Michael Moore: America IS NOT Broke, Madison Speech

The Gov -- needs to stop taking income taxes and put back in place 1965 type wall street regulations.

Oh, and don't say Barry already put in place some 'strong' regulations on wall street, 'cause he didn't! We also need a new president (Ron Paul), that will allow a full investigation of the corruption and fraud that got us into this mess.

You guys know what we need to do, don't be afraid to say it!!

reply to post by Rockdisjoint



Agreed. Here's the trailer of an Oscar winning doc called "Inside Job".







I HIGHLY suggest anyone with an interest in the subject rent it, rip it, torrent it, just view it however you can. Your blood will boil. It lamb-basts both sides globally and sheds light on those we discuss and how they did it in fine detail.

I am proud to say a fellow Michigander named Michael Moore from Lansing, Michigan went to Wisconsin and give a great speech, I listened to all of it..bless Michael Moore and bless America. Listen up America, it is time to take back our country.

Go Mr. Moore and thank you.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
I am proud to say a fellow Michigander named Michael Moore from Lansing, Michigan went to Wisconsin and give a great speech, I listened to all of it..bless Michael Moore and bless America. Listen up America, it is time to take back our country.

Go Mr. Moore and thank you.

I thought he was from Flint, though? Regardless, he's right. The working people have the numbers, if they only decide to make use of that fact.

Originally posted by QueSeraSera

Originally posted by Aquarius1
I am proud to say a fellow Michigander named Michael Moore from Lansing, Michigan went to Wisconsin and give a great speech, I listened to all of it..bless Michael Moore and bless America. Listen up America, it is time to take back our country.

Go Mr. Moore and thank you.

I thought he was from Flint, though? Regardless, he's right. The working people have the numbers, if they only decide to make use of that fact.

You may be right, too late to check, thanks, I do think it is Flint..

I like going through these threads and seeing the people who realize that the system is rigged in favor of those who make a lot of money versus the ones who think that everyone else just isn't trying hard enough.

There is wealth disparity in this country, with rulings like Citizens United allowing nearly unlimited amounts of money into federal elections, the only laws being passed will be the ones that let the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful.

When you realize that winning the lottery seems a better chance for you than working your entire life to just barely breach the next income bracket it'll be too damn late for you. This speech was great, I hope everyone sees it, not because of who gave it but because of where he was and what he was talking about.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit

What he says here is nothing New . So how is he Personally gonna Change that ? This Speech in nothing more than a Publicity Stunt by him to gain Attention

Thats the problem, people expect one person to do something, so they can continue to be arm chair economists and whinge and complain

reply to post by Connector


The countries broke.
The people at the top aren't.

There's a difference!

For those that are ardently defending the wealthy, I believe you are missing the point.

Moore is not claiming that those who made their money honestly should have it taken away, he is talking about the recent transfer of massive wealth from taxpayers that have made certain individuals extremely wealthy.

The recent bailout costs are said to go from $12.8 Trillion to $23.7 Trillion. Which ever number you choose, that is a whole lot of potential schools (with well-payed teachers), hospitals (with affordable healthcare), fire trucks, roads... etc.

The thing is, many Americans have been indoctrinated to be so afraid of socialism, that they are blind to the fact that it exists, only it benefits multi-billionaires instead of the common folk. The "trickle-down" theory has always only managed to vacuum the wealth up to fewer hands, but since those hands are the ones handing envelopes around Washington, things are unlikely to change.

Our economic system is dependent on consumption (whether this is the best system is for another thread), and to ensure consumption workers must be able to afford to buy goods. Henry Ford understood that if his employees were unable to purchase his vehicles, his company was doomed to fail. The point being, higher wages are important for a flourishing economy.

I agree that to dislike the messenger is one thing, but don't let it force you to ignore the message.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Connector


The problem with Moore's hypothesis is that it's based in the belief that the dollar has some kind of value. His understanding of economics is horribly lax.

When you take out a loan for $100,000 you do not have - and will not be paying back to the bank in full for another 20+ years... where does that money go? Or, rather, where does it come from?

Investors. Not just wall-street investors - but people investing in retirement funds with CDs and savings accounts. These people subsidize the bank's ability to take out loans and are compensated via interest rates. People taking on loans are paying for a service - the fee for the service is the interest rate on the loan (which is passed down to the investors).

The economy is operating around unity at any given time. Sure - a number of people have money tied up in bank accounts - I'm one of them (not with millions in the bank, mind you) - but for all of them to "stop sitting on their money" and spend it would, quite literally, devastate the economy with drastic interest rate inflation and possibly greater inflation of the currency, itself.

The way to 'return the money to the average person' and 'redistribute wealth' is not to tax the bejesus out of earnings and/or capital gains - that will simply drive investors to more friendly markets. The solution is to simply live within our means and stop living in a state of financial insolubility. You should -have- money in the bank, at least a years' worth of living expenses and a retirement savings on top of that.

People get impatient and take out loans unnecessarily while trying to live well beyond their means to support it.

Of course, in all of this - it's rather funny how the blame falls on a lot of the familiar retail corporations and energy providers... most of those companies make between a 3-5% profit margin (that means, for every dollar you spend on one of their products, no more than a nickel is actually 'made' by the company). Our favorite companies, though - producers of carbonated beverages and alcoholic stuffs - turn a 30+% profit margin rather consistently. Even pharmaceutical companies - some of the most criticized for their high profit margins only weigh in at about 10%.

That dollar you spent on a soda out of the geedunk? Coca-Cola just made 30 cents off of you (in the aggregate). Having a beer with your buddies while talking about the criminal prices at the pump? Bud makes more profit off of that one can of beer than MFA makes off of your one gallon of gasoline.

The problem is generally at the consumer level. The consumer fails to function as an intelligent and mildly informed logical being and proceeds to make decisions that later turn around to be a rather poor choice. Then, as ignorance capitulates, they blame those who have behaved in a more intelligent manner for stealing money from them.

That's not to say there are not some criminal practices out there - there are. But in general, most of the problems we are facing in this economy would not exist with a more competent consumer base - people who were capable of understanding something as simple as the economy (regardless of what eggheads will tell you - it's pretty simple: you need x and are willing to give y for it - producers of x and/or y will carry on such production with the expectation to be able to be compensated for their efforts and skills in a manner befitting of their service - you start with basic needs, food, water, shelter - and expand from there - the economy will always baseline at the supply for basic needs; it is essential for human survival and will be continued in spite of issues with currency).

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
The Gov -- needs to stop taking income taxes and put back in place 1965 type wall street regulations.

Oh, and don't say Barry already put in place some 'strong' regulations on wall street, 'cause he didn't! We also need a new president (Ron Paul), that will allow a full investigation of the corruption and fraud that got us into this mess.

You guys know what we need to do, don't be afraid to say it!!

Uh, you might want to learn about ron pauls actual politics before you just spout off what is "cool" and "hip" to think. Oooooo ron paul is going to save everything, is he? ron paul is going to put restrictions on wall street? Are you serious? ron paul would remove all regulations regarding wall st., that is what he is about, no "government interference" (AKA laws).

cmon everybody, lets vote for ron paul so he can remove what little legislation there is left protecting workers!

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Connector

 

The problem with Moore's hypothesis is that it's based in the belief that the dollar has some kind of value. His understanding of economics is horribly lax.

When you take out a loan for $100,000 you do not have - and will not be paying back to the bank in full for another 20+ years... where does that money go? Or, rather, where does it come from?

Investors. Not just wall-street investors - but people investing in retirement funds with CDs and savings accounts. T

It sounds like maybe your understanding of economics is lax.

We work on a fractional reserve system, which means that they bank only needs to loan out 10% of the actual money, the rest of the money is printed by the fed. this is why banking is so profitable; with only $1000, you can legally give out loans for $10,000.

The money is not coming from "investors", unless those investors are the ones profiting from the Fed, which is supposedly non-profit.

So, nice diatribe, but unfortunately, your logical house is built on an unsteady foundation.

I suppose if Fatty McFaterson here really feels bad about the poor he could give up all of his wealth - no one is stopping him. Then again he couldn't eat as well so that's not gonna happen.

This dude is not only an idiot he is a hypocritical idiot; he is one of the richer people in America!

reply to post by aching_knuckles

It sounds like maybe your understanding of economics is lax.

Never take me at face value.

We work on a fractional reserve system, which means that they bank only needs to loan out 10% of the actual money, the rest of the money is printed by the fed. this is why banking is so profitable; with only $1000, you can legally give out loans for $10,000.

That's not a fractional reserve system.

www.lewrockwell.com...

In particular, the investment bankers acted as a ginger group to work for the cartelization of commercial banks. To some extent, commercial bankers lend out their own capital and money acquired by CDs. But most commercial banking is "deposit banking" based on a gigantic scam: the idea, which most depositors believe, that their money is down at the bank, ready to be redeemed in cash at any time. If Jim has a checking account of $1,000 at a local bank, Jim knows that this is a "demand deposit," that is, that the bank pledges to pay him $1,000 in cash, on demand, anytime he wishes to "get his money out." Naturally, the Jims of this world are convinced that their money is safely there, in the bank, for them to take out at any time. Hence, they think of their checking account as equivalent to a warehouse receipt. If they put a chair in a warehouse before going on a trip, they expect to get the chair back whenever they present the receipt. Unfortunately, while banks depend on the warehouse analogy, the depositors are systematically deluded. Their money ain't there.

The money doesn't need to be printed by the federal government - it exists on paper in accounts.

This is where you don't understand my statement regarding the problem with "investors spending all the money" - demanding the banks to pay money they do not have is a repeat of what capitulated the housing market collapse following defaulting loans.

Our entire economic system revolves around the belief that one can count on the money being in the bank when he/she attempts to withdraw it. The entire system is driven around investment and debt. The reason it is so profitable is the number of people willing to accept living as a debtor. Banks couldn't loan out enough money even if you were to go to a 1% reserve system (which would be absolutely insane).

The best protection against runaway systems such as this is simply to reduce the amount of personal and business debt individuals are willing to take upon themselves. This reduces the demand for such fractional reserve extremes - in a free or 'cartelized' market.

The money is not coming from "investors", unless those investors are the ones profiting from the Fed, which is supposedly non-profit.

You clearly don't understand the National government's role in the problem. The national government backs bank notes with the federally issued currency. To understand the importance of this - you must ask yourself why any institution would accept a check from your bank. How do they know the bank really has the currency it claims?

Third National Bank and U.S. Bank are two different institutions - why should they trust the numbers constantly flying back and forth between the two?

In modern central banking, the Central Bank is granted the monopoly of the issue of bank notes (originally written or printed warehouse receipts as opposed to the intangible receipts of bank deposits), which are now identical to the government's paper money and therefore the monetary "standard" in the country. People want to use physical cash as well as bank deposits. If, therefore, I wish to redeem $1,000 in cash from my checking bank, the bank has to go to the Federal Reserve, and draw down its own checking account with the Fed, "buying" $1,000 of Federal Reserve Notes (the cash in the United States today) from the Fed. The Fed, in other words, acts as a bankers' bank. Banks keep checking deposits at the Fed and these deposits constitute their reserves, on which they can and do pyramid ten times the amount in checkbook money.

Kinky, huh?

So, nice diatribe, but unfortunately, your logical house is built on an unsteady foundation.

Really?

The very idea of "deposit insurance" is a swindle; how does one insure an institution (fractional reserve banking) that is inherently insolvent, and which will fall apart whenever the public finally understands the swindle? Suppose that, tomorrow, the American public suddenly became aware of the banking swindle, and went to the banks tomorrow morning, and, in unison, demanded cash. What would happen? The banks would be instantly insolvent, since they could only muster 10 percent of the cash they owe their befuddled customers. Neither would the enormous tax increase needed to bail everyone out be at all palatable. No: the only thing the Fed could do, and this would be in their power, would be to print enough money to pay off all the bank depositors. Unfortunately, in the present state of the banking system, the result would be an immediate plunge into the horrors of hyperinflation.

Emphasis my own.

I believe that, in more words or less, that is exactly the same point I was making.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Banks keep checking deposits at the Fed and these deposits constitute their reserves, on which they can and do pyramid ten times the amount in checkbook money.

This is exactly what I said in my post.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Suppose that, tomorrow, the American public suddenly became aware of the banking swindle, and went to the banks tomorrow morning, and, in unison, demanded cash. What would happen? The banks would be instantly insolvent, since they could only muster 10 percent of the cash they owe their befuddled customers.

Uh, by trying to prove me wrong, you proved me right. Look at the bolded part. Why would they only be able to provide 10%? Maybe because thats all that was deposited, like I said.

It seems like the point you were trying to make is that the people losing money are investors in the bank, people with money to invest. But its not true...that other 90% is "made up" and then interest is collected on it. How is it "made up"? The Fed prints it and acts as "the bankers bank", like you said. That 90% is not backed. Which is why the system is a scam in the first place.

However, you seem to be under the impression that if this money is not paid back, that wall st. investors who make our world go round are suffering and losing out, as they provided the other 90%. That is simply not true.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Sure - a number of people have money tied up in bank accounts - I'm one of them (not with millions in the bank, mind you) - but for all of them to "stop sitting on their money" and spend it would, quite literally, devastate the economy with drastic interest rate inflation and possibly greater inflation of the currency, itself.

The way to 'return the money to the average person' and 'redistribute wealth' is not to tax the bejesus out of earnings and/or capital gains - that will simply drive investors to more friendly markets. The solution is to simply live within our means and stop living in a state of financial insolubility. You should -have- money in the bank, at least a years' worth of living expenses and a retirement savings on top of that.

I was going to let this pass, but i guess ill take a bite of your crap sandwich......

Translation: I have money, and so should you! If you dont, dont worry, just spend less! I have money, but I cant spend any, or it would ruin the economy! (I seriously still cant believe you said that people spending money would kill the economy...we are a consumer based economy!)

This is "rich" thinking at its best. "Well, if I could somehow get a little money in the bank, its easy! Everyone should be able to do it, they are just lazy/stupid/ignorant!"

Drive investors to other markets via tax? I hate to tell you this, but businesses dont leave because of tax, they leave because they can pay a chinaman 10 cents instead of paying an American 10 dollars an hour. Heard of NAFTA? If anything, there should be a tarriff and more taxes on every cheap piece of chinese crap coming into this country, so that the american worker would have a chance to survive!

It is cheaper for a company to go to china, build a factory and hire workers, create a product, ship it across the world back to america and put it in walmart than it is to build a factory here and pay american workers! That is nonsense! Are you telling me that china has a freer econonic system? If American businesses just want freedom, why the fck are they going to china?? is there no government regulation in china?? they execute people over there for business failures!

they go to china for one reason, CHEAP LABOR. It has nothing to do with taxes, in fact these traitors are paying the chinese tax money to be there.

if america were FOR THE PEOPLE, we would tax the bejeesus out of these imported products. but it is a PRO BUSINESS CORPOROTOCRACY that allows companies to pay chinese wages and sell at american retail prices. Yes, poor big business in america is sure getting strangled by the .gov, huh?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Aim64C


if america were FOR THE PEOPLE, we would tax the bejeesus out of these imported products. but it is a PRO BUSINESS CORPOROTOCRACY that allows companies to pay chinese wages and sell at american retail prices. Yes, poor big business in america is sure getting strangled by the .gov, huh?

That is called "Protectionism". it will not work.
If that is the path, then we need to pull our military out of all foreign countries, lock down the borders, be energy independent and and self sufficient.
I am all for it.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
The Gov -- needs to stop taking income taxes and put back in place 1965 type wall street regulations.

Oh, and don't say Barry already put in place some 'strong' regulations on wall street, 'cause he didn't! We also need a new president (Ron Paul), that will allow a full investigation of the corruption and fraud that got us into this mess.

You guys know what we need to do, don't be afraid to say it!!

Too bad Ron Paul would probably want to disband regulation altogether

Whats funny is Michael Moore is one of those douche bags making money off of people's insecurities. He may have a point but he is perpetuationg the situation, he is trying to make money off the nations term-oil I see another Moore flick in the near future so he can profit too.

Originally posted by joejack
Whats funny is Michael Moore is one of those douche bags making money off of people's insecurities. He may have a point but he is perpetuationg the situation, he is trying to make money off the nations term-oil I see another Moore flick in the near future so he can profit too.

Wait, isnt that capitalism? I thought that is what the people who hate micheal moore are all about....making money at the expense of others.

Are you saying you would have more respect for micheal moore if he was on welfare and food stamps?