I was listening to a Micheal Moore interview about his mock-umentary Capitalism and he stated, "I do not believe people should invest in stocks and 401ks because people should not try to make money with money. People should make money off the sweat of their brow. That's the real capitalism." He claims that he keeps all of this money in a bank savings account earning almost nothing and all his future earnings will come from his future work.
The first place to start is by not investing in Michael Moore films. I do not believe people should invest in Michael Moore films in order to try and make money with their money.
staci86
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:46p
tripleB said: He claims that he keeps all of this money in a bank savings account earning almost nothing and all his future earnings will come from his future work.
So, instead of his money going into stocks and, for example, bankrolling the development of green technology or good jobs in developing countries, it sits on a bank's balance sheet, and is available to be loaned out at 29.99% on those credit cards which cause him to yell so loudly.
At some point there needs to be some rule put in place that will stop these types of posts from occurring and making us all dumber.
KGZotU
Broke Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:57p
I think it's actually a really interesting question. Up until modern times, making money with money has been very stigmatized. You still see some remnants of this in Muslim culture.
Take the extreme example. Some kid has a few million in trust. He can easily out pace inflation with zero knowledge and zero application, live a great lifestyle, and pass as much on to two kids as he himself got. Since we consumers are the ones paying for this lifestyle, we're interested in determining if this is an ethical way to live. Should we pay money to people by simple virtue of what numbers they've got to their name in particular registers? A critic might say that if the money is made without skill or effort then it should be distributed among the entire population.
It's certainly ethical in the sense that no coercion is involved; it's the sort of behavior a free capital market will inevitably create. And we probably get some benefit out of it too: the availability of aggregate sums of capital, professionally rather than amateurishly managed, probably contributes to our American ability to rapidly innovate.
So, if you're a "progress progress progress" sort of person, you probably see a benefit from such activity. If you're less keen on such progress, you might consider it a completely undeserved aggregation of wealth. Practically though, in either case, the cat is way too far out of the bag to consider effecting wide-scale changes.
Moore is wrong, though, capitalism originally referred to the leveraging of capital. What Moore is a fan of is human industry, or industriousness as it's now called.
germanpope said: I went to Costco yesterday and there was about $2500 in stuff that I looked at but I didn't buy
that is an additional $2500 in my bank account
that is real money Yeah, I use this same strategy.
In fact, I quit my day job because I was able to make so much more by browsing through Saks and Best Buy and simply not buying what they had on display.
vstrt
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 3:37p
I have a better idea, why don't we just socialize all the losses for the rich and privatize all of their gains?
KGZotU
Broke Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 3:38p
vstrt said: I have a better idea, why don't we just socialize all the losses for the rich and privatize all of their gains?
We'll call it, "You shouldn't lose money with money."
Is that like where you cut off the corners of a $100 bill so you can upgrade a $1?
SaulHudson
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 7:55p
A former classmate of mine posted this article from Moore on facebook the other day. I couldn't believe it when I read it. Obviously, I know it's ridiculous. But if there's anyone out there following his advice, this is just full blown irresponsible to suggest this.
So how does moore propose to have people work to earn a living. Obviously businesses other than sole proprietorship can't exist since the owner uses their money to hire somebody and hope to make more money than they pay out in wages. I certainly hope he has zero staff with his movie or pays them more than what they contribute to the movies.
This is hilarious to find this thread in the FINANCE section of FW. I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes reading this.
bouledogue
Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 11:02p
My boss came to me to hand me my bonus check, and I said, "No, thank you but this will put me in a higher tax bracket and I will end up losing money because of higher taxes." He even offered to lower my salary now and save me more taxes. That sure showed him.
FuzzyWombat
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 22, 2009 @ 11:29p
bouledogue said: My boss came to me to hand me my bonus check, and I said, "No, thank you but this will put me in a higher tax bracket and I will end up losing money because of higher taxes." He even offered to lower my salary now and save me more taxes. That sure showed him.What?
cameron2003
Senior Member - 2K
posted: Nov. 23, 2009 @ 12:12a
It should be illegal to make money on money. Rather, there should be a penalty for "idle money." Money that is not being spent is idle, and a drag on the economy. Lazy money is another possible term. People, do not waste your money. Make it work, spend it.
cameron2003 said: It should be illegal to make money on money. Rather, there should be a penalty for "idle money." Money that is not being spent is idle, and a drag on the economy. Lazy money is another possible term. People, do not waste your money. Make it work, spend it. The government imposes a severe penalty for idle money.
staci86 said: cameron2003 said: It should be illegal to make money on money. Rather, there should be a penalty for "idle money." Money that is not being spent is idle, and a drag on the economy. Lazy money is another possible term. People, do not waste your money. Make it work, spend it. The government imposes a severe penalty for idle money.
manuvns said: staci86 said: cameron2003 said: It should be illegal to make money on money. Rather, there should be a penalty for "idle money." Money that is not being spent is idle, and a drag on the economy. Lazy money is another possible term. People, do not waste your money. Make it work, spend it. The government imposes a severe penalty for idle money.
tripleB said: Should people be allowed to earn money on money?Google capitalism, the answer is yes. Google islamic finance, the answer is no.
Rajjeq
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 23, 2009 @ 8:39a
Michael Moore is also the imbecile who told Sean Hannity that he should be paying twice the taxes he is now. Then Sean pointed out that twice would take him over 100%.
Just another hardcore leftist who thinks the government would do a better job spending your money than you would.
ppatin
Focused.
posted: Nov. 23, 2009 @ 8:42a
Rajjeq said: Michael Moore is also the imbecile who told Sean Hannity that he should be paying twice the taxes he is now. Then Sean pointed out that twice would take him over 100%.
Just another hardcore leftist who thinks the government would do a better job spending your money than you would.
I really doubt that Sean Hannity is paying more than 50% of his income in taxes. He and Moore are like two peas in a retarded pod, albeit from different ends of the spectrum.
darkhaven
Tired Member
posted: Nov. 23, 2009 @ 8:54a
ppatin said: I really doubt that Sean Hannity is paying more than 50% of his income in taxes. He and Moore are like two peas in a retarded pod, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. Depends on how he is calculating it. If you look at all taxes (Gas tax, sales tax, etc.) he very well might be depending on his spending habits.
Rajjeq
Senior Member
posted: Nov. 23, 2009 @ 8:58a
ppatin said: Rajjeq said: Michael Moore is also the imbecile who told Sean Hannity that he should be paying twice the taxes he is now. Then Sean pointed out that twice would take him over 100%.
Just another hardcore leftist who thinks the government would do a better job spending your money than you would.
I really doubt that Sean Hannity is paying more than 50% of his income in taxes. He and Moore are like two peas in a retarded pod, albeit from different ends of the spectrum.
He was clearly exaggerating somewhat. But remember, he lives in NYC, so 35% + around 12% for NYS + NYC + real estate taxes, it's not that far off.
I agree that the righties and lefties both go way too far, but the lefties tend to cause massive bankrupt entitlements which makes me like them less.
Lately I learned, from the esteemed Austrian school followers on FWF, that a returning to gold standard as in the Bretton Woods system, was not good enough to cure the wealth destruction from boom-bust cycles. They actually want to return to physical gold (no fractional reserves). In this scenario making money on money will be largely disappear, because gold can't be printed. So if they get their ways, Mr. Moore will be happy at least in this aspect.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
