Michael Moore Refuses To Answer Net Worth Questions @ Occupy PDX

I guess that gets back to the definition of the 1%. If it is purely a measure of wealth, then he's in it. He appears to be arguing that it's not just wealth, it's attitudes and actions.

Which, I think is a reasonable definition. Whether it is the 'official' definition of 1%, I don't know.

barfo

 

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...multimillionaire-michael-moore-denies-part-1/

A transcript of the interview:

Piers Morgan:
I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say, I’m in the 1 percent, because it’s important.

Michael Moore:
Well, I can’t. Because I’m not.

Morgan:
You’re not in if 1 percent?

Moore:
Of course I’m not. How can I be in the 1 percent?

Morgan:
Because you’re worth millions.

Moore:
No, that’s not true. Listen, I do really well. I do well. But what’s the point, though?…

 

[video=youtube;tPBo_rjALA0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPBo_rjALA0[/video]

LOL

Capitalism made him $millions.

 

You'd have to ask him, I'm just speculating based on the clip.

I think he'd have to be included in that, since any tax on 1%'ers would include him - unless there is a special exemption for filmmakers from Michigan.

barfo

 

While I'm sure it is true that there probably are some 1%'ers claiming to be 99%'ers, that's a pretty misleading use of statistics. What does the median value of housing units in the United States have to do with a group of New Yorkers?

barfo

 

If he's worth $50m and he has it in savings, he'd only need to make .8% interest or so on that capital to be in the 1%, as measured by income.

As I posted, he IS denying that he is in the 1% (see the video someone else posted). The blog you posted was titled "Life Among the 1%" but he does not acknowledge that he is part of the 1%. He basically says that capitalism is not how or why he gets to keep the fruit of his labor and that he gives away more than he thinks most rich people do.

I think my original question of why he won't admit he's in the 1% (but point out that some people who make that much actually want change, just like many in the 99% do not) is still a pretty good one.

Ed O.

 

What does the plight of poor people in New Mexico (or Illinois, or any other state) have to do with a bunch of New Yorkers? And, yet, they are claiming to represent the 99% of the US population.

Ed O.

 

Dunno. I take the blog post to be an admission that he's in the 1%. After all, it's about his life, not about the 1%'ers that he hobnobs with, so what else could the title mean?
But then the video does show that he denies being in the 1%. So, either he's telling different people different things, or he was trying (and mostly failing) to make some sort of point about the definition of 1%.

barfo

 

Well, now we are back to 'why should a straight guy be in favor of gay marriage if he doesn't intend to marry a man?'.
It is possible to protest on behalf of someone in New Mexico while in New York. It is not possible to pay New Mexico housing prices while in New York.

barfo

 

Beat me to it. Beat barfo, in general, too ;-)

 

Or the inconvenient truth is he's a big fat liar.

 

It shows that "99%" and "1%" are bullshit, in my opinion. It's an arbitrary complaint with a specific number to give it an air of legitimacy.

I think it's dishonest for Occupiers to hide behind a statistic but then fail to defend their use of it.

Ed O.

 

I think that was one of the possibilities I listed.

barfo

 

His blog post is disingenuous. He talks about his first success decades ago but conveniently doesn't say much about the recent three that grossed $300M.

It's beyond a mere possibility.

 

Sure, I suppose. Just like every other political slogan. Was it really 'morning in America'? Do people in NH really 'Live free or die'? Is Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan really that simple? Etc.

barfo

 

I'm pretty sure bloggers get to decide what they post about. They don't have to cover the topics you want them to.

barfo