Posts Tagged ‘1%’

I’ve not changed my mind: our banks are brutish institutions run by brutes – by Max Hastings – Last updated at 11:41 PM on 16th February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, 99%, Abuse of Power, banks, Equitable Distribution, equitable wealth distribution, mindless consumerism, Wealth distribution on February 18, 2012 at 4:31 pm

Renewed assault: Sir Mervyn King has berated Britain’s banks for failing to lend to small businesses

Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, this week renewed his assault on Britain’s banks, for failing to provide the lending to small businesses which is indispensable to their growth, and often survival.

New figures show that last year net lending fell by almost £11?billion. This was in defiance of promises made by the institutions’ bosses under the  so-called Project Merlin deal, to increase funding for companies.

Meanwhile, the Office Of Fair Trading has called on banks to change their working practices, to simplify the jumble of numbers with which they muddle us, so that customers can make a clear calculation about whether they would be better off changing financial services providers.

In addition, though their bonuses have fallen from stupendous to merely disgusting, bankers are still giving themselves rewards for their own services out of all proportion to their usefulness to society or their shareholders.


I recently read a pundit’s appeal for an outbreak of truth and reconciliation in the on-going war between the City and the public. The writer argued that, after all the abuse we have heaped on bankers, it is time to call a halt, recognise their importance to the economy and let them get on with their jobs.

My answer to that, and probably yours, would be: time enough for reconciliation when these people stop robbing us blind and mend their ways. As long as they carry on exactly as before, there is not the smallest reason to stop kicking them.

I have sometimes made mention in the Mail about my own tribulations at the hands of the financial services industry. I now have a nice new grievance.

On January 31, an endowment policy matured. Like everybody’s holdings of this kind, mine would deliver only around 60 per cent of the ‘target figure’ that the crooks who sold it to me promised two decades ago. Indeed, I stand to get little more than the paper amount I have paid in since 1992.

I signed all the maturity forms back in December and had them duly witnessed. It turns out that the provider, Barclays Life, has been sold to another firm called


This week, I telephoned them to ask where my money was. After a few minutes, I was told: ‘We’ve just got the paperwork back from Barclays. We’ll be dealing with ittoday.’

So I would get the cash immediately? ‘No, that will take three to five working days.’
Backwards step: New figures show that last year net lending fell by almost £11¿billion

Unacceptable: Bankers are still giving themselves rewards for their own services which are disproportionate to their usefulness to their shareholders

I hit the roof. This is how the financial services industry gets rich. By the time I receive the miserable wreck of my endowment money, ReAssure will have had use of it for more than a fortnight past the due date.

I warned the company it would be reading about itself in print, which prompted an automated response letter: ‘Your complaint is important to us and will be fully investigated by one of our complaint handlers.’

Now, I will admit that my solvency is not threatened by ReAssure’s tardiness and Barclays Life’s miserable performance. But for lots of people, much less equipped than I am to extract revenge, such payments are of vital importance. These institutions are brutes run by brutes, each one as bad as the other.

My second barrel at the bankers derives from an experience a month ago.

One of the most notorious bank bosses, a man whose remuneration is delivered in an armoured truck, invited me to lunch. Stupidly, I thought he wished to confess the error of his ways. I could not have been more wrong.

‘I am becoming extremely concerned, Max — you don’t mind if I call you Max?’ he began with headmasterly gravity, ‘that Britain is turning against capitalism and the payment of appropriate rewards.’

I said: ‘You mean you think people like me are unjust in criticising your remuneration?’ Yes, he answered, saying my denunciations upset his children when they read them.

I told him that a few days earlier I had met an industrialist — one of the really good ones — and told him I was booked to lunch with this particular banker. ‘Ask him,’ responded the industrialist, ‘how he can conceivably justify his obscene display of  personal greed.’

My banker host refused to give up. ‘I ask you this, Max,’ he demanded, ‘do you or do you not believe Britain needs a healthy and vigorous financial services industry? Would Britain be a better place if we take this bank to New York?’

I replied that I was sure that Mervyn King does not think anyone should be frightened by such a threat, which my host has often made before.


I added: ‘Are you suggesting we have only one choice: to clap prettily as you collect untold millions every year, or watch you take the bank somewhere else in a huff?’

