Last 30 Comments

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 06:23)
4characters: Thing is, I need some $7000 of ca. $40,000 for healthcare-related costs soon and therefore asked Michael Moore to gift me with it. Hes rich, I'm not. We'll see how the math and charity stack up

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 06:21)
4characters: I need some $7000 of ca. $40,000 for healthcare-related costs soon and therefore asked Michael Moore to gift me with it.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 01:50)
CorporatePudding: I watched Inside Job over the weekend. Do yourself a better favor. Read Thomas Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 12:37)
samsgran1948: To Freedomlover's recommendation of watching those two hours of Milton Friedman on the Donohue Show, I would like to add that people should read every word Dr. Thomas Sowell has written in his long career. Dr. Sowell slices, dices and juliennes the Left's economic outlook. One thing I learned from Dr. Sowell -- and other Conservative sources -- is that the economic pie is not static. The Left predicates a zero-sum position. For the Left, if I manage to earn a few dollars, that is money taken from somebody else. In the Conservative economic view, if I manage to make a few extra bucks, it's because I caused the pie to grow. Dr. Sowell also points out on a regular basis that those five economic levels are not static. The Left procedes from the idea that no one ever escapes from the lowest one-fifth and that the people in the upper one-fifth were born there -- which is just not true. In the United States, birth is not destiny. Most people, at one point or another in their lives -- mostly at the beginning of their work careers -- fall into the lowest one-fifth. But as they procede along their career paths, they start rising through the economic ranks. A successful career frequently puts that person into the top one-fifth -- from which they instantly fall once they retire. If Fat Mikey believes so fervently that all money above the subsistance level is a national asset, he should start the ball rolling by giving the US Treasury all his money. (The US Treasury does accept financial gifts.) He then needs to persuade all his Hollywood buddies like Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, etc. to likewise divest themselves of all their money and properties to be likewise donated to the US Treasury. America loves to follow trends set by Hollywood so it's only logical that Hollywood should get out in front of this issue to get the rest of us to sign on.

MooreandMe
(10 total, Last @ 12:07)
samsgran1948: During the first wave of the Assange saga, I too was a little dubious about the Swedish rape charges. But I did a little more reading and found this little nugget: Assange is being used by the Swedish government as an example. The Swedish government is in deep kimchee with the Swedish people because of its high number of rape charges and very low conviction rate. Now you can argue that perhaps Sweden's definition of rape is a bit on the broad side, but the Swedish definition has been broadened because Swedish women it. NobleBrown: You are poohpoohing the reason Assange has been charged with rape, but those charges are valid in Sweden. Both women asked him to use a condom, he refused both times, insisted on sex without the condom. Both women are concerned about picking up HIV, and they want Assange tested, but he refuses -- so now they are facing years of testing and the fear that one of those tests will turn up positive. I simply do not understand why you seem to feel that the women are being unreasonable in wanting to know if they have been infected or not.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 07:29)
Pegyy: You can’t pull up the people at the bottom by tearing down the people at the top. It doesn’t work. You pull up the people at the bottom by allowing people to be free, to invent new things and come up with new ideas, creating economic growth and more and better paying jobs for the people in the bottom, with opportunities to climb up the ladder of success. And in the process, yes, billionaires are created like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and others. Business Loans

I Am SO Popular in Cuba
(4 total, Last @ 10:04)
leiqiong: Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful! I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks oakley sunglasses

MooreandMe
(10 total, Last @ 10:03)
leiqiong: Perhaps this is one of the most interesting blogs that I have ever seen. Interesting article, Funny comment. Keep it up!oakley sunglasses

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 10:03)
leiqiong: That was a great piece of information., I enjoyed reading it.., oakley sunglasses

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 10:02)
leiqiong: These are wonderful! Thank you for sharing oakley sunglasses

