roundtable: Re: Back to the Future Robber Baron Days

roundtable: Re: Back to the Future Robber Baron Days

Re: Back to the Future Robber Baron Days

Jonathan Prince (aa078@seorf.ohiou.edu)
Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:19:37 -0500 (EST) 

From: Jonathan Prince <aa078@seorf.ohiou.edu>
Message-Id: <199501031719.MAA17230@ra.cs.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Back to the Future Robber Baron Days
To: roundtable@cni.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:19:37 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199501020909.EAA11197@pobox.upenn.edu> from "Jeff Porten" at Jan 2, 95 09:42:50 pm


> Far be it from me to be a Gingrinch sympathizer, but the retraction
> from the $4.5M advance to a $1 advance does put him back on ethical
> ground.

The fact that he said that he wouldn't take the money because of the
political implications and NOT ethical reasons, shows that the man still
doesn't understand the concept of 'conflict of interest.'

> There is quite simply almost no chance that a $4.5M advance would ever
> earn out; such an offer from a publisher is almost certainly an offer
> to lose money on a particular book in the hope that carrying that book
> on its list would boost sales for the rest of the list.  

Unless the publisher so it an 'investment' for the possibility of getting
some political pay off in the end.

> In this
> light, there is certainly room to see a cozy deal between Rupert
> Murdoch and Gingrich; since Murdoch stands to lose a large amount of
> money on the book, and (more importantly) since no other author could
> pull that kind of advance, it looks to be a deal that buys off the
> Speaker of the House.

it certainly does.

> With a $1 advance, everything changes; Gingrich only makes the amount
> of money that he earns by selling books.  That's perfectly proper; as
> Newt pointed out, there's a long history of sitting Congresspersons
> selling books.

No, its just that 'politics as usual' that Gingrich claims he's fighting
while (attempting) getting rich off the same system he wants to dismantle. 

> Of course, the rapid backtrack does not ameliorate entirely the
> ethical lapse shown in agreeing to this in the first place, but I'm
> willing to give him points for eventually coming around to the right
> thing.  Additional sniping from the left on this will only make our
> side look more cantankerous and unwilling to compromise.

It's nice know that the Left is identified with ethics.  What side were
you speaking of?

> Jeff Porten
> Millennium Consulting
> <porten@pobox.upenn.edu>

Jonathan

-- 
   |"Civil Government, so far as it is instituted  |  Jonathan Prince
   |for the security of property, is in reality    |  Rural Action - VISTA
   |instituted for the defense of the rich against |  SEORF
   |the poor, or of those who have some property   |  aa078@seorf.ohiou.edu
   |against those who have none at all."-Adam Smith|  614-592-8506
    -----------------------------------------------
    gopher://seorf.ohiou.edu:2001/hGET/seorf.stuff/Com/xx004/.com-man.html

[CNI Home Page]