If Tiger Woods loses at Tavistock Cup, will Federal Reserve bail him out?
Tiger Woods won his fifth consecutive PGA Tour event on Sunday, sinking a dramatic putt on the final hole to take home the title at the Arnold Palmer Invitational and keeping alive the possibility of an undefeated 2008. Immediately after the event, however, the question arose: If Tiger or his Isleworth team lose at the upcoming Tavistock Cup, would that mean his streak is over?
The Tavistock Cup - this year co-sponsored by the U.S. Federal Reserve - is a unique, PGA Tour - sanctioned event, where golf’s elite players get together to hobnob with the obscenely rich before and after putting on a dog-and-pony show on the golf course for said rich folk. This year, the Tavistock Cup showed it was hip with the times by inviting two LPGA Tour players, Annika Sorenstam and Paula Creamer - to go along for the ride.
The Tavistock Cup features team and individual titles, so - as someone who predicted an undefeated season for Tiger in 2008 - I say that unless his team wins, and he wins the individual tourney against players like Ernie Els, J.B. Holmes and Justin Rose, his undefeated season is over.
There is a loophole, here, however. The Tavistock Cup will be held with a strong aura of corporate welfare wafting about the air of the so-exclusive-I’m-probably-not-allowed-to-even-write-about-it Isleworth course in Florida. In fact, the Secretive Billionaire Joe Lewis ("Secretive Billionaire is part of his name now) recently lost nearly a cool $1 billion when his investment in Bear Stearns turned bad. Luckily, a buyout of Bear Stearns by J.P Morgan and enhanced by a $30 billion non-recourse Fed facility (read: a loan they don’t really have to pay back), means Lewis will likely recoup any of his losses, and maintain his reputation as a business genius.
“And what about the $30 billion non-recourse Fed facility? It seems that this is a case of JP Morgan getting all of the upside (it’s buying the equity at a price-to-book ratio of 2.4%, and a price-to-extra-future-earnings ratio of 0.24) while the Fed takes most of the downside,” wrote Felix Salmon for Conde Nast’s Portfolio.com.
While one wonders if Woods will continue to take business advice from Lewis, the bigger question is this: If Tiger Woods loses during the Tavistock Cup, will the United States bail him out? Certainly, it seems illogical, if not impossible. But these are trying times for the super-rich of the U.S. and the Fed has shown it will do anything to ease their pain. Tiger Woods ascent to billionaire status seems assured, so he’s just the type of entity the Federal Reserve could help. Because if Tiger’s streak ends, it could mean loss of revenue to Woods, the PGA, The Golf Channel, individual golf courses, etc. It is the trickle-down theory of lost economic opportunity.
So while I’d consider a Woods’ loss at the Tavistock Cup to be an end to his undefeated 2008 season, I could be overridden by a higher power - the U.S. Federal reserve. Because if we’ve learned one thing during this subprime mortgage scandal, it’s this - only people like Tiger Woods should expect to get bailed out by the U.S.
–WKW
| « Gatorade Tiger: Instead of wasting scientists' time analyzing Tiger Woods' sweat, why not just sell his bodily fluids? | Tiger Woods: One more round and I'm still looking like a prophet » |
16 comments
I think the Bald One was right in his blog today. You really SHOULD leave the promotional aspects of your 'undefeated season' scoop to him.
As for your position on what constitutes 'winning' at the Tavistock to maintain the "streak" - individual performance ONLY is what counts. Tiger is responsible for his OWN actions. He cannot be accountable if one of his teammates suddenly can't sink a putt to save their grandma. How hard is that to understand?
You asked, "How hard is that to understand?"
For a radical leftie like Willie, anything that doesn't reek of class envy is impossible to understand.
Also notice that he refers to the members of Isleworth as obscenely rich.
Funny,he never says the Hollywood left, George Soros, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy are obscenely rich.
Willie probably views that gang as great philanthropists because of their sizable contributions to radical left-wing causes.
out banks, one of the other Bush boys (Neil, "When
can I be President?" Bush) was responsible for
costing the US taxpayers a billion dollars. I'm
noticing a pattern...
I'm glad that you weren't asleep at the switch when Willy introduced his liberal diatribe.
Since you are in the mood for name dropping, maybe you remember two of Bill Clinton's favorite felons, Pincus Green and Marc Rich.
Alex USMC 1969-73
that popular with folks like me. And since when did the two you named cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars? Nevertheless, even the likes of Alan Greenspan praises Clinton's economic policies and calls Bush's a complete abandonment of conservative ideals and economic responsibility.
Why do you liberals think it necessary to preface the name of a man like Alan Greenspan with the condescension of "even the likes of?"
Alex USMC 1969-73
he's a smart guy, he's loyally served his country, and he's not afraid to call a spade a spade. It's not condescension, it's esteem for one who has principles to begin with,
and also sticks to them. At the same time, when evidence builds to a conclusion that he might not find comfortable, he is not so cowardly as to try to paint a pretty face on it. For example, in his book, he states that it is clear that the Iraq War is all about oil.
It never occurred to me that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil.
Now that explains all this cheap gasoline we are getting.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Haven't you heard ? The war is about weapons of mass destruction.
It was also about those Iraq citizens who invaded us on 9/11 or
were they from Saudi Arabia ?
No, I never heard that. Did you?
My understanding was that the USA was trying to rid the world of Saddam and his two sons and the rape rooms and mass graves.
Our guys did a pretty good job of those missions.
If you have got a problem with the job our guys did on Saddam, his sons, or the Taliban, I'd have to ask whose side are you on.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Since by your handle you appear to be a female, maybe you should keep your pants on.
How is it that you and the other lefties commenting are so cock sure that Saddam never had any such weapons? That they were not hidden in another country such as Syria? That they haven't yet been found in a country as large as Iraq?
Most of you lefties have never served a day in the military, yet you profess to have all sorts of knowledge of tactics and classified intelligence.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Bye now, back to my pantless activities.
You're welcome.
Now you can go back to posting on the Daily Kos.
Before you continue those activities of which you wrote, be ssure to take your medication.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Comments are closed for this post.


Recent comments