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 10:57)
gitarcarver: You scored a ‘victory’, like its a competition to see who is right. On the other hand, what is wrong with your belief is that you view "opinions" equal to "facts." You think that "beliefs" are the same as "truth." Freedomlover is correct that his using "victory" is not what is wrong with American politics. The "victory" was and is "fact" over erroneous "opinion." You should celebrate that victory instead of attacking it on some other grounds.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 09:28)
Freedomlover: And yes, you are right about mark to market way undervalueing assets, on the way down. I was talking about on the way up. There was no mark to market on the way up. Its inception (for assets like mortgage back securities) was November of 2007, at the very peak of the housing market. (FASB rule 157, you can look it up) The government regulators thought it was a good idea the time, but it ended up having devastating effects. Look at the following blog entry from November 13, 2007: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/11/13/credit_markets_1.html Your response though shows the real problem with American politics. You scored a ‘victory’, like its a competition to see who is right. American politics seems very much like professional sports. You choose your side (maybe based on where you grew up, or who your parents root for etc...), and you stick with them, through thick and thin. It's a figure of speech, you're reading too much into this. But speaking of what's wrong with American politics, right after the Tucson shooting Obama (as well as many other lefties) called for civility in political discourse, the idea being that harsh rhetoric on the right contributed to the shooter shooting a Democrat politician. (this turned out not to be true). And barely a few months later, when Republican politicians in Wisconsin were in the process of changing the laws regarding public sector labor unions, the rhetoric and tone from the left was so uncivil it was pathetic: equating the governor to Hitler, death threats to Republican state senators, and many other examples. So please, my using the word "victory" in a civil discussion about what contributed to the 2008 financial crisis is not what's wrong with American politics, not by a long shot.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 02:38)
up4debate: I’m going to consider this a partial victory on my part . . . you’re admitting that a government regulation made things worse. I watched Inside Job over the weekend. You should check it out, pretty interesting. Maybe youll think its full of crap thoug, I dunno. What I really think now is that its not a govt problem, or a theiving bunch of business men problem. I think its both. They appear to be too seamlessly integrated. And yes, you are right about mark to market way undervalueing assets, on the way down. I was talking about on the way up. Your response though shows the real problem with American politics. You scored a 'victory', like its a competition to see who is right. American politics seems very much like professional sports. You choose your side (maybe based on where you grew up, or who your parents root for etc...), and you stick with them, through thick and thin.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 01:37)
4characters: I happen to be in steep medical debt because Obama didn't deliver free health care when I needed it. Over at his site, www.michaelmoore.com, Michael says we are not broke, and the rich have the money, so I asked Michael, who is worth some $20-50 mil, if he would gift me with $7000 to help me until its all finally free for all. Just like he gave Jim Kenefick $12,000 and never felt it. So far, nothing.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 10:32)
Freedomlover: Mark to market only made it worse. I'm going to consider this a partial victory on my part . . . you're admitting that a government regulation made things worse. But it didn't over value assets as you say, it severely undervalued them: Let's say your house is worth about $250,000, but there are several people in your neighborhood who are very financially distressed and have to sell their houses ASAP, and reduce the price of their houses to $150,000 to sell them immediately. Now you have no plans on selling your house, and you're able to keep making the mortgage payments. Mark to market accounting says you have to account for your house as if it's worth $150,000. Now, if you're a bank, and instead of a house you have mortgage back securities on your balance sheet, and this is capital to back up your liabilities, you're now insolvent. This is what happened in 2008. So, to say it wasn't the cause of the problem but only made it worse is like saying a pool of gasoline on the floor of your house is a problem, and throwing a lighted match on it simply made it worse. There's truth to the idea that banks loosened their lending standards too much. But that was mostly because they weren't going to hold the loans for the life of the mortgage, so what did they care? They knew Fannie and Freddie were going to buy the mortgages from them, and this process was a creation of: yes, government regulation. And as many other people have pointed out, the Community Reinvestment Act only made this worse as in the 1990's and 2000's Congress pushed Fannie and Freddie more and more, and then Fannie and Freddie pushed banks more and more to make more mortgages available to people who live in low income neighborhoods, to satisfy some social agenda. Again, government regulation. Some regulations are good, and necessary. But over the course of time, Congress (and state legislatures) have abused their power and over-regulated. The lefties' (and Moore's) claim that deregulation was the problem shows how little they really understand about what happened. The idea that the Dodd-Frank financial reform regulation passed last year is going to prevent another financial crisis is so laughable it's ridiculous.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 05:42)
sl0re: Posted by MikeS on 03/12/2011 at 01:01 PM "He has a habit of stating what is literally true (400 wealthiest = lowest 50%) and using to imply something that is false (this is a new phenomenon brought on by evil corporatist policies)." True, and the subject of 'wealth' or even income distribution also both leave out spending power and/or do not consider the general economic level of country. Poor today, you have food, can afford ok clothes, shelter, electricity, a car, TV, air conditioning, a phone, et cetera. Poor 1910, umm, not so much. Even though, the ‘wealth distribution’ is the same by percentages… But yeah, the new deal, the war on poverty, Obama... not a dent in wealth distribution since the numbers started to be kept. Actually, now they're screwing the economy so badly that we can expected slower economic growth (a lot like Europe has had for the last 40+ years) so the poor will get screwed out of the benefits of expanding productivity / economic growth that they have benefited from so much in the US over the last 80+ years...