The banker batted stubbornly back: ‘Are you against paying people the going rate for what they do?’

I gave serial answers: first, almost no one criticises entrepreneurs who make fortunes by taking personal risk. Instead, our spleen focuses on privileged employees who play with company money, not their own, and who pay themselves grotesque sums for doing so.

Request: The Office Of Fair Trading has called on banks to change their working practices and to simplify the jumble of numbers which are surely used to muddle us

Second, had he not noticed what is happening in the real world? Everybody else is getting hammered. The European financial system is hanging by a thread. We are entering what looks like a long period of austerity. Unless bankers want the peasants storming their Winter Palaces, is it not prudent to be seen to curb their appetites?

Finally, in addition to screwing their customers, bank bosses have ravaged shareholder value. My friends who understand these things say that the banks’ balance sheets are not worth the paper they are written on, because no one knows the real value of their declared assets. They are scarcely presiding  over success.

My host said portentously that since he signs off his bank’s accounts, he is sure they accurately depict their condition. He travels the country meeting clients and customers, and he claims to find them pretty happy, too.


He himself is an entrepreneur: he has built a terrific investment business at the bank and created lots of jobs. He and his team deserve to be properly rewarded.

Unless bankers want the peasants storming their Winter Palaces, is it not prudent to be seen to curb their appetites?

I left our lunch bewildered that my host should have chosen to waste 75 minutes of his valuable time to tell me that he regrets nothing, and give me a dressing-down for casting aspersions on the proper workings of the capitalist system.

‘When I voluntarily waived my bonus for two years, nobody gave me any credit,’ he said crossly. He and his kind — for there are many more like him out there — inhabit a land so remote from the rest of us that no United Nations interpreter could bridge the communications gap.

I see no hope of a reconciliation between bankers and the balance of mankind unless — or until — they suffer a shock, a divine thunderbolt, a revelation of a severity which will make St Paul’s experience in transit to Damascus look like amateur stuff.

These vastly pampered moguls really believe they are worth the money, and cannot comprehend why most of the rest of us so passionately hold them in contempt.

The answer is that we must keep kicking until they get the message, and the Governor of the Bank of England obviously thinks so, too.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

I deal with one of the UK high street banks in other countries on a fairly regular basis and I have to say that the service they provide is very good. So I guess it comes down to the banking regulation in individual countries that prevents them from running amok elsewhere. So there you have it, if they are allowed to then they will.

– keith, brisbane, 17/2/2012 22:25

“our banks are brutish institutions run by brutes”. Ever thought why? How many new UK banks have started in the last 10 years? Its a very short list for a reason.

Its a hard highly regulated, high risk, high reward and competitive business. Hence brutes are required to run them.

– DD, Basingstoke, Hants, 17/2/2012 21:37
Rating   5

However true your article is seen by most of us, it is patently not so among the denizens of self importance and since they hold the whip hand, regardless of the views of government and its diplomacy by people who can afford to wait until the furore has died down before carrying on where they left off. The banking system is a beast that will not be tamed. Like arms salesmen, they will do whatever it takes, on the grounds that if they don’t someone else will. The big boys don’t exactly seem to be quivering in their boots at the breech loaders – they know that no one will pull the cord – to many entwined vested interests. In any event, when push comes to shove, the old school tie covert conspirators will let their equally avaricious lobbyists, another mob Mr. Cameron ‘U’ turned on, off the leash. Plus cachange…

– r. bowie, neath,, 17/2/2012 20:12
Rating   12

These Masters of the Universe certainly remind me of ancien regime France before the Revolution. Monarch & aristos closeted in cloud cuckoo Versailles-land, paying no taxes & abusing their power & privilege to create an ever bigger gulf between themselves and the toilers who supported them. Enormous state debt prompts moderate reform proposals to tax nobles. Nobles object .Weak king gives in & sacks reforming ministers. Nobles pay high price as Revolution unfolds. Is Cameron Louis XVI?

Lots of fine-sounding rhetoric about unacceptable bonuses, but when it comes to European proposals to tax the financial sector, he plays the national card. NOT TAXING bankers is in our national interest. NOT TAXING nobles is in Louis XVI’s interest. Who benefits? Answer: bankers and nobles, at least in the short run. With Fred Goodwin have we reached a Marie Antoinette moment – a lightning rod for all our hatred of the bankers? Revolutions are a sign that political elites have failed to reform in time.

