Many, for the past couple days (yes, myself included), have grumbled, "What has he done to earn this prize?" How 'bout this:
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
(Thanks Maracatu)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh please. Michael Moore is hopeless. One of the great charlatans of our time. Very clever, I must admit...especially in the editing department, but really! Beware of people who seem to say what you think is right but whose life is so far removed from his so called principles. Capitalism is evil, indeed! He should know...he made his pact with Mephistopheles long ago. Too funny for words.
ReplyDeletevza:
ReplyDeleteIs your only way of stating an opinion to attempt to discredit someone you disagree with as a person? You do it with me constantly, and now, instead of making any valid criticism about the film, you do it with him. Not only is it obnoxious, but it actually reveals that you have nothing of value to say.
I notice you enjoy talking on here about all the fascinating places you visit around the world as a tourist-by the way, did you have a good time in Scotland visiting art museums? This leads me to believe that you are not in the same predicament many, if not most people, in this country are in now: Not only is an affluent lifestyle in jeopardy, but the basic necessities of life are not a sure thing anymore. The reality is more and more people are not willing or able for the system to "correct" itself. Maybe crowds aren't rushing to the barricades-yet, but there is a growing understanding that we are being royally screwed by capitalism. And I can tell you this, when you are forced to downgrade your plane tickets from first class to coach, or even postpone a vacation, you are the type of person to protest the loudest.
That was me, of course.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is you, Joe.
ReplyDelete<span>Is your only way of stating an opinion to attempt to discredit someone you disagree with as a person? </span>
Do you mean as you are doing now? Really Joe, you can do better than that!
I am the type of person who does not fall for psuedo-populists. Michael Moore is a clever capitalist filmmaker.
He knows all the tricks of the capitalist trade and employs them with gusto and then denies he is a capitalist and profits from it. While vastly entertaining and of course, always containing seeds of truth, he is hardly the person I shall look to for advice on the state of this country. When Michale Moore gives up capitalism, then I shall do so, too!
Btw, Scotland was wonderful and I always fly coach!
I'm just curious.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any proof of this? -><span> "He...profits from it"</span>
It really depends what he does with his profits. Does he have a lear-jet? Does he have a chateau on Lake Tahoe? Does he spend week-ends in Las Vegas.
Maybe he does.
I don't know.
On the other hand, he might plough all that money right back into "causes", you know? that support NGO's or working class organizations. That would be legit (in my eyes, anyway)
You seem very quick to judge, so I am confident that you have all the appropriate evidence and are willing and able to make it available to us concerned citizens that want to know.
Because if you don't, well then , ... you know ...
De nihilo nihil. ;)
And THIS doesn't constitute evidence.
ReplyDelete<span>Do you have any proof of this? -><span> "He...profits from it"</span>
ReplyDelete</span>
Are you serious?
The man owns expensive properties in both Michigan and Manhattan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/may/23/cannes2004.features
Too funny!
ReplyDeleteWe see that the movie is presented by "Paramount Vantage" in association with the Weinstein Company. Bob and Harvey Weinstein are listed as executive producers. If Mr. Moore appreciates any of the irony here he sure doesn't share it with viewers, but for those members of the audience who are in on the secret it's all kind of amusing. Paramount Vantage, after all, is controlled by Viacom, on whose board sit none other than Sumner Redstone and former Bear Stearns executive Ace Greenberg, who aren't exactly socialists. The Weinstein Company announced it was funded with a $490 million <span style=""><span style="">private </span><span style="">placement</span></span> in which Goldman Sachs advised. The press release announcing the deal quoted a Goldman spokesman saying, "We are very pleased to be a part of this exciting new venture and look forward to an ongoing relationship with The Weinstein Company."
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carney-goldman-sachs-and-ace-greenberg-helped-michael-moore-make-his-anti-capitalist-film-2009-9
Mara, I have huge problems with Michael Moore. He is one of the top spokesman in America for imposing harsh sanctions on poor countries. Michael Moore wants to restrict investment and trade flows with developing countries . . . and feeds into the nativist anti outsourcing bigotry.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore isn't the only one. Lou Dobbs is much worse than him. But the fact that Michael Moore isn't the worst offender doesn't justify being an offender.
As you know, I am not anti-capitalist, but I can sympathize with at least part of Moore's message which is that there needs to be regulation plus support for the working class which, by the way, CREATES ALL THE VALUE THAT THE CAPITALISTS ARE PLAYING AROUND WITH. As is wont for many conservatives in such cases, they shoot the messenger instead of examining the message. Doesn't Soros convey a similar message?
ReplyDeleteAll the misplaced vitriol against socialism is part of the conservative mythology surrounding the paramount-ness of the market. Europe has been doing quite well with its hybrid socialism. By the way, I find the most interesting quiote from that Forbes article I quoted above to be:
"...neither capitalism nor democracy nor socialism exist in pure form, and that pretty much every nation in the Western world, including the U.S., combines elements of all three."
I had heard that it was a very difficult book, which I assumed meant it was heavily mathematical; and that Keynes was an old-fashioned liberal, who believed in controlling business ups and downs through heavy-handed fiscal policy (taxing, borrowing, spending); and that the book had been refuted by Milton Friedman, though he admired Keynes's earlier work on monetarism. I would not have been surprised by, or inclined to challenge, the claim made in 1992 by Gregory Mankiw, a prominent macroeconomist at Harvard, that "after fifty years of additional progress in economic science, The General Theory is an outdated book. . . . We are in a much better position than Keynes was to figure out how the economy works." We have learned since September that the present generation of economists has not figured out how the economy works. The vast majority of them were blindsided by the housing bubble and the ensuing banking crisis; and misjudged the gravity of the economic downturn that resulted; and were perplexed by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn; and could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and put the economy on the road to recovery.
