Moore is claiming that the wealthiest 400 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 50%.  As is usual with Moore, he’s telling a half-truth.  As Robert Frank points out, this has always been true for as long as we have statistics.  And I would hazard that it was even more true in the so-called golden era when unions were strong (and, also, if your history comes from something thicker than a matchbook—when they were protectionist, racist and corrupt).  Or maybe Mikey thinks we had a more equitable distribution of wealth when racial, sexual and ethnic discrimination were institutionalized in every level of government.

Ahem.  Returning to my point—what’s really telling about the trendlines for wealth distribution is that the top 400 and the bottom 50% have both been doing well of late.  The Forbes 400 have seen their wealth grown from about $500 billion to just under $1.5 trillion in the last twenty years.  But the bottom 50% have seen their wealth rise as well, from about $800 billion to just over $1.5 trillion.  In other words, the rising tide has lifted all boats.

The other problem with this line of hooey is that “the rich” are not some static group.  The vast majority of the Forbes 400 today were not in the Forbes 400 even ten years ago.  Despite Moore’s protestations that the American Dream is a lie, the overwhelming majority of the super-rich were not born that way.

You will rarely find a better illustration of Moore’s selective use of fact than that.  He sites a statistic on wealth distribution with zero historical context because the historical context easily belies the socialist point he is trying to make.  (You can see here for more debunking of the “dead middle class” statistics).

(Update One other point: the total wealth in the US is estimated to be some $50 trillion.  That means the total share owned by the richest 400 is about 3% or so.  That’s still a bit uncomfortable, even for me.  But turn it around—the rest of us own 97% of the wealth in this country.  The telling statistic is the low wealth of the bottom 50%.  But this has actually risen over the last 40 years (from about 1% to about 3%) and is still about $10,000 per person.  And, as I pointed out, people don’t stay in the bottom 50%.)

Moore also thinks we can close budget gaps by taxing the rich.  This is incorrect.  Tax rates would have to approach 90% before you’d get close to balancing the budget—and that’s assuming the rich did not respond by sheltering income or fleeing overseas.  The bulk of tax revenue comes from the bulk of the taxpayers—the middle class.  If you don’t want to cut spending, you have to raise taxes on everyone.

Moore also talks about a pilot making only $19,000 per year on a regional flight.  I asked a pilot about this.  That’s standard entry-level salary for small regional airlines.  Once they get into larger routes (and union jobs), the salary goes up dramatically.  Many jobs—doctors and lawyers, for example—have a similar salary path.

Finally, it behooves me to point out that when it comes to his own place of business, Moore’s pro-union record is, to say the least, dubious.  That’s a long read, but worth it.  Typical quote:

Michael Moore used some non-union crewmembers when union workers were available in the production of his latest film “Capitalism: A Love Story,” a documentary that argues the capitalist system allows for greedy corporations to exploit working-class people.

“For all of the different jobs on the movie that could have used union labor, he used union labor, except for one job, the stagehands, represented by IATSE,” said a labor source unauthorized to talk about Moore’s decision not to hire members of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

In a statement issued to ABCNews.com, Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, said the filmmaker wished the union included more documentary crew people—but he did not deny that IATSE members were snubbed in favor of non-union employees.

Much of the above is based on anonymous interviews and hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt.  But it’s clear that Moore’s actions when it comes to unions is, at best, in conflict with his stated views.

For my part, I’m a little concerned about over-reach by Governor Walker. I was hoping a deal could be struck.  Moore, of course, thinking that Wisconsin’s financial crisis is a fiction (it’s not), wanted the Democrats to hold out until the bitter end.  Well, they’ve gotten their bitter end.  I hope they enjoy it.

(PS - I will give Moore credit for one thing—the Favre line in his speech was good.)