Al Gore's business ethics, and undemocratic practices under a microscope???

Ok I misspoke, the company itself is not worth more, but it has been an excellent ROI for Gore and his partner so far. Your statement about the three year rule of thumb and the IRS is a great point, it seems to me that by showing a loss in the first three years they are maximizing their income, it seems wise to do so from their standpoint. And averting IRS scrutiny by offering an IPO now also seems wise. Greedy, yes, shady, yes, smart business, yes. As I stated in the other response, even publicly traded companies are not true democracies, A and B class stocks are common, but even leaving that aside there is usually one entity which has a majority hold of some sort on the company, and that majority hold makes it more of a functional dictatorship. A and B class stock structures are not a scam, in the case of the NYT, the shareholders knew about the different classes of stocks when they invested, at least they should have, as such it is their own doing that made them minority stock holders. They agreed to the terms, if they didn't like it they should not have invested. As for "They have had to provide programming for the network" well read the article again, the content will be user generated, which translates into extremely cheap programming. Seems to me this is a cash cow really, assuming it is done right. Add to that that they already have an Emmy under their belt, it seems like they are doing something right.

Hello Myyrdin, You're assuming that Gore & his partner's ROI (Return On Investment) is legitimate. Neither you nor I are in a position to make that claim. As for the 3 year grace period from IRS scrutiny: Yes, some businesses will consciously ride out their profit reporting until the three years has expired. Although, in doing so, they are breaking the law, and the trust of their business clients, partners, and investors. This does not portend well for business stability or longevity! As for minority shareholders knowing what they bought in to: So basically, you're saying 'it's their mess, let 'em live with it!' Hmmm, now you sound like the stereotype of Conservatives. However, let us remember that the majority of Americans hold some kind of stocks in their 401k mutual funds. And, most of them don't have any clue about what companies are represented by those funds. Let alone the specifics about ownership vote allocation. Do you really think that most straight-out stock investors would knowingly purchase a 1/10 vote? I think that's very unlikely. Now, I'm going to ask you to consider your own words: " Greedy, yes, shady, yes, smart business, yes." And now, instead of applying those words to Al Gore, apply them to D1ck Cheney. Do you feel so willing to defend his cunning business savvy now?

I will not defend Richard Cheney, not because he is a conservative, but because Enron went well beyond what Gore is doing here and crossed the line from good business to stupidity. As for their ROI, at this point in time, since no charges have or are likely to be laid then the ROI stands as legitimate, only at such time as charges are laid could it be said that the ROI is no longer legit. Also as you stated "Neither you nor I are in a position to make that claim." so you inferring that the ROI is not legit is also invalid. As for 401K's, well being as they don't know they invest in those companies, they have no vote anyways, so your point on this matter is moot. Why wouldn't someone invest in a 1/10 vote if they thought it would make money, after all the goal of investing is not control of the company, but to make money. You are aware that some companies issue non voting stocks, and the sale of these stocks actually do quite well, depending on the situation.

Hello Destiny, I share your concerns that investors in this organization, with its current leadership, are shouldering much risk. I fully expect the result to be similar to "Air America", which as I recall also had Al Gore's involvement. This IPO investigation indicates the possibility of similar results of scandal and failure. As for who would invest in a company that is not profitable. Well, many people would -- if some significant factors indicate a change on the horizon. Though, I do not know any investors who would positively factor in production bonuses that exceed even the primary principles' annual salaries. There is simply no way to positively 'spin' this. Here is some more info about Al Gore's "Current Network" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1435947/posts David A. Neuman (is) to be president of programming ... Neuman was previously the head of CNN's programming. And, we can all see how well CNN does when compared to other news outlets.

Myrrdin.... Your assertion that a single psychiatrist does not make him a leading expert in his field is correct... what makes him a leading expert in his field is the 35 plus years that he has been practicing and his extensive experience. As far as being blinded by my political leanings, your are making an unwarranted and foolish assumption. My opinion of Gore has been developed after years of observing his antics... most of which has been politically motivated up to and including his environmental stance, the latest of which involved him preaching the gospel of man made global warming using false,inaccurate and misleading data. I base my opinion on my observations of Gore, and I am a trained observer and an excellent judge of character. As far as my standing up for myself, I did that... since I am not an expert in Corporate Governance, I referred you to the expert that made the statement that I agreed with and that you took issue with... since you obviously consider yourself to be an expert in these matters, I thought that to be appropriate. As far as the paying of large bonuses, or any bonuses before a company is in profit goes far beyond unwise. Besides being foolish, it reeks of being a scam. The fact that Gore is benefiting from these bonuses opens himself up to some questions of his ethics, and this would not be the first time something like that has happened while Gore was involved. While I am a conservative and Gore is a liberal, my opinion of him is not due to my political beliefs. I hold everyone to the same standards, whether they be liberal or conservative, and I have a highly refined sense of justice and fair play. Judging by the your statements in the replies that you have made to both Luna and myself, you do not. Luna... When I asked "Who would invest in an unprofitable company?"... I left out the complete thought which consisted of three more words and would have changed the meaning of what I asked. Those words were "Under these conditions" I do know that people invest in companies that are not yet in profit, most businesses require lot's of money to start and that usually means having investors. Since words do have meaning, I thought it best to finish the statement. It should have read... "This company hasn't made a profit in 3 years, and yet it is paying out huge salaries and bonuses. Who would invest in an unprofitable company under these conditions?" CNN has been taking a pretty good beating at that. I guess that time will tell as to whether history repeats itself in this new venture... if it turns out to be legitimate.

Since the share represent votes, then it would be a democratic based business model. A business that does not issue shares would not be a democratic based business. If you had bothered to read a little more closely, you would have realized that the statement that this was undemocratic was not mine... "That's hardly democratic—with a large D or a small d," agrees University of Delaware corporate governance expert Charles Elson. "The irony is that this is coming from a Democratic leader." It was made by University of Delaware corporate governance expert Charles Elson. I guess that if you want to expound further on whether or not the statement is accurate, then maybe you should take that up with him, since he is the one I quoted. I do however happen to agree with the statement... but he is the expert, so out yourself knock. As far as the lunacy part... I really must take exception to that considering a leading expert in the field of Psychology has determined that liberals are the one's who are clinically insane. You should also note that the business practices do not make much sense either, as that business is paying large salaries and bonuses while not making a profit.... or do you consider that to be standard business practice as well? I'm thinking ENRON and Worldcom, and a possible and most likely probable similar outcome. With any luck at all, the resulting meltdown and fallout will find Gore and company safely behind bars where they obviously belong.

Hello MntlWard, You make some fine points here. It is very true that businesses don't always show a profit right away. Though, if those infant, unprofitable businesses were paying bonuses to their chief executives, that exceeded their individual salaries, would you consider that a sound business strategy?

It certainly seems risky, but most new business ventures involve some risk.