[magduf]

In my opinion, it's rational (which surprises me that it would be "populist" since populist thinking is rarely rational).

The Olympics really are a terrible waste of effort and resources for the host nation, and the host nation rarely, if ever, gets a positive return on it. Mostly, it seems only to serve to increase the prestige of some head-of-state, nothing more. In reality, it costs an enormous amount of money to build facilities that are only used once and then go to waste. The world would be better off designating two separate, permanent Olympics facilities, one for summer and one for winter, and just reusing those every 4 years.

[trianglem]

The final goal of ever endeavor is not always profits.

[magduf]

Then what exactly is the goal? If you're not better off after doing something than before doing something, then why would you do it? Hosting the Olympics doesn't help a host nation in any measurable way that I've ever seen, though it does seem to increase the profits and prestige for some national leaders, the IOC, and of course other companies that stand to profit from the event as another poster here pointed out. I don't see how that helps the people of the nation at all.

[jasonv]

Extraordinary public funding that goes through a narrow "takings" funnel may be a high price to pay for the "not always profits" outcome of an Olympics though.

[triceratops]

Yet funnily the IOC, broadcasters, various contractors who build the stadiums, the travel and hotel industry...all seem to profit.