a step beyond socializing basic human needs. Sure, we do it to a certain extent already, but I suspect that fully government-funded Olympics would be a step too far for most.

A hundred and EEEEEeeeeeEEIIiiiiiiiiiiiIIIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was match throwing. That, in my book, and I suspect most other people's, is cheating - and you know it, so why not stop back pedalling?

Those two badminton players players who were thrown out were rubbish: couldn't even serve - two of the most useless Badminton players ever to appear in an Olympic tournament .. I could have beaten them ... I'm glad they are out, it's what they deserved. Can't understand how they qualified in the first place. 

Well done to the Chinese Olympic team management who apologised for the embarrassment these two caused and their disrespect for the tournament. 

Bring back Gillian Gilks - the greatest player of all time. 

More medals on another wonderful .. it's getting better all the time. 

I never knew we were so good in canoes, but always fancied our chances shooting clay pigeons 

Sir Chris Hoy ... Lord Hoy surely ... a wizard, a true star