– mv, west midlands uk, 17/2/2012 19:45
Rating   14

The Prime Minister vetoed the EU summit in december saying it would badly hit the City of London. Maybe he is looking for a job there whedn he gets kicked out of 10 Downing Street

– Kenneth Keane, Apremont Vendee France, 17/2/2012 19:40
Rating   7

The banks should be supporting the economy not the economy supporting the banks.

– martin, kent, 17/2/2012 18:51
Rating   21

Great article Max. If I ever met your banking chum, I would tell him the following: A Bank manager invites a small businessman into his office. The bank manager

looks the businessman in the eyes & says “Look, you have had a loan with us for years. We know that the current economic climate is dire. We as a bank know that without us granting you this loan your business would not exist. We also know that you have not made a profit for some time…However, to recognise the fact that you are the only person on this planet who can lead your business, & to take into account the untold personal sacrifices that you have had to make as a person managing your business…please pay yourself a bonus equivalent to 150% of your salary each year from now on, Oh & forget the effect that this will have to your balance sheet”. The historic day that this event takes place will be the day that banks have ONE small businessman stop criticising bankers obscene display of personal greed & remuneration.

– Why…?, Oh Why…?, 17/2/2012 18:07
Rating   25

The delay in getting your money reminds me of the 5 working day time still needed, even in this electronic age, to clear cheques. It is a racket and disgrace that when you present a cheque, which is then immediately put through a character reading machine and has the amount keyed in, that it STILL has to take 5 working days to ‘get the money’ from the drawer’s account. What happens to the money during this time? And all this time the bank charges you interest and fees (if applicable) on any overdrawn amount. “Oh it hasn’t been cleared yet” is the response. Oh yeah?

– CDA, Alsager, Cheshire, 17/2/2012 17:17
Rating   25

Yea John Tate,I can just hear it from an insurance salesman,”of course this policy in x years may not be worth the money you have put into it”,it’s rubbish,it was based on the rate being around 8.5,sure there were 50 reams of paper to go through with various rates but I bet nobody did,that’s why they were framed that way. Any salesman telling potential customers that they could quite easily lose their savings would have been out the door within a week,and you know it.

– michael savell, brittany,france, 17/2/2012 17:12
Rating   9

He then made a conscious decision to go ahead with the investment against other types that would have been in the marketplace. Nothing is guaranteed!! – John Tate,

Bristol, 17/2/2012 13:47 ####…and you, as an ‘insider’ totally miss the point, or are being deliberately obtuse. The results, or final pay out if you will, were totally in the hands of those offering the product, not market forces. They are in the position of being able to influence things, by moving money around and paying themselves huge dividends to the extent that the funds in question generate little if any interest, just sufficient to keep on going, then blaming poor market performance for the poor results. Lawyers and bankers are of the same mould – parasites.

– Sick and tired of the lot of ’em, Essex, 17/2/2012 16:29

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Try this using the English debt level as a reason to ‘redistribute’ wealth via ‘requisitions’ of wealth from the wealthiest. ‘Requisition’ ALL that wealth of the riches but 20 million of the top 1% of England’s citizens – that should cover everything. Even 20 million is an unthinkable sum to the 99%, but given that some of these people are worth near billions, you’d imagine how up in arms these 1% types would about having ONLY 20 million. The 99% cannot even imagine having 2 million, so either the Plutocracy Bastille gets torn down with the government alongside them, or the confiscation by the government occurs. Capitalism with socialist limits is the only wy to distribute weakth and prevent extrem sequestration of financial resources. When debt is killing England, the 99% should not have to pay the bills and the 1% who live in extreme luxury with massive sequestered funds not put to any use or to help alleviate interest levels by removal of debt, should have a sense of patriotism to give up that wealth to clear England’s debt instead of selfishly running off with the money to tax havens or keeping silent while the country gets deeper in debt – the citizens make up the country so if the country is going down, it is ubconscionable for the 1% to sit still and then migrate when the country falls apart. In that case the government might as well confiscate those extyreme funds since the citizen has no interest in the country anyway and would watch the country fall like an ENEMY, not helping out.

