I know a lot of people don't look at the world the way I do. But every once in a while, something jumps out at me that embodies the difference between my morality and the morality of others. Today's New York Times Sports section has a perfect example in this letter to the editor:
To the Sports Editor:
As I watched the final round at the Masters, I was mesmerized by the perseverance with which Tiger Woods recovered his stroke and charged up the leader board only to fall short at the end.
I have also always been impressed by the respect Tiger has shown for the legends of golf — Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. Tiger has earned more money than all three of them combined.
Much
of his wealth comes from corporate sponsorships, including Buick.
Unfortunately, Buick had to sever its relationship with Tiger because
of the downturn of the American auto industry.
As the owner of an
Ohio steel-tubing company that supplies the automotive industry and has
been severely affected by the economic downturn, I’d like to see Tiger
do his part to help our nation get on the road to economic recovery by
aiding Buick by continuing as its spokesman without pay.
Stephen D. Oliphant
East Palestine, Ohio
The writer is the chief executive of Tubetech North America.
Oliphant would like to see someone else volunteer to make a sacrifice? Huh? This guy is a CEO. He understands something about incentives. I'd like to think he understands something about capitalism. But he is unembarrassed to suggest that someone else should make a sacrifice. There's an implication that Tiger ISN'T doing his part, whatever it means to do one's part. Then there's the implication that if Tiger Woods continues working without pay for Buick that there's no other cost, that Woods won't spend more time, perhaps, helping some other product.
Finally, Buick didn't have to sever its relationship with Tiger Woods because of the "downturn in the American auto industry." Buick severed the relationship because Buick is going broke. Buick is going broke because not enough people are willing to pay the price of Buick's cars given what it costs Buick to make them. I'm tempted to suggest that it would be a good thing for Tiger Woods to spend more of his scarce time supporting successful products rather than products that people don't value very much. But my advice is simpler. My suggestion for Tiger Woods is to spend his time however he sees fit.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 15 comments }
As the reader of a Virginia-based economics blog that supplies the Web with Smith-Hayek grounded wisdom and has been severely affected by the intellectual downturn, I’d like to see Oliphant do his part to help our nation get on the road to economic recovery by aiding his company by continuing as its CEO without pay.
I had to laugh at this one.
I guess Tiger was not enough to save them before, so why would he now?
He's joking. Or he's pimping his business. +2 points for getting it past the sports desk editor.
Oh Mr. Roberts, you are SO not going to fit into the new America that is being crafted for you.
This is not a time for profits, or eating what you wish, or keeping your home heated. However, if you would like to mandatorily-voluntarily smelt steel in your back yard in order to help out a failing auto industry, that will go on your Patriotic New Foundation record and be fully considered when we weigh whether you have exceeded your lifetime carbon footprint cap.
I concur, Tiger knows what is best for Tiger. Therefore, until the social engineers capture our freedom which seems not too far off. I plan to do what is best for me and my family, and if others do the same. F.A. Hayek would be proud of us all, and the economy will behave appropriately, if the egotists in DC (our congress and president) can leave it alone.
Recently, I have feared the government's behavior more than any terrorist organization(s). I leave you with this:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." –Barry Goldwater
I am very upset with your post. You missed the key point that you should have brought out.
Why is the CEO of Tubetech not doing his part by supplying free steel to GM (just like he wants Tiger to supply free services)?
Better, he should forsake his pay or even his 401K and send a check to GM. Put his dollars where his mouth is.
I would assume apart from pontificating, he is unlikely to do anything that makes him offer free products/services. Perhaps, he believes Tiger's support costs zero dollars to Tiger. In that case, he needs to go read Economics 101.
Thank you.
Another reason for Tiger not to associate himself with Buick is because it likely would devalue the Tiger Brand. Buick is going broke, the product is really stale (older people in the U.S.A. and the Chinese seem to enjoy this car), and no one wants to be associated with a loser.
As a frequent diner here at the Cafe, I'd like to see Mr. Oliphant do his part by reading "Road to Serfdom" and "I, Pencil."
(I was going to riff on Anshu's point, but he beat me to it.)
Seriously — does Mr. Oliphant REALLY believe that Buick's sales figures are THAT tied to Tiger Woods?
If he does, then the American manufacturing sector has much bigger troubles than tone-deaf leadership and stifling legacy union contracts.
Anshu has it right. It seems Mr Oliphant can do more than Mr Woods to help Buick by cutting his price in half. Better yet, he could do what he is asking Mr Woods to do and give his product to Buick for free.
Heck, if he really works hard and convinces all other suppliers to do the same, Buick could probably turn a profit and pay their CEO and other employees more.
Now if Mr Oliphant can only convince the government to work for free and not collect any taxes on the profits Buick will generate he will really have accomplished something.
"My suggestion for Tiger Woods is to spend his time however he sees fit."
As long as this doesn't include more jogging or another swing change. Dude would already have eclipsed Nicklaus if he'd not blown his knees or lost five or so years on swing changes.
Me thinks he's being sarcastic…
Oliphant's company might be better off if Buick is saved in anyway possible, including free advertising by Tiger Woods. Oliphant does what many people do by concluding that what might be good for him will be good for everybody and for the whole economy.
The concept that allowing unproductive companies to fail is a net good compared to keeping them going by artificial supports might be well understood by Oliphant, but only so long as neither he nor his company has to suffer. Intellectual accuracy always depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Fair Trade Coffee is asking you to give them preference. It's not much more expensive. It doesn't taste worse. It's not a costly request, but it's still a request for charity. Supposedly cost-effective charity. I have no problem with that.
Can Buick can honestly make the same request?
I assume this fellow is joking, but still, this is a great post.
The moral/ethical point made in the letter is one of materialism. Ayn Rand is as materialist as Marx. Morality is a matter of materialism for both of them.
But I'll take a small swipe at Russell here as well. Russ says that "Tiger should…" On what basis "should" Tiger do what he wants? I posit that if you aren't answering that question in a Judeo-Christian context, you wind up in bed with Ayn Rand (eeeweuu) and Marx (good Lord).
{ 4 trackbacks }