Author Topic: Liberal Hypocrisy  (Read 95379 times)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2014, 03:44:42 PM »
this post is so full of stupid I don't even know where to start.
 you really need to go to college.

I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE you that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture.  you would have to be a fucking idiot to believe that.  Michael Moore's compensation was an expense of the venture to arrive at net income.  do you know anything about accounting?  you're really unfucking believable.  the guy is worth $50 million and you think he would make a deal like that?  

and just so we're clear.  do you believe that Michael Moore made this movie and made ZERO money?  better yet, do you believe he paid money out of his own pocket to make this movie that grossed over $14 million dollars?  

jesus fucking H Christ someone please just fucking shoot me!

spare me guarantees and show me some proof of any of your claims

keep in mind my original statement was that the film lost money and that is a fact

please go research how movie profits get disbursed (I provided some info for you on this thread)

do you know how many people make profitable movies still wind up screwing their investors

Again, also try to keep in mind the topic of this thread is the false narrative that Moore is somehow anti-capitalist and shouldn't own real estate.    

Typical Get Big Thread - we start with a false premise an then a confederacy of dunces can't even keep track of the original topic and confuse themselves with another off topic false premise of their own making

BTW - I have to say that you belief that Moore compensation on this film (or any of his films) was not in some way based on the "net income of the venture" is fucking HILARIOUS

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2014, 03:47:47 PM »
spare me guarantees and show me some proof of any of your claims

keep in mind my original statement was that the film lost money and that is a fact

please go research how movie profits get disbursed (I provided some info for you on this thread)

do you know how many people make profitable movies still wind up screwing their investors

Again, also try to keep in mind the topic of this thread is the false narrative that Moore is somehow anti-capitalist and shouldn't own real estate.    

Typical Get Big Thread - we start with a false premise an then a confederacy of dunces can't even keep track of the original topic and confuse themselves with another off topic false premise of their own making

BTW - I have to say that you belief that Moore compensation on this film (or any of his films) was not in some way based on the "net income of the venture" is fucking HILARIOUS


seriously can't believe that you're plowing ahead with this idiocy. 

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2014, 03:52:39 PM »
I actually have a degree in finance and work in the field (not that it's needed for this conversation given that you're a glorified gym teacher)

scroll back to the top of this page and you'll see this quote from me

Are you aware the Francis Ford Coppola mortgaged his properties to make The God Father and that he financed Apocalypse Now himself because no studio would touch it.   I'm sure you remember that Sado Masochistic snuff film, The Passion of the Christ.  Mel Gibson famously financed that via his production company. 

So yes, people put money into their own films.  It happens all the time.

And like I've pointed out three times now, the film lost money and I'm sure that was not Moores intention.



yes some guys started off broke.  I get it.  and some guys took risks. I get that. 

and do you know why Mel Gibson started his own production company?  tell us why YOU think he would do that. 

do you know why you and your liberal asshat friends bitch about large corporations not paying income tax in a given year?  tell us why YOU think that is. 

i'm asking these questions because they're all related to your ridiculously stupid assertions that you're making.  I also don't want you to weasel out of being an idiot so i'm making you answer these questions first before I go forward.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2014, 03:57:46 PM »
seriously can't believe that you're plowing ahead with this idiocy. 

This is you and Dopey Coach's premise

remember

I'm the one who said Moores film lost money and I'm sure that wasn't his intention

you're the one who "guaranteed" me that  "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture." and that I would have to be an "idiot to believe that"

So you believe that the guy who directed, produced and wrote the film had received no compensation based on the "net income of the venture" as you put it

Kind of odd given that is exactly how he made money on many of his prior films and exactly how most producer/directors and even actors make money on a film

Seriously man, this belief of  yours  ...which you wrote "I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE"
is one of the dumbest comments I've even seen on this board (and that's saying something)

For some proof of the stupidity of your claim let's review exactly how Moore was "compensated" on some of his other films

Do you see his "compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture".... as you wrote

Quote
Moore's three biggest movies, "Bowling For Columbine", "Fahrenheit 911″ and "Capitalism A Love Story" have earned over $300 million at the box office to date. Fahrenheit 911 set the record for highest grossing documentary of all time when it earned $230 million in theaters worldwide. Fahrenheit eventually earned an additional $3 million from DVD sales. How much of that money goes into Michael Moore's pockets? Prior to the release of Fahrenheit 911, Michael signed a deal with movie distributor which would entitle him to 27% of his film's net revenues.

With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales
.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59468
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2014, 06:29:26 PM »
I'm well aware that people invest in movies

he may or may not have had investors but that doesn't mean the movie didn't lose money

also, since he and his wife produced it and it's a condemnation of the abuses of capitalism I suspect it was self financed (he certainly could afford the 20 million budget himself)

If you have some actual proof that he made money on this film then post it

Read this again, carefully..

Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand? 