ReplyDelete<span>As you know, I am not anti-capitalist, but I can sympathize with at least part of Moore's message which is that there needs to be regulation plus support for the working class which, by the way, CREATES ALL THE VALUE THAT THE CAPITALISTS ARE PLAYING AROUND WITH.</span>
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this.
<h1 class="entry-header">Strange bedfellows: Michael Moore and John Malone</h1>
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/09/strange-bedfellows-michael-moore-and-john-malone.html
And yet today, you can't click your way three links through the econoblogosphere without stumbling into a flame war between reenergized triumphalist Keynesian supporters of government intervention in the economy and bewildered, angry market fundamentalists who have just watched their painstakingly constructed world crumble around them. Just a few years ago the heat of the debate would have been unthinkable -- Keynes seemed to have about as much relevance to current economic policymaking as Winston Churchill does for the Middle East peace process.
ReplyDelete<span>Strange bedfellows: Michael Moore and John Malone
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/09/strange-bedfellows-michael-moore-and-john-malone.html</span>
Too funny?
ReplyDeleteTry this instead...
It is absolutely hilarious! ACORN????
Posted by RobDiego | 10/10/08 07:42 AM EDT Mr. Soros could be trying to create a new bubble by touting more regulation. This bubble would [be] the bubble of all bubbles...the bubble of central planning...the very economic view responsible for the downfall of communism. He says this is all about a long-range cycle...but how did ACORN, in its effort to loosen lending standards, create this cycle? How did two quasi-governmental institutions, not free market institutions, intent on paying off politicians (in order to hide their fraudulent activities), create this cycle? When you consider that Soros contributes to ACORN which is at the heart of the financial crisis, you have to wonder who is manipulating what. Soros, ACORN, Fannie and Freddie...not under-regulated markets, are the cause of this crisis. Blaming it on cyclical trends cannot hide this fact. Soros is selling short on America again and he hopes his "prescription" for more regulation of private financial markets, already some of the most over-regulated markets in the U.S., amounts to nothing more than a destruction of capitalism, but perhaps that is the real bubble he seeks to burst...since his "bought" candidate will win the Presidency and do whatever he is told. I guess that's cyclical too. All we need to do is let the "unregulated" market make rational decisions on proper loans, something they would do if they were not forced by government to buy bad loans. This crisis is caused by Soros' socialism...it is a failure of socialism, not capitalism. I guess we will get the kind of government Soros wants. After all, he paid for it. Imagine the absolute brilliant investment mind it must take to analyze the markets and say they are under-regulated. Since this is not true, you have to wonder at Soros' motives or at least, his investment acumen.
This "dude" doesn't seem to know the first thing about Long Waves, which are coming back in vogue despite herculean efforts by conservatives to consign the theory to the trash-bin of history. Go figure!
If you want to laugh, do so at this nonsense. I mean really! ACORN??
ReplyDeletePosted by RobDiego | 10/10/08 07:42 AM EDT Mr. Soros could be trying to create a new bubble by touting more regulation. This bubble would the bubble of all bubbles...the bubble of central planning...the very economic view responsible for the downfall of communism. He says this is all about a long-range cycle...but how did ACORN, in its effort to loosen lending standards, create this cycle? How did two quasi-governmental institutions, not free market institutions, intent on paying off politicians (in order to hide their fraudulent activities), create this cycle? When you consider that Soros contributes to ACORN which is at the heart of the financial crisis, you have to wonder who is manipulating what. Soros, ACORN, Fannie and Freddie...not under-regulated markets, are the cause of this crisis. Blaming it on cyclical trends cannot hide this fact. Soros is selling short on America again and he hopes his "prescription" for more regulation of private financial markets, already some of the most over-regulated markets in the U.S., amounts to nothing more than a destruction of capitalism, but perhaps that is the real bubble he seeks to burst...since his "bought" candidate will win the Presidency and do whatever he is told. I guess that's cyclical too. All we need to do is let the "unregulated" market make rational decisions on proper loans, something they would do if they were not forced by government to buy bad loans. This crisis is caused by Soros' socialism...it is a failure of socialism, not capitalism. I guess we will get the kind of government Soros wants. After all, he paid for it. Imagine the absolute brilliant investment mind it must take to analyze the markets and say they are under-regulated. Since this is not true, you have to wonder at Soros' motives or at least, his investment acumen.
This "dude" doesn't seem to know (or want to know, which is worse!) the first thing about Long Waves.
Kondratiev, Leontiev and Schumpeter are not names to be taken lightly in the profession.
This was a great piece. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed the comments after the article as well!
ReplyDeleteStill my favorite Keynes quote: "When circumstances change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
ReplyDelete<span> "Keynes was an old-fashioned liberal" is just plain wrong.</span>
ReplyDeleteKeynses believed in counter cyclical fiscal policy when the economy was in a liquidity trap because of inflexible prices.
This isn't related to liberal or conservative in the modern sense. Perhaps what is meant was that Keynes was a classic free market liberal.
It just occurred to me; if the simple reason that Obama was elected merits the peace prize then it should rightly have gone to the US electorate.
ReplyDelete