UN passes symbolic condemnation of Syrian government – Published: 17 February, 2012, 01:27 Edited: 17 February, 2012, 09:46

In 1% tricks and traps, copyright, critical discourse, criticism, Equality, Equitable Distribution, Military Contractors, political correctness, politics, Straw-women on February 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Members of the United Nations General Assembly vote to endorse the Arab League’s plan for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad to step aside, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York February 16, 2012 (Reuters / Andrew Kelly)

The UN General Assembly has called on Syrian President Assad to step down. The resolution passed Thursday is worded similarly to a document vetoed in the UN Security Council by Russia and China. The adopted resolution has no executive power.

­The Assembly has passed the Egypt-sponsored resolution with 137 in favor, 12 against and 17 abstaining. It blames the Syrian government for “widespread and systematic” violation of human rights, and voices support for an Arab League plan for a transition of power in the country.

Russia and China voted against it, as expected. Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin lashed out at the resolution, saying it was one-sided and failed to condemn the opposition for their part of the violence as it does condemn the government. The resolution is in line with what Moscow sees as a trend “to isolate the Syrian leadership, reject any contacts with it, and impose a form of political settlement from abroad”.

“The violence in Syria must be stopped by all parties, and the necessary decisions may only be reached through an open political process led by Syrians themselves,” the Ambassador said.

US Ambassador Susan Rice, who praised the adoption of the resolution, confirmed that America’s goal is to chase the Syrian government into a corner: “Bashar al-Assad has never been more isolated. A rapid transition to democracy in Syria has garnered the resounding support of the international community. Change must now come.”

Britain, France, Egypt and some other nations supporting the resolution said it sends a powerful and clear message to the Syrian government.

China’s ambassador to the UN Wang Min backed Moscow’s position, saying: “The actions of the international community should be aimed at easing tensions, promoting political dialogue… rather than aggravating the problem.”

Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jaafari prior to the vote warned the resolution would send a wrong message to those “behind terrorism and sabotage” in Syria and undermine the authority of the United Nations. He called the document “biased” and “sponsored by the countries involved in a hostile campaign against Damascus and interested in fuelling the conflict”.

Unlike the UN Security Council, no country has a veto right at the 193-member-strong UN General Assembly. However, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding and only serve as recommendations to the UN Security Council. This makes Thursday’s document more symbolic than policy making.

Syria has been facing violence for 11 months now. More than 5,000 people have been killed, according to UN estimates, and some 25 thousand have become refugees.

Critics of the Syrian government say it is using force against its own population in an attempt to quash a pro-democratic drive in the country. Damascus says it is under a subtle attack from abroad, as its enemies are arming and sponsoring bandits to ramp up the violence and carrying out a massive smear campaign in the international media.

Russia and China have opposed what they see as a rushed and unbalanced UN action against the Syrian government, citing the negative example in Libya, where a UN Security Council resolution, which was meant to stop violent clashes, resulted in a months-long bombing campaign and forced regime change.

Proponents of putting more pressure on Damascus accuse Moscow and Beijing of abusing their power to protect economic interests in the region. Meanwhile critics of the anti-Assad drive say the west and its allies in the Persian Gulf say they want to oust the Syrian government to cripple the country’s key regional ally Iran.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

I believe that the BRICS-ALBA-PIIGS and any non-UN groupings such as NAM may have the right to remove their map representations of their country from the UN logo.

While countries in ‘good standing’ will have no issue with being on the UN logo, it is presumptuous to place a country within the UN logo (unless blacked  out or severely faded) which the UN brands a pariah with sanctions or has destroyed the economy with IMF compound interest (usury)/attacked economy via inapplicable trade regulations, or has IGNORED the pleas of, in situations of war by not sending Peacekeepers,or has sent Peacekeepers to effectively aid in an indirect form of ENGLISH colonisation.

The UN has been less than neutral to SOME nations and I believe that the map on the logo of the UN could be subject to any demand by any DISENFRANCHISED or even colonized nation to remove their country’s silhoutte from the UN logo immediately.

