# Can the "Michael Moore" strategy "Supersize Me" my savings?



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I've often been asked about my strategies for making money, and that dot me to thinking about one of them in particular...

Introducing the patented "*Michael Moore investment strategy*" copywrite & trademark 2014 just a guy enterprises, all rights reserved, no use without permission, etc. etc....

Over the years, I've read a number of books and watched documentaries of the "protest" nature of business. Often, I've found myself investing in the very companies these guys complain about and seem to have done quite well...I'll admit they don't all relate to Michael Moore, nor have I invested in all of them, however...

Companies like Nike (roger and me), the gun manufactures, slumberger, the health care system, con Agra (fast food nation), international scents and fragrances (ditto), McDonald's (supersize me) seem to have done quite well.

Has anyone out there got the time to see how well my new system has done long term? I'm too lazy to run the numbers...

If I'm wrong, I'll go around giving seminars to get people on board my new system and cash in that way. If I'm right, please ignore this post so I can cash in alone...


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

"Supersize Me" was a Morgan Spurlock movie, not Michael Moore.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Last line of the third paragraph...


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

Does this mean socially responsible investing is a scam?


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

"The Wealthy Barber" discussed an investing model where you buy stocks in companies you hate, but buy from anyway.

The point was that they have a great business model, or high barriers to entry, or you wouldn't deal with them at all. Rogers, for instance. Banks. Monsanto, Walmart, etc. It's a model, I guess.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

roger and me was about gm, not nike

if you want to develop a strategy of buying large companies that behave badly why not just go long the s&p500 ? :biggrin:


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

gt_23 said:


> Does this mean socially responsible investing is a scam?


Often it is steeped in sanctimony and judgment with no practical alternative to what ever they are against. I guess that is sort of a scam. Every time McDonald's tries something "healthy" on the menu, not enough people buy it, so they drop it off the menu. Then the company gets blamed. Companies supply what people want. If they supplied what people didn't want in order to be socially responsible, they'd go out of business. 

And Michael Moore...don't get me going on him...if he does something morally right its only because he can make some money of another manipulative movie. And if he can't find a moral way to make some money, no problem, he just smears someone or some business and then laughs all the way to the bank. Moore, the apparent lefty challenging the right wing,
has recently complained about the erosion of civil liberties by the left wing government. But the latter - individual rights - is traditionally right wing. So what gives? he's in favour of imposing his version of responsibility on every individual but not other peoples ideas on him. 
Just wait, if he pushes this civil liberties idea any more he'll be joining some right wing rural "Freeman" group and be toting a firearm.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I think if you do the opposite of Michael Moore you will be right more than you are wrong. But, if you bought GM stock when Roger and Me came out I doubt you made money.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Authoritarianism is found on the left and the right. It's a joke to say that the left doesn't have libertarianism. What about social liberalism?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The issue with Michael Moore (and other political satirists like him) is that the moment they take sides, they lose all credibility.
Which Michael Moore did the moment he endorsed Obama.
He even added a plug for Obama towards the end of the movie _Sicko_, vaguely labeling him as a progressive socialist or some such mumbo jumbo.

Now, nearly 6 years later, I wonder how Moore feels in his heart of hearts having watched Obama do the very same things that Moore stood staunchly against (such as Wall St. & Big Business bailouts, Iraq War, etc.).

A true political satirist or social cause champion cannot take sides.
They must always be against all administrations, politicians, lobby groups, vested interest groups, regardless of rhetoric and political persuasions.
Their aim should be to expose the corruption, lies, and inner dealings on both sides of the political spectrum.

The great Anglo-Indian political satirist - *Khushwant Singh *- used to have a very nice slogan/catchphrase for his writings - _*With Malice Towards One and All*_.
That is what is needed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't know if I agree, Harold. They need to be able to criticize everyone, and not treat their preferred pol with kid gloves. As Bill Maher says, "Obama's not your boyfriend."

Moore has been critical of Obama. I wouldn't call him a satirist, though. He's more of a propagandist, like FOX News.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> He's more of a propagandist, like FOX News.


He's more of a propagandist, like FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and CBC.

FIFY.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

FOX is in a league of their own.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't know if I agree, Harold. They need to be able to criticize everyone, and not treat their preferred pol with kid gloves.


That is what I meant.
At least, that's the meaning I intended to convey.
A true political critic cannot take sides.
They will lose all credibility sooner or later.
Like Moore did.

