Michael Moore explains the major flaw in capitalism

[MrMon]

The question is not whether or not that Moore donates to charity, the question is, how does he treat and pay those people who work on his movies? Does he spread the wealth, or does he keep the lion's share for himself?

I realy don't know the answer, but suspect he's proably like every other Hollywood liberal, (yes you, Susan Sarandon) they decry the treatment of the working man and things like CEO pay, yet earn a fortune compared to the craft people on their movies.

As for the claim that he donated 60% of the net on F 9/11 to charity, has anyone ever seen a claim that a charity actually got money, or was F 9/11 like every other movie in Hollywood history, it didn't make a profit? A quick check of Google shows the claim numerous times, but never any followup to whether or not it was donated or who got it. The rule in Hollywood is, never take anything of the net, because that doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is gross.

Slight follow-on: The charity claim was by the Weinsteins and Disney, not Moore. I haven't seen anything that it was Moore who pledged the donation.

[T50_Omaha8]

I'll always owe something in my intellectual development to Michael Moore:

I was a big liberal until I saw the pernicious rot that is Roger & Me...from then on I refused to align myself with such misguided and cruel people.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
The policy you say he is promoting isn't for rich people to donate to charities to provide healthcare, it is for a national policy wherein our tax dollars provide it.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two aren't too far different from each other when you consider the wealthier people will be spending FAR more on national healthcare than the lower class.

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't advocate all out socialism nor does he advocate that people should not be able to accumulate wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's always railing against capitalism and people who accumulate riches. It's only ok for the people he says it's ok for I guess? And I assume he's in that category.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that he doesn't? Because he doesn't publicize it. Moore keeps his private life private.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riiiiight, except when his movies are coming out. That's when we see him on TV every 10 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know that he says greed is terrible nor do I assume that having a lot of wealth = being greedy.

It's really easy to argue against him when you distort his positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not distorting his positions, I'm talking about his actions and words. He says in the piece that OP quoted something about the "greed flaw" in capitalism. He consistently has spoken about how greed causes a decrease in quality for the consumer, which shows a mind-numbing misunderstanding of economics.

Also, having a lot of wealth is thedefinition of greed

Nothing is stopping him from putting his movies up for free on YouTube, his websites, the street corner, etc. Nothing except greed of course.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Slight follow-on: The charity claim was by the Weinsteins and Disney, not Moore. I haven't seen anything that it was Moore who pledged the donation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I saw this too.

Also, if Moore was out helping people with his money and time, he'd have no reason to keep that private. A big name person in Hollywood devoting their resources to helping less fortunate people helps to spread the cause and set a good example. The reason you don't hear about it is cause Moore doesn't do it.

[UATrewqaz]

Being for social change is one thing, but he reeks of tin foil hat conspiracy.

He thinks there is some secret corporate cabal that meets in in the Fortress of Evil deep under Mount Doom every two weeks to plot various deeds of evil.

[morphball]

Ah, I love this documentary. My girlfriend watched while I was grinding, and one of their arguments for how evil corporations are was as follows:

A corporation goes to a low income country and hires people for low wages. Eventually, the standard of living in the poor country rises and the factory has to re-locate somewhere else to find lower wages. ZOMG! SO EVIL!!!

This was their honest to god proof that corporations were evil. What a bunch of socialist monkeys.

Don't they realize their argument can written exactly as follows:

A rising standard of living is a good thing for poor people. Corporations are truly altruistic because they go to a poor country, give jobs, and cause the standard of living to increase because that factory brings hard currency to a poor country. Then once their work is done, and the poor country's standard of living has increased, they find a new bunch of poor people to help somewhere else. ZOMG!! TRUE ALTRUISM!!!

Now, I don't think socialists are monkeys. I happen to disagree with their beliefs, but if they make valid arguments, I will just disagree and not consider them monkeys. The people who made "The Corporation," however, are definitely monkeys!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, having a lot of wealth is thedefinition of greed

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't (not even from your linked definition.) It is a COMPONENT of the definition, though the key component (what distinguishes being greedy from being wealthy) is the excessive desire to accumulate wealth. It is the "excessive desire" that matters, not the wealth. One can be greedy and own next to nothing just as one can be very wealthy and not be greedy. Nothing that I have seen suggests that Moore is greedy.

[GoodCallYouWin]

So greed is having > x desire for gold where x = whatever arbitrary definition you set. Interesting.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So greed is having > x desire for gold where x = whatever arbitrary definition you set. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to what? Your made up definition where excess doesn't come into play??? Give me a freakin' break. That's what the word freaking means (even in the definition that YOU [EDIT: my mistake, you didn't provide the original link to the definition] PROVIDED) --- you are the one wanting to bastardize the language here.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, having a lot of wealth is thedefinition of greed

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't (not even from your linked definition.) It is a COMPONENT of the definition, though the key component (what distinguishes being greedy from being wealthy) is the excessive desire to accumulate wealth. It is the "excessive desire" that matters, not the wealth. One can be greedy and own next to nothing just as one can be very wealthy and not be greedy. Nothing that I have seen suggests that Moore is greedy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, neither of us can prove what goes on inside Michael Moore's brain (what he desires).

But I'm going to use some logic. Because he wants to charge $10.50 per person to see his films, we can deduce that he desires money. Like I said, nothing is stopping him from giving his movie away for free. So we know he has a choice on whether or not he wants to collect that money.

Also we know he has enough money to live the rest of his life in comfort. At this point, every nickel he earns is excess and we both know it. Thus, we can only deduce that Michael Moore is in fact, greedy.