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 03:41)
up4debate: The problem with mark to market is it often over values assets. Im just saying this wasnt the cause of the problem. Mark to market only made it worse. I dont think AIG went under because of mark to market.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 01:53)
gitarcarver: Here is an article that lays waste to Moore's argument as well: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/11/hammertime-moores-national-resources/

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 01:01)
MikeS: Confused, calling it a "lie" may have been exaggeration but if you read further, you'll find that I tear apart Moore's general point. He has a habit of stating what is literally true (400 wealthiest = lowest 50%) and using to imply something that is false (this is a new phenomenon brought on by evil corporatist policies). As I showed above, the concentration of wealth has been with us for quite some time. But both rich and poor are getting richer. And, if anything, the disparity has decreased slightly.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 10:17)
Freedomlover: Confused, the idea of wealth re-distribution may sound good to you, but in reality it only results in a society where everyone is worse off. There are plenty of countries in the world where the wealth is more evenly distributed . . . . people are more "equal" of course - they're all equally poor and miserable. You can't pull up the people at the bottom by tearing down the people at the top. It doesn't work. You pull up the people at the bottom by allowing people to be free, to invent new things and come up with new ideas, creating economic growth and more and better paying jobs for the people in the bottom, with opportunities to climb up the ladder of success. And in the process, yes, billionaires are created like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and others. Michael Moore has no idea what he's talking about. The liberal economic policies which he supports is the very reason why there's not more widespread prosperity in this country than there is. If you're interested in opening up your mind to ideas other than what you already believe, do a Youtube search for Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Mr. Friedman appeared on the Phil Donahue show twice, once in 1979 and again in 1980. The full shows are on Youtube broken up into 10 minute segments. These two hours of programming are extremely informative, educational, eye opening, and enlightening for anyone who agrees with Moore.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 09:51)
Freedomlover: I know about mark to market accounting. If you are talking about the housing market, that was not the cause of the problem. With all due respect to you, you don't really know about this the way you say you do. If you're truly open minded and willing to learn and consider ideas other than what you already believe, read the following when you have a chance: http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2008/9/25/mark-to-market_mayhem http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/27/suspend-mark-to-market-fasb-cpa-opinions-columnists-wesbury-stein.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/01/intelligent-investing-transcript-neil-hennessy.html http://www.aba.com/Press+Room/PR_Accounting_FVAQuotes.htm#Robert http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2008/09/22/is-the-financial-crisis-the-result-of-account/ http://www.chicagobooth.edu/news/2009-05-01-accounting.aspx http://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/ira_053010.php Imposing mark to market accounting for assets for which there may not always be an active, liquid market, and which banks use as capital, is a terrible idea. FDR imposed it and then realized what a disaster it was and then got rid of it in the late 30's. It was not imposed again until 2007. Economists have said that if mark to market accounting was in place in the U.S. during the Latin American debt/currency crisis in the early 1980's, every large U.S. bank would have been insolvent.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 05:45)
sl0re: The other problem is you can’t eat, wear, or do much with capital goods (no, that copier does not look great next to the couch). ‘The rich’ might ‘control’ x% of wealth on paper but do they really? They get to put their finger in the air and make some choices about where to deploy their wealth and to what ends (which usually revolve around supply and demand and/or giving the public what it wants).. past that they employ a bunch of managers and workers who use the things the rich own to make products. Any profits they realize in order to buy themselves things get taxed.. On paper they own a lot… reality is they just manage the money.