If you watch the last 30 mins. or so of _Sicko_, you will see how he drools over Obama.
The Second Coming of Christ.
Hope & Change, etc...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Michael Moore is an idealogue and he will follow the party line right to the bitter end.


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Authoritarianism is found on the left and the right. It's a joke to say that the left doesn't have libertarianism. What about social liberalism?


+1


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism



> Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


Contrary to what the left would like you to believe, this doesn't sound particularly rightwing/conservative/capitalist to me.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what the left would like you to believe, this doesn't sound particularly rightwing/conservative/capitalist to me.


I have found the definition of Fascism to be elusive. The definition that you found appears to be a definition of Totalitarianism. Fascism seems to be a type of totalitarianism that isn't captured by the definition you found. What I found is the claim that Fascism is totalitarianism that caters to the interests of privately owned business, which distinguishes it from communist totalitarianism, which is decidedly anti privatively owned business. That definition seems to work for me as it distinguishes, for example, communist Cuba from the so called banana republics, the latter being considered totalitarian, but also right wing while the former, is totalitarian, but left wing.


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

Nemo2 said:


> ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what the left would like you to believe, this doesn't sound particularly rightwing/conservative/capitalist to me.


Of course, which is why the spectrum isn't perfect. Hitler's fascism, for example, was left-wing.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

J Watts said:


> Of course, which is why the spectrum isn't perfect. Hitler's fascism, for example, was left-wing.


Also, the chart shows 'conservative' as Authoritarian, ignoring the fact that those who promote _Groupthink_, who shout down and/or disrupt speakers with whom they disagree, (Hirsi Ali, Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, to name just a few), for the audacity of engaging in _Crimethink_, who riot against anything and everything that doesn't conform to their dystopian ideals; in short those who want to control & regulate the lives of others so that they fit the mold are almost invariably leftists.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Almost invariably? Where is that eye roll emoticon...


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Almost invariably? Where is that eye roll emoticon...


OK..approximately 99.6 times out of 100...I used 'almost' for brevity.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

This political spectrum talk reminds me of the Canadian political party, "Progressive Conservative", apparently meaning going forwards by going back, but I suppose they were just trying to create broad appeal. Political spectrum's seem confusing, but I suppose that's just me foolishly expecting things to make sense.


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

Pluto said:


> This political spectrum talk reminds me of the Canadian political party, "Progressive Conservative", apparently meaning going forwards by going back, but I suppose they were just trying to create broad appeal. Political spectrum's seem confusing, but I suppose that's just me foolishly expecting things to make sense.


Your interpretation of "progressive conservatism" is backwards. Progressive conservative is redundant, because conservatism is inherently progressive.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think you may have to justify that assertion. Conservatives are generally reactionaries, the opposite of progressives.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Once they are in power can you actually tell a difference between the governments? I've been screwed no matter which party was in power...why are we debating which is better/worse? They are still the same despite the label. Heck, some change labels every few years, yet keep the same people. Some "cross the floor" and run for the opposite party...it's all just shuffling the deck chairs.


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Once they are in power can you actually tell a difference between the governments? I've been screwed no matter which party was in power...why are we debating which is better/worse? They are still the same despite the label. Heck, some change labels every few years, yet keep the same people. Some "cross the floor" and run for the opposite party...it's all just shuffling the deck chairs.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I think you may have to justify that assertion. Conservatives are generally reactionaries, the opposite of progressives.


"Progress" in terms of new ideas, better products, lower taxes, better standards of living, better government, etc. These are all policies/philosophies that help people progress in society, and they're conservative in nature.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

J Watts said:


> You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


Right...

In B.C. Several of the last provincial leaders have been convicted of crimes be they social credit or NDP. In Alberta Redford just left in scandal, king Ralph, leader of the PC party used to be liberal, but lost the leadership race so crossed the floor, shall we continue across the country (we could probably sight cases in every province, I know Ontario you could write a book about) or look at the great federal leaders (has life drastically changed between the liberals and the conservatives?) or the PC, reform, PC party?


----------



## J Watts (Jul 19, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Right...
> 
> In B.C. Several of the last provincial leaders have been convicted of crimes be they social credit or NDP. In Alberta Redford just left in scandal, king Ralph, leader of the PC party used to be liberal, but lost the leadership race so crossed the floor, shall we continue across the country (we could probably sight cases in every province, I know Ontario you could write a book about) or look at the great federal leaders (has life drastically changed between the liberals and the conservatives?) or the PC, reform, PC party?


