Professional athletics is a curious meritocracy where performing some inane activity in the top fractional percentile can result in income statements that are the envy of several NASDAQ firms. Last December, news hit that Tiger Woods was going to put 40 million on his double platinum card to buy an exclusive Palm Beach estate with plans to raze the perfectly excessive main house and build one more suited to his liking. That his ability to swing a club and hit a ball provided him the means to accomplish this dubious endeavor could be the subject of a column or two but not this column. Instead, the subject is whether society has a right to complain about his choice to use his money in this manner.

This is a subject that irritates me frequently. A star gets hitched and the pseudo news excessively covers the excessive spending to procure a marriage that will not out last a fresh gallon of milk. Inevitably someone makes the comment that this is a disgusting display of wealth and that there is no reason to waste money in this manner. After all it would be far better to donate the money to charity instead of spending it on things like flowers where the money goes to the shop owner and then to her employees and then to the grocery store and then to its employees.

There are those that would argue that it is the duty of the rich to transfer their wealth to those that truly need money though charitable giving. Then there are those that do not feel the rich would give enough or to the right things and feel the rich should be forced to give their money to the government so our leaders can decide who is most worthy of financial largesse. We shall refer to these people as deluded fools for the remainder of the article (uh, make that forever).

I’ll insert the standard libertarian defense here. I’m not against charitable giving, I just think it is limited in what it can accomplish and I feel it is each individual’s conscious that should dictate what (s)he gives back to the world. Likewise, a government exists to perform tasks not practically accomplished by private entities. These tasks are done on behalf of all of the people and with their money. This process needs to be fair and respectful to those providing the resources and there is no way to attain that efficiently. OK, I’ve stated the standard irrefutable arguments, lets move on.

Essentially, Tiger Woods is doing the best thing he possibly could with his money. He is blowing it in a manner that will employ the maximum number of people. The real estate agent made a hefty commission on the sale. A company will be employed to destroy the house that another company was paid to build. The contents of the house will probably be salvaged and used in lesser houses. A new house will be designed and built. Workers of all skill levels will be employed by all of the companies involved to give Mr. Woods his dream home. Each of these workers will get a piece of Tiger Woods’ wealth in exchange for his toil. So why is a welfare recipient in Florida more worthy of Tiger Woods’ money than the owner of the construction company that will build his house. Or why is it superior to give money to someone that has done nothing instead of giving it to a carpenter or mason in exchange for the fruits of their craft.

I submit it is the duty of the wealthy to spend ruinously on opulent baubles, pouring their wealth back into the nation that provided it. They shouldn’t worry that they will be seen as flaunting their wealth. Did all of the Hollywood stars that didn’t buy luxury items during the depression help the poor? Wouldn’t the workers of Duesenberg or Pierce Arrow have been better off if the rich would have bought cars instead of hiding their money in a mattress or giving it to the local soup kitchen?

Responses[2]

Posted by Marty on March 12, 2006 10:41:11 PM EST#