Michael Moore gets divorced

Originally posted by normbenign
If you've watched any Michael Moore flick he demagogues others for making money, while participating to the max in the capitalist system himself. Moore can believe and speak as he wishes, but we will expose his hypocrisy just the same. He is the greedy capitalist he condemns.

i have watched his films (read a few of his books). he doesnt pick on people simply for making money. he targets them for the way that they make money, its a big difference.

just because a person is critical of the capitalist system does not mean they are also against people being wealthy.

i dont see how him being rich makes him a hypocrite.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, maybe "classless" is a bit of an exaggeration, but try the Scandinavian ones and Finland.

I went to the Wikipedia pages "List of European Countries by Average Wage" and "List of European Countries by Median Wage" and copy and pasted into a spreadsheet and then worked out the difference between average and median wage and divided by average wage (normally higher). For Norway you seem to be right, but not Denmark so much.

The difference figure is the difference in years when the data is from (For Germany this is 5 so that figure should be taken with a pinch of salt). Also this sometimes comes out negative, which implies otherwise equal wages with an underclass or a problem with the data. All figures are in Euros

Country average median difference % difference
Austria 2114 1817 297 14.05% 0
Belarus 394 328 66 16.75% 0
Belgium 1946 1807 139 7.14% -1
Bulgaria 333 238 95 28.53% -1
Cyprus 1833 1411 422 23.02% -1
Denmark 3113 2215 898 28.85% 0
Estonia 778 580 198 25.45% 0
Finland 2321 1892 429 18.48% -1
France 2128 1717 411 19.31% -1
Germany 2054 1772 282 13.73% -5
Greece 818 1042 -224 -27.38% -1
Hungary 492 396 96 19.51% -2
Iceland 1895 1613 282 14.88% 0
Italy 1898 1336 562 29.61% -1
Latvia 504 368 136 26.98% -1
Lithuania 524 361 163 31.11% -1
Luxembourg 3189 2875 314 9.85% 0
Malta 1092 950 142 13.00% -1
Netherlands 2136 1714 422 19.76% 0
Norway 3527 3336 191 5.42% -1
Poland 681 697 -16 -2.35% -3
Portugal 805 694 111 13.79% 0
Ireland 2160 1644 516 23.89% -2
Romania 395 176 219 55.44% -1
Serbia 436 270 166 38.07% 0
Slovakia 683 577 106 15.52% -1
Slovenia 1000 1010 -10 -1.00% 0
Spain 1615 997 618 38.27% -1
Sweden 2268 2053 215 9.48% 0
Switzerland 4047 3754 293 7.24% 1
Turkey 574 895 -321 -55.92% 0
Ukraine 173 284 -111 -64.16% -1
United Kingdom 2496 2080 416 16.67% 0

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i have watched his films (read a few of his books). he doesnt pick on people simply for making money. he targets them for the way that they make money, its a big difference.

just because a person is critical of the capitalist system does not mean they are also against people being wealthy.

i dont see how him being rich makes him a hypocrite.

How about the way he makes his money then, by lying and misrepresenting others?

"just because a person is critical of the capitalist system does not mean they are also against people being wealthy"

Capitalism is the only system where people get wealthy by appealing to the wants and needs of consumers. It is entirely democratic. All other means of becoming wealthy involve influence of government to favor those who wish to gain wealth.

It is his use of capitalism, and from what I've read he is hardly the ideal employer he accuses others of not being.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I went to the Wikipedia pages "List of European Countries by Average Wage" and "List of European Countries by Median Wage" and copy and pasted into a spreadsheet and then worked out the difference between average and median wage and divided by average wage (normally higher). For Norway you seem to be right, but not Denmark so much.

The difference fig ...[text shortened]... y 574 895 -321 -55.92% 0
Ukraine 173 284 -111 -64.16% -1
United Kingdom 2496 2080 416 16.67% 0

this dose not represent the cost of living in each country.

Originally posted by normbenign
If you've watched any Michael Moore flick he demagogues others for making money, while participating to the max in the capitalist system himself. Moore can believe and speak as he wishes, but we will expose his hypocrisy just the same. He is the greedy capitalist he condemns.

What proof have you got that he is a Capitalist?
Surely he has earned his money?

Originally posted by normbenign

1. Capitalism is the only system where people get wealthy by appealing to the wants and needs of consumers.

2. It is entirely democratic.

1. In capitalism money is made through investment. Advertising and
consumerism are perhaps by-products of the system.

2. 🙄 Capitalism could operate under a dictatorship - it in no way
guarantees democracy.

Originally posted by normbenign
If you've watched any Michael Moore flick he demagogues others for making money, while participating to the max in the capitalist system himself. Moore can believe and speak as he wishes, but we will expose his hypocrisy just the same. He is the greedy capitalist he condemns.

Piketty (in Capital in the 21st Century) suggests there is an important difference between people who generate wealth through work, including creative production and entrepreneurship, and people who inherit their wealth, continually enhance their wealth through the rewards of investment without work, and of course the so called supermanagers in the US and Britain especially (not exclusively of course) who have gained control of our major corporations and award themselves vastly disproportionate salaries at the expense of the workforce, who no longer share in the benefits of corporate success.

Moore no doubt is now entered into the lists of the very rich and his future wealth may grow and that is an issue but it is not the major reason for concern about plutocracy. Indeed, his ability to continue making films that you hate but huge numbers appreciate and pay to watch, probably demands that he have private resources to back his own work.