Right, so you're on the "all politicians are corrupt" kick. Cool.

P.S. There is a book about Ontario: http://freedompress.ca/product/liars-the-mcguinty-wynne-record/


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

No, I said it doesn't matter who's been elected leader...I believe the bureaucracy, which doesn't change with any election, goes on and on doing the same thing and generally out waiting the politicians...at least in Canada. Other countries have revolutions once in a while...historically speaking that tends to change things for a little while at least.

Despite which province I've lived in, generally I pay more taxes every year, get less services and read about scandals, kickbacks, corruption and whatever dispute any changes to the party I power.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Pluto said:


> I have found the definition of Fascism to be elusive. The definition that you found appears to be a definition of Totalitarianism. Fascism seems to be a type of totalitarianism that isn't captured by the definition you found. What I found is the claim that Fascism is totalitarianism that caters to the interests of privately owned business, which distinguishes it from communist totalitarianism, which is decidedly anti privatively owned business. That definition seems to work for me as it distinguishes, for example, communist Cuba from the so called banana republics, the latter being considered totalitarian, but also right wing while the former, is totalitarian, but left wing.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html



> As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.




And here's the essence......a turf war....Bloods & Crips, Hells Angels & Bandidos:



> *The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance.* As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> I think you may have to justify that assertion. Conservatives are generally reactionaries, the opposite of progressives.


That's what I thought.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

J Watts said:


> "Progress" in terms of new ideas, better products, lower taxes, better standards of living, better government, etc. These are all policies/philosophies that help people progress in society, and they're conservative in nature.


You have the word "better" in there a lot, but it doesn't mean much unless it is phrased "this is better than that". Just saying something is "better" doesn't mean much unless it is compared to something else. And how can there be progress when traditions are valued highly? What does "people progress in society" mean? Progress toward what? 

I'm not really convinced there are such things in politics as "new ideas". And I'm not convinced there is "Progress" in politics.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nemo2 said:


> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
> 
> And here's the essence......a turf war....Bloods & Crips, Hells Angels & Bandidos:


OK. I'll buy that.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Pluto said:


> OK. I'll buy that.





From Patrick Leigh Fermor's _A Time Of Gifts_ (where he is hiking in pre-WWII Germany that is already under Hitler's control).

Fermor meets a group in a "Workmen's bar" and is offered a cot for the night in a room that turns out to be a "Shrine of Hitleriana".........I have transposed some of the subsequent conversation here:



> "You should have seen it last year! You would have laughed! Then it was all red flags, stars, hammers and sickles, pictures of Lenin and Stalin and Workers of the World, Unite! I used to punch the heads of anyone singing the Horst Wessel Lied! It was all the Red Flag and the International then! I wasn't only a Sozi, but a Kommi, ein echter Bolschewik!" He gave a clenched fist salute. "You should have seen me! Street fights! We used to beat the hell out of the Nazis, and they beat the hell out of us. We laughed ourselves silly - Man hat sich totgelacht. Then suddenly, when Hitler came to power, I understood it was all nonsense and lies. I realized Adolf was the man for me. All of a sudden!" He snapped his fingers in the air. "And here I am!"
> 
> What about his old pals, I asked. "They changed too! - all those chaps in the bar. Every single one! They're all in the S.A. now." Had a lot of people done the same then? A lot? His eyes opened wide. "Millions! I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides!"


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Fascism = National Socialism

Communism = International Socialism

This is what they don't want to admit, that Fascism and Communism are both socialism in different color shirts. Nazi is short for National Socialist Party and everything they did was right out of the Socialist playbook. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Stalin was better at eliminating opposition and held power longer by killing more people.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ Plus the Nazis had better uniforms than the Soviets. :wink:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

They were designed by Hugo Boss


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Nazi is short for National Socialist Party and everything they did was right out of the Socialist playbook.


How so?
What socialist playbook?
Are you referring to the _Communist Manifesto_?

Nazism/Fascism (if it can even be defined) has nothing in common with socialism or communism.

Nazism outlaws labor unions - socialism is all about unionization
Nazism support large corporations protected by the state - socialism abolishes corporations
Nazism prefers an oligopolistic economic structure - socialism prefers one state-one enterprise

There are too many differences to itemize, but they have nothing in common.

