Dick,
I am not sure which post of mine you're referring to, but I don't consider my statements regarding the economics and business of golf to be particularly political, unless you believe that supply, demand, pricing, investment, etc. are political constructs as opposed to descriptions of observable behavior. The ideology prompting government and perhaps some market participants to do certain things is political. For example, forcing employers to provide health insurance to its employees or pay an extra 8% of payroll (on top of the 15.3% already being paid for SS and Medicare) and requiring healthy young people to purchase health insurance to make it cheaper for a fat, old guy like me with pre-existing conditions is certainly politically motivated. The likely outcome, that people with less money in their pocket will most probably not spend it on a discretionary activity like golf that's already under pressure for a variety of reasons, is not political but economic and financial.
As to my golf having been subsidized, I am not sure what that has to do with anything. I am an economic being, so I tend to take what is legally and ethically made available to me that I want. It is not up to me to determine whether the price of a green fee covers the owner's cost and profit structure. In most cases I am a price taker, choosing only when and where I play. When I am comped, it is never at the cost of a revenue round to the owner. In this regard, I see nothing untowardly or incongruent with my behavior. And just because I don't like what government does or the taxes it charges, I obey the law and pay ALL my taxes, though not with much relish. I am assuming that it is okay even with the socialists amongst us that I might avail myself of the few breaks given to many citizens (though I passed on "cash for clumkers" and will likely not participate in the tax credit for not so "first time buyers" of a home).
Scott Busch,
Your comments are right on the mark. The home runs I've seen in real estate have been primarily in land investments and a few distressed properties sold by liquidators to opportunity buyers. Real estate invesments in management intensive properties- golf being probably the most- is fraught with risk, particularly if the owners are passive investors. As you know, I am not a big fan of the corporate golf management model, where economies of scale are sought by keeping local operations and supervision lean and the top of the pyramid reaping the benefits. Real estate is a local business, golf more so, and I've yet to talk to a single management company employee (out of as many as 100 or more) who hasn't complained in private that they spend an inordinate amount of time on paperwork, have little decision making capabilty without a corresponding reduction of responsibility, and receive inadequate pay (probably not an uncommon charge by most employees).
Golf is unlike all other Parks & Recreation public endeavors by virtue of the cost of investment and operation. I do not have a major issue with local governments upon the consent of the voters building low-cost facilities where the private sector can't or won't provide. Though I don't believe that golf course owners can reasonably expect large returns (20%+) and some here suggest that golf is not meant to make money, I do find it ironic that local governments often justify building their facilities, particularly the more upscale ones, as an economic engine to fund other Parks & Recreation endeavors. Amusing how the "not-for-profits" seek to price their products to generate excess revenues (those filthy profits that greedy businessmen are always chasing) to fund their pet projects.
NOTE TO DICK:
The following is a political statement- envy and not money (or the love of it necessarily) is the root of all evil. Whether it is someone's money, status, access to the best golf clubs, or the love of a woman (as in the movie "Enemy at the Gate"), even the most doctrinaire of socialists is not immune to envy and the often destructive behavior it leads to. A preoccupation with money is perhaps one of the most debilitating pathologies of society because, clearly, we need it desperately yet are historically compelled to demonize those who are most successful at generating and accumulating it. Without production in excess of consumption we are left to mere subsitence. Without the ability to accumulate those excesses individually- private property- we ensure that none will be created: the "pretend you're paying us and we'll pretend we're working" syndrome that plagues command economies such as Cuba's and the former Soviet bloc. It is also ironic that many of us tend to believe that what we have is deservingly ours, but what the CEO, professional athlete, MD, or any other high earner makes is inappropriate and confiscatable (is that a word?). End of "rant", "sophistry", "screed", "divisiness", and every other negative characterization you have used in the past to discredit my comments.
BTW, I hope your back is better. I'll toast to your good health at the DC. And when are we going to play again?