This is a right and a form of IP protection and demand to disallow misrepresentation that the country is a part of the UN. Some countries of course are guilty of abuses that have warranted the above actions though the intent towards international hegemony via the UN, or (recognition of microstates that skew the representation of votes by population) is equally unacceptable.

A multipolar world, not one dominated by a single grouping is safer for all the world’s citizens. All UNFAIRLY disenfranchised nations or nations believing they have been taken advantage of or manipulated or even lost language, faith and culture due to unwanted UN influence where valid, should demand that their nation’s silhoute be REMOVED or represented in a manner on a UN logo that shows a state of non-participation.

A multipolar world, made of EU, AU, ALBA, BRICS, OIC, ASEAN, UN and UIN, will be a safer and more people friendly form (also more competitive in social freedoms) than a single UN grouping dominating the world. By this suggestion UN thus should be subject to injunction that disallowes UN to misrepresent on UN’s logo, nations UN has ‘destroyed’ or ‘currently oppress’ as if those nations were treated as equals.

The conservative force — Lim Sue Goan – 3rd March 2010

In Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, dhimmi, dhimmitude, Equality, Lim Sue Goan, Malaysia, political correctness, politics, racism, subtle insults, vested interest, voting strategy on February 10, 2012 at 9:41 am

MARCH 3 — A Chinese association member who attended Sin Chew Daily and Guang Ming Daily 2010 Chinese New Year celebration said that as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak frequently attended activities held by Chinese, a friend of him told him that he will vote for Najib in the next general elections.

I do not know how many Chinese elders share the same thought with his friend but Najib will have a chance to listen to different views and understand the people’s needs only when he personally approaches non-Malays. The so-called “approaching the people” does not mean to stiffly shake hands and take photographs with them. Instead, he has to sit down to talk, listen and respond. It is also a kind of communications when Najib plans to meet Internet users.

When political leaders continue to communicate with the people, they can build interaction, foster mutual understanding to deal with those who try to provoke racial sentiments with bad intentions. Similar to Chinese organisations, they can magnify the power that supports Chinese education by communicating more with other racial groups. It also facilitates the implementation of the concept of “1 Malaysia”.

Unfortunately, when many people are doing their best to promote understanding, some organisations are engaged in small circles, hindering the country’s opening up policy and progress. For example, a total of 76 Malay non-governmental organisations formed a consultative council, Majlis Perundingan NGO Melayu (MPM), to oppose Najib’s opening-up economic measures. They vowed to defend Malay rights and Islam in the country. In fact, many organisations in the country are narrow-minded.

Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) are currently fighting for the inclusion of racial quota system and the Bumiputera equity requirement in the new economic model scheduled to be announced by the end of this month. Meanwhile, the Federation of Malay Economic Bodies (Gabem) called for Malay consumers to purchase goods only from Malay businessmen. Other radical organisations include the Association of Former Umno Elected Representatives (Mubarak), Federal Peninsular Malaysia Students Front (GPMS), Malay Professional Thinkers Association and Federation of Malay Writers Associations (Gapena).

If these organisations continue to think within the box and do not expand their struggling objective from Malays to the country and all Malaysians, the country will forever split. The country’s economic pie will not be able to expand without the cooperation of all Malaysians. How could you expect others to help you if you think only about the interests of your own racial group?

It is undeniable that many of these organisations are Umno members. Najib is facing a problem of how to implement the “1 Malaysia” concept within the party?

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pointed out that many members said they give full support to Najib but they are discontented with the “1 Malaysia” concept behind his back. For them, the concept is unfavourable to Malays. He also urged party members not to sabotage behind the prime minister.

Abdullah’s remarks have confirmed that the conservative force within the party has been hindering the implementation of the “1 Malaysia” concept. We believe that they are worried about the implementation of the concept may affect Malay privileges and the support of the civil society. However, their most concern is still their political interests. If the country’s economy continues to be opened up, racial quota system is abolished and open tender system is implemented for government projects, it will harm the interests of the cliques and related enterprises.