So why was Hitler's party called "National Socialist"?
Well, to begin with, he didn't choose the name, or even create the party - he usurped it.
Kinda like a reverse takeover ;o)

Secondly, the idea was to offer a "middle ground" political party by combining the fierce nationalism of the Third Reich and the socialism of the left.
Thus the name National Socialist Party.

How can Hitler's Nazi party be even remotely close to an idea (socialism/communism) made popular by a Jew (Karl Marx).


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Nazism, Communism, Fascism = Total State control of the country/populace.......what its/their ostensible ideals are are basically immaterial...it's the control that matters.



HaroldCrump said:


> "How can Hitler's Nazi party be even remotely close to an idea (socialism/communism) made popular by a Jew (Karl Marx)."


Howcum anti-Semitism was rife in the USSR, especially under 'Uncle Joe', in a system made popular by a Jew (Karl Marx)?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The USSR was not communist, at least not per the definitions and guidelines laid down by Marx & Engels in their writings.
Putting the word communist in the name of a party or country does not make it so.

Just like putting the word socialist in the name of a party (Nazi) does not make it socialist.
Anyone can start a political party and call it whatever they want (freedom of speech).
Just because the October revolution was carried out by peasants, serfs, and homeless soldiers does not mean it was a communist revolution.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't know who thinks they are going to win an argument by proving how terrible totalitarian regimes are. It's not as if social democrats are advocating totalitarianism.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

_"The goal of socialism is communism."_

Vladimir Lenin


Ah...what would _he_ know? :biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> _"The goal of socialism is communism."_
> Vladimir Lenin
> Ah...what would _he_ know?


You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.
The socialism/communism that eventually got implemented in the USSR under Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev was not the Marxist-Engels idea of socialism/communism.

Your quote from Lenin above is indeed true - but for the Marxist plan for socialism, not what happened in the USSR.

Marx & Engels did not in their wildest dreams envision a society going from an underdeveloped agrarian society (which is what Russia was in the early 20th century) to revolution to communism all within a couple of years.
Socialism was supposed to be a transitory phase, but lasting for several decades before communism.
There are key differences between socialism and communism which Marx & Engels have documented in their writings.

What was done in the USSR post Lenin is essentially no different than Pol Pot doing what he did in Cambodia and calling it "communism".
There is nothing stopping the ISIS or an equally fundamentalist regime in the middle east calling themselves "communist".

Going back to Lenin, I don't believe he ever actually met Marx or Engles, or even had any correspondence with them.
Although his writings (such as _State and Revolution_ provide a slightly modern glimpse into the post-Marx state of revolution, many classical socialists do not consider Lenin a Marxist, along the same lines as Rosa Luxemberg or Leon Trotsky (who did not get along well with Lenin, and even less so with Stalin).

It is a well known fact that Lenin modified and re-interpreted many of Marx's and Engles' ideas to suit the purpose of the Russian revolution.
The Bolsheviks wanted to be known as communists, and therefore, Lenin re-interpreted whatever was needed to make that happen.

He was often accused of being a revisionist during his last days.

His key contributions, though, are in the area of imperialism.
_The State and Revolution_ is a classic read any day.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.
> The socialism/communism that eventually got implemented in the USSR under Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev was not the Marxist-Engels idea of socialism/communism.


As per my observation in post #41, totalitarians, or wannabe totalitarians, those to whom individuality is an anathema, regardless of what they espouse or profess to believe in, want control, with the nomenklatura et al (i.e. _them_) calling the shots and the hoi polloi blindly obeying.

Like good conmen they disguise their intended outcomes with rhetoric, (always for the good of the people/state, or in the case of ISIS, Allah)....in some countries/areas they have been able to accomplish this directly, generally militarily, but in others they are forced to be more surreptitious and resort to subtle forms of indoctrination........boiling a frog as it were.

Everything always sounds so, so, _reasonable_, and only the 'archaic' and 'unreasonable' think to offer protests, and they are scorned by the indoctrinated.

Theory, Schmeery...it's all about who gives the orders.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the issue, Nemo, is that you are misconstruing socialism with totalitarianism. It's a strawman.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I think the issue, Nemo, is that you are misconstruing socialism with totalitarianism. It's a strawman.


To paraphrase Obama, (OMG, who ever thought I'd do _that_?), socialists are just totalitarian JaVees. :wink:


----------