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 04:59)
Confused: I am not a very 'articulate' writer. This is very wordy. But, if I am wrong it is important I know why? I am trying to digest this all. The driving force of this article seems to be Moore is lying or incorrect. I would like to smack down a few of his lies, however. Moore is claiming that the wealthiest 400 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 50%. However, on: Thursday, March 10th, 2011 at 4:16 p.m. a report which seems reliable and factually supported seems to agree 100% with Moore's claim which you imply is an absolute lie, "I would like to smack down a few of his lies" http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ (This clearly demonstrates moore is not lying) I am so disgusted by my government, republicans, democrats, independents and others. All have their own facts, own spin doctors, own "fixers" and own lobbies. They arm their supporters with the same talk points I hear over and over and over and over and over and over I have no clue who to believe. Is this how it must or ought to be? What is clear is since 1990 a pool of people who could comfortable sit in 10 school buses control more "wealth" than the others who could comfortably fit in 3,875,000. (It is an analogy dont get caught up in nit picking - I assumed 155,000,000 [50%] and 40 per bus then did quick math) Everything I have read, I could find some resources/references if you disagree seems to clearly state that the richest people in the world do not make money from "working"(I use that word loosely) but rather from investing(Wall Street or International Counterparts?). It is only common sense that the wealthiest people would want to protect and GROW their wealth. I fully support this - if I were a billionaire I would do whatever it takes to shield and grow my wealth. It is only common sense they would want to throw resources at doing so. The only way they can do this, the best way, is to change/swing US policy to their favor. They do so by spending hundreds of millions to support/influence already wealthy senators, congressmen or other political officials. I am compelled, yet pissed the hell off, to agree with Mikey. I am pissed because this is so frustrating. There are two sides with their own facts and 1 is obviously…

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 02:46)
drunkkus: Obviously any money put back into the company should be tax-deductable. Or, put another way, if you are going to take $1m out of the business to pay yourself, then put half of that back into the business, why not only take out $500k to begin with? Its not rocket science. Believe me, Im all for the profit insentive in order to grow and innovate. I think its the only way. I wasn't talking about a putting money back into any business. Businesses don't coalesce from thin air. Someone has to have money to make an initial investment. If you tax the top incomes at 90 percent and only cut that rate if someone invests in a pre-existing company, you're stuck with the Walmarts of the world, and they'll only get bigger and bigger. And the people that make the most money from them will only get richer and richer. How would anyone else ever begin to compete if you took away all of the money every other rich person had for startup costs? Or is that the point? This is not even considering money for investment into new technologies. This is elementary Economics 101.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 02:42)
gitarcarver: Obviously any money put back into the company should be tax-deductable. Obviously not. Any money that is put into a company should not be backed by the government. To do so only encourages bad investments and bad business models. Or, put another way, if you are going to take $1m out of the business to pay yourself, then put half of that back into the business, why not only take out $500k to begin with? There could be any number of reasons. You could need the money for a short term investment into another venture. You could invest it into the market or bonds. Then, after the investment matures, you might want to put more money into the business. [quote]Believe me, Im all for the profit insentive in order to grow and innovate. I think its the only way. Then why are you against the people that initiate growth and innovation? Why do you feel that the people that go "the only way" should be taxed more for their success than those who do not spur growth or innovate?