[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Historically, it has always been difficult to open up and reform. The country can move towards a bright future only after it has passed through the task. — mysinchew

” If these organisations continue to think within the box and do not expand their struggling objective from Malays to the country and all Malaysians, the country will forever split. The country’s economic pie will not be able to expand without the cooperation of all Malaysians. How could you expect others to help you if you think only about the interests of your own racial group? ”

Not just split, but likely discriminated by rising super powers India and China who make up 2/3rd of the world’s population and by their allies alone could make life very expensive and discriminatory to the racists who dare to be members of the 76 organisations above. As mentioned before, all Malays not part of the above organisations would not be subject to retaliation and should even form a counter organisation to announce to the world that they are true First Minded global citizens deserving the protection of all oppressed minorities here overseas. The minorities and right minded Malays will fight together for :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.

;everywhere around the world towards – a tax free, eminent domain power removing, demographically inclusive – Utopia :

Utopia Project :

Utopia – Capitalism with Socialist Caps on Personal Wealth – US$20 Million

OWS Supporter Michael Moore Lies on National Television About His Wealth – by Noel Sheppard – 26th October 2011

In Uncategorized on January 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm

QUOTE “No, I’m Not Worth Millions.” UNQUOTE – Michael Moore

Schlockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore is so hell-bent on being a leader of the Occupy Wall Street movement that he’s willing to lie about his wealth on national television. Appearing for the second time this month on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Tuesday, Moore dishonestly pushed back on any suggestion that he’s part of the top one percent in this nation who are millionaires (video follows with transcript and commentary):

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say, I’m in the 1 percent, because it’s important.

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I can’t. Because I’m not.

MORGAN: Because the validity of your argument — you are, though. MOORE: No, I’m not. I’m not.

MORGAN: You’re not in if 1 percent?

MOORE: Of course I’m not. How can I be in the 1 percent?

MORGAN: Because you’re worth millions.

MOORE: No, that’s not true. Listen, I do really well. I do well. But what’s the point, though? Isn’t that —

MORGAN: I do, because I find it more interesting if you’re in the 1 percent because I think you probably are.

MOORE: Yes. Yes.

MORGAN: You qualify.

MOORE: Right. MORGAN: That you are railing against a lot of capitalist ideals.

MOORE: Well, then if you believe that about me, then that’s really something, isn’t it?

MORGAN: No, I’m asking if you accept that.

MOORE: That even — that even though — that even though I do well, that I don’t associate myself with those who do well, I am devoting my life to those who have less and who have been crapped upon by the system. And that’s how I spend my time, my energy, my money on trying to up-end this system that I think is a system of violence, it’s a system that’s unfair to the average working person of this country. And it was a mistake to ever give me a dime from the day Time Warner actually gave me money to buy “Roger and Me.”

MORGAN: (INAUDIBLE) I thought eventually.

MOORE: No, no, but this place essentially was where I began. And —

MORGAN: OK. Let’s go to somebody who is in the 99 —

MOORE: I hope they rue the day that they ever allowed me up on a movie screens.

MORGAN: I’m sure we will. According to our friends at Celebrity Net Worth, Moore’s fortune currently totals $50 million: Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million. Moore wants to dress and act as if he’s just a regular guy part of the 99 percenters, but he is every bit a multimillionaire doing everything in his power to make more money for himself. He invests his fortune in stocks – including the Left’s most-hated company Halliburton! – and isn’t pro-union when it comes to managing his own business. That folks in this movement hold this man up as an icon for what they stand for is an indictment of how clueless and hypocritical they are as well.

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Michael Moore has at least 1 chance (i.e. before the elections) to prove this article wrong and redistribute his immense wealth (heck keep a few million for your own use but PLEASE use the rest – USA is so bankrupt right now, no ‘rich’ person or patriotic American can with good conscience sequester any wealth . . . ) by at least running for candidacy or funding independent candidates throughout the USA to challenge the establishment’s hegelian dialectic of GOP and Democrats (also Tea Party).

But if Michael Moore doesn’t act in a reasonable time frame to put that money to good use, Michael Moore is indeed a very cynical figure who sequesters wealth, makers alot of noise but does not put his money where his mouth is.

Mike, with that money, at very least, how about setting up a MEDICAL shelter/cooperative that both grants free education grants for medical professional wannabes (they can pay back perhaps later whatever they use for their education now) and at least funds free treatment for the poorest? Otherwise fund some independent candidates. Being the kind of person who can make a ‘Sicko’ film, you don’t need people to tell you to not sit on your wealth while you country is rotting do you?