Dr. Doom on London Olympics: Total 'Economic Failure

If you’re anything like us, and we know we are, you were somewhat taken aback by the British press' overreaction to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's comments about London's Olympic security preparations.

"The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials -- that obviously is not something which is encouraging," Romney said during an NBC News interview, adding that the reported security issues were "disconcerting."

Not long after making these remarks, members of the British press flew into a rage, spilled tea all over themselves, did a monocle pop or two,* and declared the former Massachusetts Governor a gaffe-prone "twit."

But if British sensitivities were damaged by Romney questioning whether London was prepared for the Olympics, they're going to be absolutely shattered by what famed economist and market analyst Nouriel "Dr. Doom" Roubini had to say:

Total "economic failure," huh?

“The Games … were meant to boost tourism in the United Kingdom and in London in particular with an extra million visitors a day, but many shopkeepers have reported a drop in activity,” CNBC’s Antonia van de Velde reports.

“Warnings of enormous pressure on the city’s public transport network and overcrowding in the city’s busiest districts prompted many Londoners to book holidays or work from home during the Games, while tourists have shunned the West End which contains many of London’s biggest attractions,” de Velde adds.

As his Tweets indicate, Roubini holds U.K. politicians responsible for the ghost town-like appearance of London. He believes they have scared everyone off.

"Research group Experian said the Olympics appear to have adversely affected the number of people visiting shops in West London, with decreases week-on-week and year-on-year of 11.65 percent and 12.40 percent respectively on the first Saturday of the Games," CNBC adds.

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

*We presume, of course.