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 08:21)
MikeS: Hi up4: As I noted in my update, the percentage of wealth in the lower half has gone up as well, from about 1% to about 3%. As far as population goes, over that time the wealth of the bottom half has doubled while the population has increased about by about 25%. Good point on the wealth distribution. THe best figures I can find are: top 1% - 25% top 10% - 63% top 50% - 97% That is skewed, as I noted, more than I'd like. However, class mobility means that the top 10% is not always the same people.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 07:53)
gitarcarver: The paint should just be tested, then the paint can be used. Please explain why the paint should be tested if it is already illegal to use lead paint in the US? Why should companies that would never use lead paint, or even have access to lead paint have to test for lead paint when it is already illegal? Just because they came up with a stupid way to accomplish it, doesnt mean its not a sound regulation. It is a stupid regulation because a regulation outlawing lead paint already exists. The CPSIA does NOTHING to enhance the safety of anyone because the law is already in effect that bans lead paint. It is just another regulation that punishes law abiding businesses without making a difference to the public or the product. I still do not see any evidence to that fact. I am sorry that you don't understand what happened with the CRA. I tried to explain it to you and you seem to think that closing your eyes and not seeing it is the same as the facts don't exist. No, I am not jealous of the rich, and therefore want them stripped of their wealth. No, you just want them taxed at a level different than people that make less than they do no matter what the consequences are. That says to me that you are jealous because you are only looking for ways to get money from what you consider "rich" and you don't care what effects that causes. But I do think the money has to come from somewhere. Why? Why does money for government programs have to come from somewhere? That position assumes that all government programs are good and should therefore exist. As that is your position, please take the time to defend it because it makes no sense. Why is it better for a government to take more money from the citizens instead of first looking at ways of trimming the budget? Isn't that what households do? God knows you guys are never going to lower your defence budget. Actually, the defense budget is being lowered, so you are woefully misinformed on that as well. Even so, tell me why the defense budget, that actually puts people to work in building things, actually has research, and actually trains people is not a good investment? The problem is you guys are too big…

Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
(13 total, Last @ 06:41)
up4debate: Im not disagreeing with you, but I think there is something you should make a little more clear. When you say... 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. Im not sure its right to compare hard numbers to %s. With population growth, the bottom 50% has increased by approx 25m people (all things being equal). But that number of actual people is still being compared on an equal level to the 400 you speak of. 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. It might be a little misleading to lump the 401st richest person in with 'the rest of us'. Not that big of a deal, I still get what you are saying, but I wonder where that 3% number goes to if you extend it to say top 1000, or even 10,000 richest, none of whom are most likely living like 'the rest of us'.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 06:20)
up4debate: Obviously any money put back into the company should be tax-deductable. Or, put another way, if you are going to take $1m out of the business to pay yourself, then put half of that back into the business, why not only take out $500k to begin with? Its not rocket science. Believe me, Im all for the profit insentive in order to grow and innovate. I think its the only way.

Mooronomics
(29 total, Last @ 05:27)
drunkkus: But, what is wrong with, increasing personal income tax on the very rich, and reducing business taxes. Businesses, even humongous publicly traded corporations like Walmart or Ford Motor Company, do not just appear out of thin air. There's a reason Mr. Walton's company or Mr. Ford's company has his name on it. He started it personally with his own pocket, sweat, and hands. It's often very expensive, and there are usually a whole lot of expenses associated with starting a new business. (The least of which is not the bullshit licenses and fees that the government usually collects on just for the privelege of engaging in most businesses.) More times than not, large chunks of individuals' excess personal income is put towards the cost of entering into a new business. It also happens that the "very rich" reinvest their own personal wealth into new businesses....a lot. Why else do you think members of Congress file bankruptcy so often? They get to make up the rules as they go along and rig the game, and they're still at risk because they use their own personal stacks to break into businesses. If you take away this personal wealth from the "very rich" (who probably accumulated it in the first place by working for Walmart or Ford Motor Company), who's going to be left to pony up the funds to create the Kmart's or GM's of the world to compete with Mr. Walton's business or Mr. Ford's business? Over-taxing personal wealth is a good way to ensure that the largest, or most evil if you will, corporations on the planet and the same small group of people who are the richest because of them remain as such. You want to keep the names and companies on the Forbes 100 list the same forever? Take all of their money away. This stuff is most certainly not rocket science.