"If there is no profit made from the movie, he makes NOTHING FROM THE MOVIE"

You have a degree in finance (yet you can't figure out that raising taxes kills business, but I digress) in some part of that you have to had covered business finance (Business loans, venture capitol, private investors, etc) if you did, you should know when putting a business plan together to present to a lender, investor or whatever, you include salaries. This includes his own.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2014, 06:44:54 PM »
Read this again, carefully..

Are you business inept? He didn't spend shit, no one seeking approval for INVESTORS uses their own money to fund a movie...lol. Are you shitting me? Every movie made is business risk because IT'S A BUSINESS. I'm sure his negotiations included his salary (like most ventures) plus a percentage of the movie proceeds. If there is no profit from the movie, he makes nothing FROM THE MOVIE. Understand?  

"If there is no profit made from the movie, he makes NOTHING FROM THE MOVIE"

You have a degree in finance (yet you can't figure out that raising taxes kills business, but I digress) in some part of that you have to had covered business finance (Business loans, venture capitol, private investors, etc) if you did, you should know when putting a business plan together to present to a lender, investor or whatever, you include salaries. This includes his own.

pay attention Dopey

I never claimed that he used solely his own money or any of his own money.  I merely said he may well have done so

What I did say is that the movie lost money

Now if you have some details of the budget and his salary (IF ANY) or proof that he had none of his own money invested in this film then provide it or or STFU

We're not even discussing the topic of this thread

Again, we're discussing your unproven claim that Moore personally made money on this film/invested none of his own money.... which I will point out again is something I never said in the first place

I said the film made no money and now I've spent more time trying to help you pull your head out of your ass based on your apparent misunderstanding of what I wrote (or maybe it's just your profound stupidity)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59468
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2014, 07:34:54 PM »
pay attention Dopey

I never claimed that he used solely his own money or any of his own money.  I merely said he may well have done so

What I did say is that the movie lost money

Now if you have some details of the budget and his salary (IF ANY) or proof that he had none of his own money invested in this film then provide it or or STFU

We're not even discussing the topic of this thread

Again, we're discussing your unproven claim that Moore personally made money on this film/invested none of his own money.... which I will point out again is something I never said in the first place

I said the film made no money and now I've spent more time trying to help you pull your head out of your ass based on your apparent misunderstanding of what I wrote (or maybe it's just your profound stupidity)

Yeah Dummy, I'm quite sure he's going to make his budgets known to the public. This discussion has direct correlation to this topic.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #57 on: July 23, 2014, 07:51:16 PM »
Yeah Dummy, I'm quite sure he's going to make his budgets known to the public. This discussion has direct correlation to this topic.

correct, so you have no clue what his deal was or whether he even took a salary

again, keep in mind this sidetrack of yours has nothing to do with the Bums false premise that started this thread

whether he took a salary or not is irrelevant because I assume he WANTED to make a profit on this film just like anyone else


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #58 on: July 23, 2014, 08:10:17 PM »
the very gross myers was very honest about hating the iraqi war, but investing heavily in haliburton/defense companies and making a killing $ off of the war. 

bowling for columbine = the biggest self-serving bowl of crap since, well,

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2014, 07:25:36 AM »
This is you and Dopey Coach's premise

remember

I'm the one who said Moores film lost money and I'm sure that wasn't his intention

you're the one who "guaranteed" me that  "Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture." and that I would have to be an "idiot to believe that"

So you believe that the guy who directed, produced and wrote the film had received no compensation based on the "net income of the venture" as you put it

Kind of odd given that is exactly how he made money on many of his prior films and exactly how most producer/directors and even actors make money on a film

Seriously man, this belief of  yours  ...which you wrote "I guarantee you..........GUARANTEE"
is one of the dumbest comments I've even seen on this board (and that's saying something)

For some proof of the stupidity of your claim let's review exactly how Moore was "compensated" on some of his other films

Do you see his "compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture".... as you wrote
.

i'm confused.  your quote says that he is paid based upon the net revenues of the film.  and that's what i'm saying.  

he gets paid before taking into account any expenses.  he gets paid on the net revenues that the film generates.  PERIOD.  that means that he is paid a certain percentage of revenues no matter what the other expenses are.  if the movie grosses 100 million at the box office, he gets 27 million dollars.  the movie could lose $50 million.........and he'd still get $27 million.  and yes he ALSO gets a piece of the net income.....AFTER HE GETS HIS CUT OF THE GROSS REVENUES.  but make no mistake he made sure he got his 27% of the gross revenues FIRST.  then if the venture's statement of profit and loss is in the black he gets a cut of that too.

you do know what net revenues means right?  Oh God you don't.  please.........just..... ....stop.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2014, 07:41:27 AM »
I should remind all of you libs that this is also a perfect example of why large corporations don't have a federal tax liability in a given year.  and all the libs lose their minds with these little factoids.  

take Michael Moore's venture, for example.  Let's assume that it is structured as a C-corp for arguments sake.  

