Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: 2012 Olympics

Olympic Medal...olympics_000019262071XSmall

Sometimes it is tough to decide who really is #1.

Ask me who won the Olympics and I, as a former history teacher, might say the Mongol Empire.

If you were to outline the Mongol Empire (1280AD) on a map, 15 contemporary countries would be totally or partially included. Ranging from China to Tajikstan and including the Russian Federation and South Korea, those 15 nations won 285 medals.

The top 6 on my medals list would be:

EMPIRE  MEDAL COUNT
Mongol (1280)  285
British (1910)  181
Eurozone (2012)  178
Roman (100)  175
Napoleonic (1810)  165
Russia (1950)  164

From: pingflux.

Other yardsticks for naming Olympic winners?

Most people say that the US was first with the most medals (104) or because it got more gold (46) than anyone else. Then though, using the gold as our yardstick, for the 2008 Olympics, China, with 51 would have been named #1. Another possibility is to divide a nation’s GDP or its population by its medal count. Among the top winners, for GDP Russia is on top because it “spent” the least while Great Britain wins for the lowest number of people per medal

COUNTRY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PER MEDAL      $ BILLIONS OF GDP PER MEDAL
GREAT BRITAIN    0.97     $35
RUSSIA    1.68     $29
GERMANY    1.85     $71
US    3.02     $147
CHINA   15.44     $131

From: WSJ.com

All of this took me to a New Yorker article from Malcolm Gladwell on ranking. Focusing primarily on the U.S. News & World Report’s annual “Best Colleges,” he suggests that seemingly clear criteria for determining the “best” are tough to quantify and may not even be valid. when you look closely at them

For me, Gladwell’s conclusions apply also to the economy. Looking at income inequality among nations, happiness among US states, the top money managers on Wall Street or countless other topics, you will discover that the criteria for ranking them deserves a closer look.

Econlife looked more closely at ranking questions here. Also, a thanks to the WSJ Numbers Guy for the ideas and much of the data in this post and you might enjoy reading more about the historic empires that would have won the 20102 London Olympics.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Olympic Medal...olympics_000019262071XSmall

In addition to the gold, silver or bronze, Olympic athletes get money for winning. The amount, though, depends on their National Olympic Committee.

The Singapore Olympic Committee gives its gold medal winners $800,000, a UK gold medal winner gets his or her face on a stamp and Australian gold medalists get $20,000 and their face on a stamp. According to yesterday’s Reuters list, no one from Singapore has gotten the gold while the UK has 8 stamps to print.

Here are some other gold medal cash prizes:

  • Kazakhstan: $250,000
  • Kyrgyzstan: $200,000
  • Uzbekistan: $150,000
  • Russia: $135,000
  • Tajikistan: $63,000
  • US: $25,000

 

As for the medals, the Olympic gold contains 6 grams of gold and 394 grams of silver making its “melt down” value close to $680.82. Silver, at $385, and bronze for less than $5 are worth much less.

In the US, taxes are one reason that the value of the medals matters. Athletes are taxed on the value of all that they earn at the Olympics.  Add to that the US $25,000 cash prize and you get $25,680.82 in taxable income. (But here it gets complicated. The actual tax bill depends on deductible expenses, exemptions and other tax details.)

Thinking economically, I started wondering about incentives. If athletes from different countries can go home with prizes ranging from a picture on a stamp to $800,000, does that affect their performance?

These BBC articles here and here tell more about the amounts and issues that relate to cash prizes for medals, and this CNBC article presents slightly different numbers for the cost of Olympic medals. To read about how countries tax prizes, here and here are some facts. And, to check if anyone will go home to Singapore with that $800,000, here is a Reuters medal list.

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Olympic Medal...olympics_000019262071XSmall

If you want to predict Olympic medal winners, you might look at economic data.

A report on the Olympics from Goldman Sachs suggests that nations with a superior economic growth environment will increase their share of Olympic gold medals in London. Quantifying political, macroeconomic and microeconomic conditions, macroeconomic stability, human capital and technology, Goldman compared economics and medals for multiple years.

Their results?

Predictably, developed nations win more. But also, for less developed nations, increasing per capita income means more medals as does being a host nation. Below you can see the boost predicted for the UK.

In addition, some sports correlate more closely to the economic variables than others. The Goldman researchers concluded that “canoeing, diving, fencing, swimming, table tennis,” equestrianism, gymnastics and wresting have an economic connection. By contrast, football, softball and triathlon have not.

Olympics Medal Statistics and Predictions from the Goldman Olympics Report

Country

GDP Size

By Rank

2011

Olympic

Medals

By Rank

Beijing

2008

Number of

Olympic

Gold Medals

Beijing

2008

Number of

Olympic

Gold Medals

Predictions

2012

USA

1

1

36

37

China

2

2

51

33

Japan

3

9

9

8

Germany

4

6

16

14

France

5

6

7

14

Brazil

6

13

3

6

UK

7

4

19

30

Italy

8

8

8

10

Russia

9

3

23

25

Canada

10

12

3

6

*Australia had 15 gold medals in 2008; 14 is the Goldman prediction for this year.

Fun to contemplate, the predictions vary. You might enjoy looking at the Goldman report, these WSJ predictions and this comparison of several. For another economic analysis of Olympic medal winners from a Colorado College professor, I suggest looking at Dan Johnson’s predictions.  And for per capita income data, this World Bank site is ideal. Finally, I wonder how much the euro zone fiscal turmoil has affected Olympic budgets. I have read that Greece’s Olympic spending has plummeted.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Panama Canal Project Facilitates World Trade.

To introduce our first international trade discussion in class, I usually ask students to check where their clothing and shoes have been made. Finding labels that say “Made in China, Made in Thailand, Made in Peru…,” they first see how trade touches them.

Then though, the surprises begin.

U.S. businesses benefit considerably. For a $70 pair of sneakers that was Made in China, a 2011 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report tells us that transport, wholesale and retail expenses involving US businesses represented 55% of the selling price. As a result, the US truck driver, the US store owner, the US wholesaler and retailer all received some income because of those Chinese sneakers.

US consumers also enjoy benefits from the “Made in China” label. In “The Fruits of Free Trade” from the Dallas Fed is a chart that conveys the trajectory of prices for traded and non-traded goods from 1997 to 2002. For traded goods like video equipment, TV sets and toys, prices plunged while the non-traded goods had price increases. On the flip side, when jobs are protected, the consumer suffers. For apparel and textiles, when trade barriers saved 168,786 jobs, the cost to consumers was $199,241 per job.

So, when 9 Senators introduce legislation to mandate “Made in the USA” Olympic uniforms, they are making a political statement but ignoring the economic realities.

Intuitively though, it is tough to grasp why legislators suggesting home industry might be harming the US economy. Nineteenth century economist David Ricardo first explained the classic defense of world trade through the law of comparative advantage. Basically, he told us to optimize world efficiency and incomes by  ”Doing what we do best and then trading for the rest.” Much more recently, in “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea,” Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman tried to explain why many people have ignored the wisdom of David Ricardo’s ideas.

To read more about the merits of free trade the Federal Reserve reports are here and here while a good bio of David Ricardo is here. You might also want to read this report from Michael Mandel that looks at how we might regain any jobs lost from trade.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment