Marvel at the beauty of Michael Moore's 10,000 sq ft summer mansion!

darkdog said:
The dude who's suing for $2.7 million on top of the $20 million or so he already made on just one film? That's not the 1%?

By the way, to own .01% of America's wealth, you'd have to own about $5 billion. If that's the qualification for being in the 1%, fewer than 100 people qualify.
Click to expand...

Suggestion #1 - watch the documentary.

Suggestion #2 - read this, it can explain it better than I can. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
DaveM said:
Yeah, for someone who's first reply to me was:

"Great, just what we need; another misinformed conservative posting biased misinformation. You're going to be real popular around here" at post #13

I'm not sure I would value your opinion on pre-judging or patronizing as much as I would value others here. Especially as you just felt the need to patronize DeafBadger.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are only just starting to learn ASL and have only recently begun made forays into the Deaf community. No? Please let me know how you feel about this comment in two years, after you've been a little more entrenched. It's great that you're discovering your Deaf identity, but there's still a lot for you to learn. I'm still learning a lot myself.
Click to expand...

That's correct, I'm new to the community, but not new at deafness.

It is possible I might have a different opinion in a few years.

Also, you don't find the "praising our individuality" part just a little bit patronizing? I mean, wow, who woulda thunk that deaf people were individuals??? :roll:
Click to expand...

No more patronizing than when Alexis de Tocqueville, the French traveler, wrote a book praising the industry, ingenuity, individuality, and fierce independence of the Americans. It was an observation he made, and it was sincere praise... especially since he lived in a time when such traits were routinely suppressed in the Western world.

So imagine that here's a guy wandering through another country... our country, our community. And he is making an observation and he sincerely praises it. Doesn't sound so insulting anymore, does it?

I'm waiting for the day when the Deaf community establishes its reputation as a fierce band of roving horsemen, driving all before them in fear... oh, wait, that's the Huns. ;)

Maybe you're right; maybe I'll see it differently in a few years...
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.
Click to expand...

Sure, WriteAlex. Next time I'll only post narrow and rigidly ideologically based links that match up with your views. This way maybe I can avoid be called "culturally insensitive" by you.

I wasn't sticking up for DeafBadger. I was pointing out that you were calling him incapable of speaking on behalf of your community.

It's nice to know that you speak for all deaf or HoH. I'll make sure to check with you before my ASL teacher assigns me my next lesson.
 
DaveM said:
Yeah, for someone who's first reply to me was:

"Great, just what we need; another misinformed conservative posting biased misinformation. You're going to be real popular around here" at post #13

I'm not sure I would value your opinion on pre-judging or patronizing as much as I would value others here. Especially as you just felt the need to patronize DeafBadger.
Click to expand...

I can decide for myself whether I think I'm being patronized. And I didn't interpret it that way from TheWriteAlex.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I couldn't care less if you value my opinion or not. People usually have to earn my respect for that. You have earned little respect or credibility around here, especially when you repost biased rhetorical vomit as your initial thread starters.

And why don't you allow Deafbadger to decide who is doing the patronizing here. That's mighty nice of you to try and do his thinking for him. But just so you know, I can guarantee you he is 10 times more capable of thinking for himself than you are.
Click to expand...

You know what, I'm going to try to avoid politics so much here. I signed up to learn a little about deaf culture and should spend more time on those boards. So I'm going to start posting there more where feedback will be helpful - including yours.

That last post was dick-ish of me.
 
DaveM said:
You know what, I'm going to try to avoid politics so much here. I signed up to learn a little about deaf culture and should spend more time on those boards. So I'm going to start posting there more where feedback will be helpful - including yours.

That last post was dick-ish of me.
Click to expand...

In light of this follow-up, I will refrain from posting my response to your last post, which I can assure you was pretty scathing. This is your only warning to NEVER, EVER post something like that again.

Follow your own advice and you will be fine. In time, you will find that the "rigidly narrow ideological" views of many people on this site are actually more broad than you suspect, but you'll only know that after you've been here longer than two days.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
In light of this follow-up, I will refrain from posting my response to your last post, which I can assure you was pretty scathing. This is your only warning to NEVER, EVER post something like that again.

Follow your own advice and you will be fine. In time, you will find that the "rigidly narrow ideological" views of many people on this site are actually more broad than you suspect, but you'll only know that after you've been here longer than two days.
Click to expand...

See you around on the other boards :wave:
 
DeafBadger said:
That's correct, I'm new to the community, but not new at deafness.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

It is possible I might have a different opinion in a few years.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I doubt either of us will remember this in two years, but I would be interested to know the answer. I know that my viewpoints and opinions regarding Deaf identity have changed a lot since I first found this place two years ago.


No more patronizing than when Alexis de Tocqueville, the French traveler, wrote a book praising the industry, ingenuity, individuality, and fierce independence of the Americans. It was an observation he made, and it was sincere praise... especially since he lived in a time when such traits were routinely suppressed in the Western world.

So imagine that here's a guy wandering through another country... our country, our community. And he is making an observation and he sincerely praises it. Doesn't sound so insulting anymore, does it?
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting analogy. It's hard to say if it is 100% applicable here because of the historical context, but I get what you're saying. I wonder what De Tocqueville's views of Americans were before he set sail for the United States. Were they were informed by stereotypes? And if so, what were those stereotypes? If he was making a sort of "first contact," then his observations, while interesting and enlightening, are not analogous to the DaveM's initial post. Almost everyone in the United States is acquainted with Deafness, usually in the form of stereotypes seen on TV, in books, and elsewhere. Some are even aware of Deaf Culture and ASL. But few actually really understand Deaf culture and the experience of being deaf. DaveM's coming here was not a first contact but rather a shift in worldviews. Sometimes such a shift can perpetuate positive, constructive praise. Sometimes it is patronizing. Check out this thread for an interesting discussion on a related topic: http://www.alldeaf.com/sign-language-oralism/95818-deaf-not-different-vista.html

I'm waiting for the day when the Deaf community establishes its reputation as a fierce band of roving horsemen, driving all before them in fear... oh, wait, that's the Huns. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe Phillips can help us out with some battle horses. :lol:

Maybe you're right; maybe I'll see it differently in a few years...
Click to expand...

Enjoy the ride. :wave:
 
DeafCaroline said:
The 1% - that term came from a documentary of the same name - it refers to the 1% of Americans owning 42% of America's wealth in 2004.

Michael Moore is nowhere close to owning even a .01 % of America's wealth. No, he's not a 1 percenter.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "America's wealth." I am assuming you mean net worth. Saying 1% does not make any sense. Just a feel good number.

In the United States there are 413 billionaires, with a total net worth of $1.5 trillion dollars (see China Becomes “Billionaire Factory To the World” - The Wealth Report - WSJ) .

But we also have 10.5 million millionaires (see Number of millionaires is projected to rise rapidly - May. 5, 2011 ) in the United States. In 2010 millionaires controlled about 56% of U.S. wealth or $32 trillion dollars (Millionaires continue to climb in the US as more people go out of work | Joseph Klaas). For both millionaires and billionaires, combined, that's $33.5 trillion dollars they control out of $58.5 trillion dollars (United States household net worth http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf).

In other words, 413 billionaires control 2.5% of America's wealth (net worth) while 10.5 million millionaires control 56% of America's wealth. That leaves 41.5% of those who are not millionaires or billionaires who control the rest of the $25.7 trillion dollars.

Saying 1% makes no sense because the 1% does not control the so called "42% of America's wealth." If anything, Michael Moore is indeed a part of the 10.5 million millionaires (which includes 413 billionaires) that control 56% of America's wealth.
 
this thread is about Michael Moore's mansion... not whether or not if he's 1%'er. Nothing to see in here as OP's allegation has been debunked and explained.

Pundits and the conservatives seem to conveniently ignore the fact that some people like Al Gore does not have a commercial building to work at. They work at their own home and they have a large staff which is why they live in a "mansion". again - nothing to see in here.
 
kokonut said:
Not sure what you mean by "America's wealth." I am assuming you mean net worth. Saying 1% does not make any sense. Just a feel good number.

In the United States there are 413 billionaires, with a total net worth of $1.5 trillion dollars (see China Becomes “Billionaire Factory To the World” - The Wealth Report - WSJ) .

But we also have 10.5 million millionaires (see Number of millionaires is projected to rise rapidly - May. 5, 2011 ) in the United States. In 2010 millionaires controlled about 56% of U.S. wealth or $32 trillion dollars (Millionaires continue to climb in the US as more people go out of work | Joseph Klaas). For both millionaires and billionaires, combined, that's $33.5 trillion dollars they control out of $58.5 trillion dollars (United States household net worth http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf).

In other words, 413 billionaires control 2.5% of America's wealth (net worth) while 10.5 million millionaires control 56% of America's wealth. That leaves 41.5% of those who are not millionaires or billionaires who control the rest of the $25.7 trillion dollars.

Saying 1% makes no sense because the 1% does not control the so called "42% of America's wealth." If anything, Michael Moore is indeed a part of the 10.5 million millionaires (which includes 413 billionaires) that control 56% of America's wealth.
Click to expand...


Your math might be a bit off. I used older numbers for the sake of relevancy since 2011 ain't over yet. Pie chart of what the 56.8 trillion share looks like:

USAnetworth-1.png


Calculations are below if you want to read it all:
Code: 
Central reference for numbers here, the source is tweeted by ~5k and Facebooked by 36k so I have some confidence in the numbers.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-

First some prelim calcs for the bottom categories for population size:
400 billionaires / 308,745,538 (census 2010) = 0.000129% 
9,800,000 millionaires / 308,745,538 = 3.17%
185,247,323 poorest 60% /  308,745,538 = 60%

America's total net worth: 
$56.8 trillion (federal reserve)

Forbes top 400 (% population: 0.000129%):
$1.37 trillion

9.8 Millionaires (% population: 3.17%):
$31.80 trillion

Poorest 60% of USA (% population: 60%)
$1.26 trillion

Remainder missing: 
100% pop - 0.000129 - 3.17 - 60 = 36.82%
36.82% of 308,745,538 = 113,668,693
$56.8 trillion - $1.37 - $31.80 - $1.26 = $22.37 trillion
Remainder's net share: 22.37 / 56.8 = 39.16%

So, in a nutshell:

Forbes top 400: 0.000129% pop
... Controls 2.41% of total net worth

9.8 millionaires: 3.17% pop
... Controls 55.98% of total net worth

Poorest 60% of USA: 60% pop
... Controls 2.21% of total net worth

Middle class, upper class: 36.82% pop
... Controls  39.16% of total net worth
 
naisho said:
Your math might be a bit off. I used older numbers for the sake of relevancy since 2011 ain't over yet. Pie chart of what the 56.8 trillion share looks like:

USAnetworth-1.png


Calculations are below if you want to read it all:
Code: 
Central reference for numbers here, the source is tweeted by ~5k and Facebooked by 36k so I have some confidence in the numbers.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-

First some prelim calcs for the bottom categories for population size:
400 billionaires / 308,745,538 (census 2010) = 0.000129% 
9,800,000 millionaires / 308,745,538 = 3.17%
185,247,323 poorest 60% /  308,745,538 = 60%

America's total net worth: 
$56.8 trillion (federal reserve)

Forbes top 400 (% population: 0.000129%):
$1.37 trillion

9.8 Millionaires (% population: 3.17%):
$31.80 trillion

Poorest 60% of USA (% population: 60%)
$1.26 trillion

Remainder missing: 
100% pop - 0.000129 - 3.17 - 60 = 36.82%
36.82% of 308,745,538 = 113,668,693
$56.8 trillion - $1.37 - $31.80 - $1.26 = $22.37 trillion
Remainder's net share: 22.37 / 56.8 = 39.16%

So, in a nutshell:

Forbes top 400: 0.000129% pop
... Controls 2.41% of total net worth

9.8 millionaires: 3.17% pop
... Controls 55.98% of total net worth

Poorest 60% of USA: 60% pop
... Controls 2.21% of total net worth

Middle class, upper class: 36.82% pop
... Controls  39.16% of total net worth
Click to expand...

Essentially the same only that the project for 2011 is a bit more on number of millionaires for 2011 than 2010 which skews the percentage slightly upward (only a .02% higher than yours). Nothing is really off and not even statistically significant either on the differences between yours and mine.

Where did you get the $56.8 trillion?

One problem though, you haven't defined exactly what constitute as "middle class." You've already included millionaires and billionaires. Kind of hard to believe a person making $900,000 would be considered as "middle class." Or even $500,000 for that matter. The same question goes for the "poorest," too. What is that low range?
 
kokonut said:
Essentially the same only that the project for 2011 is a bit more on number of millionaires for 2011 than 2010 which skews the percentage slightly upward (only a .02% higher than yours). Nothing is really off and not even statistically significant either on the differences between yours and mine.

Where did you get the $56.8 trillion?

One problem though, you haven't defined exactly what constitute as "middle class." You've already included millionaires and billionaires. Kind of hard to believe a person making $900,000 would be considered as "middle class." Or even $500,000 for that matter. The same question goes for the "poorest," too. What is that low range?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you didn't define yours either. I needed a name to show the group on the pie.
The key differences between yours and my calcs are that you didn't look at population size as the dependent variable as closely as I did.
What do you call your "other" group?
Anyway, it is 41.5% of population to you, but 36.82% for me, that's a 14,449,291 people difference even if it's just barely under 5%.

The truth to the "42%" statement is that we can see it's the millionaires + billionaires totaled, which represents a whopping 3.17% of the USA

The rest of the 96.82% of the USA is shadowed from the ~3.17% billionaires+millionaires. (Remember, that 96.82 is 36.82 + 60.00)
I couldn't use your numbers because you didn't factor the numbers for the rest of the population.

I suppose Caroline's 1% figure moved a bit up to 3%, but that's still a pretty large discrepancy.
 
Back
Top