In any event, the fact is that his personal failings may be manifold without that having much relevance to the value of the films he makes. If you wish to refute his arguments, this is not the place to even start. This gloating over his personal life is just a measure of the grubby quality of American public discourse.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I went to the Wikipedia pages "List of European Countries by Average Wage" and "List of European Countries by Median Wage" and copy and pasted into a spreadsheet and then worked out the difference between average and median wage and divided by average wage (normally higher). For Norway you seem to be right, but not Denmark so much.

The difference fig ...[text shortened]... y 574 895 -321 -55.92% 0
Ukraine 173 284 -111 -64.16% -1
United Kingdom 2496 2080 416 16.67% 0

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just looking at the Gini coefficients for each nation, which measures what you're attempting to measure.

Of course, the distribution of wages doesn't tell the whole story. In Nordic countries, your net wage basically determines how many luxury goodies you can buy but does not meaningfully affect your life otherwise; for instance it has little bearing on the quality of education or health care you can obtain, the safety of your neighbourhood, etc.

Originally posted by redbadger
this dose not represent the cost of living in each country.

That doesn't matter for what I was looking at. The level of inequality is determined by how spread out wages are. A simple measure of that is the difference between mean and median wages.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i have watched his films (read a few of his books). he doesnt pick on people simply for making money. he targets them for the way that they make money, its a big difference.

just because a person is critical of the capitalist system does not mean they are also against people being wealthy.

i dont see how him being rich makes him a hypocrite.

Oh but he IS a hypocrite, and a liar, and he uses non-union scab labor for his films whenever he can in order to line his pockets even more:

http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode73.htm

When he made Roger and Me he made it look like the head of GM ducked out on him constantly, nothing could be farther from the truth:

"Michael Westfall generously offered Moore hundreds of pages of research on GM. Westfall even got Moore into a GM shareholder’s meeting where Moore interrogated Roger Smith at length as Moore’s camera captured every articulate response. Michael Moore had the opportunity to question Roger Smith a second time at a press luncheon and once again on an exhibit floor. Moore’s film footage also included Michael Westfall and other Nader activists, all of whom assumed that Michael Moore was making a documentary about the conflicted needs of GM and the surrounding Flint community. They were mistaken. Michael Moore was making a flick about Michael Moore; he had hijacked the project away from the altruistic idealists and given it a most appropriate title: Roger & Me. The footage of the activists was tossed into the trash; the footage of Roger Smith candidly answering all of Michael Moore’s questions in thoughtful detail was hidden away. Henceforth, this flick would be about Michael Moore’s fictitious attempts to secure an interview with Roger Smith. It became a one-gag movie that falsely depicted Roger Smith as a heartless, elusive coward and Michael Moore as a proletarian crusader with a camera. In truth, Moore was in it for the money.

After this exercise in narcissism and false history was released, Moore went on television live with Phil Donahue and denied that anyone had aided him in any way. He blabbered to the Flint Journal that “they want money and they’re trying to extort it from me!” Moore killed the dream of using the profits from the documentary to help Flint; he threw a few nickels to four families depicted in the film and then pocketed the remaining millions."

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
Oh but he IS a hypocrite, and a liar, and he uses non-union scab labor for his films whenever he can in order to line his pockets even more:

http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode73.htm

When he made Roger and Me he made it look like the head of GM ducked out on him constantly, nothing could be farther from the truth:

"Michael Westfall generously ...[text shortened]... w a few nickels to four families depicted in the film and then pocketed the remaining millions."

Additionally it appears that everyone that's ever worked for him found him impossible to like:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/7/michael-moore-hypocritical-union-buster/

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
Oh but he IS a hypocrite, and a liar, and he uses non-union scab labor for his films whenever he can in order to line his pockets even more:

http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode73.htm

When he made Roger and Me he made it look like the head of GM ducked out on him constantly, nothing could be farther from the truth:

"Michael Westfall generously ...[text shortened]... w a few nickels to four families depicted in the film and then pocketed the remaining millions."

isnt that article, published on a rightwing website doing exactly what michael moore is accused of.....giving a biased, one-side view in order to get across a political agenda? the hatchet job of article you posted has no referencing, but you trust it because it says what you want to hear. when mr moore does the same thing for the left in his books and movies he's a hypocrite and a liar.

is there any non-biased or referenced articles citing what michael moore has done that makes him a hypocrite or a liar?

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
Additionally it appears that everyone that's ever worked for him found him impossible to like:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/7/michael-moore-hypocritical-union-buster/

again the article is just an opinion piece with little in the way impartial writing. at best it hints that he might not be a 'nice guy' but im pretty sure that there are no laws saying liberals must be 'nice'.

ive never been a massive fan of his, if you guys want to pull apart the quality of his books and movies then id say fair enough. but the claims thrown at him on here appear to be more about some sort of anti-liberal hysteria.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
again the article is just an opinion piece with little in the way impartial writing. at best it hints that he might not be a 'nice guy' but im pretty sure that there are no laws saying liberals must be 'nice'.

ive never been a massive fan of his, if you guys want to pull apart the quality of his books and movies then id say fair enough. but the claims thrown at him on here appear to be more about some sort of anti-liberal hysteria.

Only reason you call it biased is because it's all people that actually worked with him and went from admiring him to hating him.
Yeah I suppose that is biased. Can you find any articles to the contrary, where people that worked for him said they still liked and respected him?
Because I can't.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What proof have you got that he is a Capitalist?
Surely he has earned his money?

He used capital to produce his books and movies. He then got paid royalties.