So going back to my original point. I looked up the prices of some of these national clubs. Let's ignore initiation, which ranges but is a lot at some of these clubs. At $2500-5000 a year, you are talking about $400+ a round for most golfers. Given replay rates, it just seems like the resorts are the better way to go. In what is a weekend-getaway-range for my area, you can get on the Cascades course or the Old White for less than that rather easily. If you are willing to look at the golf courses at some of the ski resorts, there are rather nice (if not architectual masterpiece) courses for $100 or less per round.
And I do understand that there are tradeoffs. Pace of play and solitude is one. Exclusivity is another (but isn't that just another Veblen trait, going back to my leisure class point?).* The ability (though more limited) to network and form relationships is a third. On the other hand, the resorts tend to have more to do regarding keeping nongolfers interested. And further, one is not tied to the same destination for all their weekend getaways.
Overall, for most people, including most serious golfers, I think the tradeoff seriously leans towards the resort. As I said before, I have played 5 rounds in Mexico (on a surprisingly good if somewhat penal Pete Dye course called Iberostar Golf Club). I played 3 in Jamaica on an admittedly mediocre course called Upton (now Sandals) Golf Club, although the course had a few interesting holes/greens. I played 2 in Virginia at Wintergreen (one at Devils Knob/Maples, another at Stoney Creek/Rees Jones, both nice). The 3 rounds in Jamaica were included in my hotel stay (which was around $150pp/pn all inclusive. 4 of the 5 in Mexico were also included (resort was $200pp/pn all inclusive) and the 5th round was a little over $100. The 2 rounds at Wintergreen were both in the $70 per round.
In other words, the annual cost of my "getaway" golf was, even while creating fictional numbers for my included rounds, easily under $1000. And the reality is, had I joined a national golf club, I would still have gone to Mexico and Jamaica. And this ignores the fact that some of these trips - such as my wedding in Mexico - were going to be expenses whether I belonged to a national club or not.
And I appreciate those trying to sell me on the national golf club, but I am only using myself as an example. I just only see the model working for a handful of people. Those where money is no object, those whose life has the kind of stability where getting away on weekends is a regular occurrence, or those who -- because of family and their own interests -- dedicate most of their leisure time to golf to the exclusion of other things. This appears to be a market that, despite record inequality in the United States (and thus more people for whom money is no object), would nonetheless be overall a shrinking market, rather than a growing one.
Seperately, it just seems to me what golf needs is less playgrounds for the wealthy and their friends, and more opportunities for the regular golfer to be able to splurge and see great architecture. I would have liked to see someone try to set up a resort in the Nebraska Sandhills, where the public could play - in that sense, I am hoping that the Prarie Club (which I am far more likely to get a chance to play, to my chagrin, than Ballyneal in my lifetime) can be a success and a model to encourage both the game of golf and improved golf architecture by showing more golfers the possibilities besides just a parkland course with Augusta conditions as the standard. In this, I am more and more firmly in agreement with the USGA.
The prices for international membership at some of the English clubs, on the other hand, such as Deal, seems like a real competitor -- if you ignore the price of airfare. Unfortuantely, there's just too much of the world for me to see - after Vietnam, I still have yet to see China, Egypt/Israel, Peru/the Amazon, Patagonia, NZ/Australia, Japan, etc. My wanderlust alone would probably keep me from plunking down money on a stationary vacation spot.
* I believe one of my professors was channelling Veblen way back when, as he was discussing that certain luxury goods - such as diamonds - are actually Giffen Goods (that is, goods for which the demand increases as the price increases, contrary to your Econ 101 class. The original giffen goods were ones that were extremely cheap alternatives, and it was posited that as their price increases, the amount of money people have to spend overall decreases, which requires them to buy more of the cheap alternative relative to a superior, but even more expensive, good). The "new" giffen theory is that because the interest in the product stems from it being expensive -- and thus being a display of wealth and leiusre -- and that without the air of luxury, there would be limited demand for the good in the first place. Obviously, a national private club is not a giffen good - I would join one in a heartbeat if the price was, say $100 a year with a $1,000 initiation - but the exclusivity factor seems the same.