Now lets say the movie grosses $100 million.  now everyone looks at that and automatically thinks, "Hey they made a shit ton of money, they should have a huge tax bill".  Well no they have NO TAX BILL.  why?  because they passed out that money as either salary, or distributions to the officers and employees of the company and at the end of the day they spent more than they brought in.  but everyone got paid straw. 

and what college kid liberals have to understand is that all of those people who received that compensation will be taxed on that income at their individual rates, which are usually less than the corporate rates.  so people bitch about the corp not paying tax but what they don't understand is that the individuals making up the corp took the money out of the corp and had to pay the individual tax rates on that money.  so that money was taxed.  just not at the corporate level, they were taxed on the individual level.  and with the high income tax payers, they're saving just a couple 2-3 points on that tax.  the corp also gets to carry forward that net operating loss and set it against income in future years.  and that is tax planning.  there's nothing nefarious about it.

this is the exact scenario that occurred with facebook.  and every lib lost their mind when they found out "facebook paid no taxes".

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2014, 07:48:31 AM »
Why bother?  Straw is a fool

I should remind all of you libs that this is also a perfect example of why large corporations don't have a federal tax liability in a given year.  and all the libs lose their minds with these little factoids.  

take Michael Moore's venture, for example.  Let's assume that it is structured as a C-corp for arguments sake.  

Now lets say the movie grosses $100 million.  now everyone looks at that and automatically thinks, "Hey they made a shit ton of money, they should have a huge tax bill".  Well no they have NO TAX BILL.  why?  because they passed out that money as either salary, or distributions to the officers and employees of the company and at the end of the day they spent more than they brought in.  but everyone got paid straw. 

and what college kid liberals have to understand is that all of those people who received that compensation will be taxed on that income at their individual rates, which are usually less than the corporate rates.  so people bitch about the corp not paying tax but what they don't understand is that the individuals making up the corp took the money out of the corp and had to pay the individual tax rates on that money.  so that money was taxed.  just not at the corporate level, they were taxed on the individual level.  and with the high income tax payers, they're saving just a couple 2-3 points on that tax.  the corp also gets to carry forward that net operating loss and set it against income in future years.  and that is tax planning.  there's nothing nefarious about it.

this is the exact scenario that occurred with facebook.  and every lib lost their mind when they found out "facebook paid no taxes".

JOHN MATRIX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13281
  • the Media is the Problem
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2014, 08:25:15 AM »
Lol everyone keep in mind that Strawman is the same guy who claimed last year that "the majority of NRA members were for obama's gun control legislation".

This is the mind you guys are trying to argue with.
He will literally defend ANY Leftist talking point no matter how ridiculous

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2014, 09:20:31 AM »
Stone cold hypocrite.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2014, 03:44:32 PM »
i'm confused.  your quote says that he is paid based upon the net revenues of the film.  and that's what i'm saying.  

he gets paid before taking into account any expenses.  he gets paid on the net revenues that the film generates.  PERIOD.  that means that he is paid a certain percentage of revenues no matter what the other expenses are.  if the movie grosses 100 million at the box office, he gets 27 million dollars.  the movie could lose $50 million.........and he'd still get $27 million.  and yes he ALSO gets a piece of the net income.....AFTER HE GETS HIS CUT OF THE GROSS REVENUES.  but make no mistake he made sure he got his 27% of the gross revenues FIRST.  then if the venture's statement of profit and loss is in the black he gets a cut of that too.

you do know what net revenues means right?  Oh God you don't.  please.........just..... ....stop.


the quote regarding Moore's take on various films mentions his compensation is based on "net revenue" and "profits"

For most types of business net revenue is Revenue less sales returns and allowances.

Clearly it has a different meaning in this industry because Box Office Receipt less 50% to the theaters left 130 million in what should be "net revenue" but then they deducted  the expenses of "marketing, production, and distribution" before arriving at "net revenue".   Production likely includes the cost to make the film.  So Net revenue sounds a lot more like "net income" or "profits" than it does "net revenue"

Quote
With Fahrenheit, after the theaters took their standard 50% cut of box office receipts, roughly $130 million in revenue was left over. When you take away marketing, production and distribution expenses, Miramax and Moore were left with an estimated $80 million payday. Moore's 27% cut on this film alone would eventually work out to roughly $21.6 million. He was actually entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which reportedly generated an additional $17 million payday for Michael. Moore is the author of eight books to date, several of which have gone on to be New York Time best sellers. Michael received a reported $1 million advance for "Dude Where's My Country" plus a generous percentage of the book sales

Further on in the same quote it said he was entitled to "50% of the profits" of Sicko"

So in both cases his income is directly tied to the financial success of the film whether is net revenue (calculated after a bunch of expenses are deducted) or "profits"

Either way it shows your guarantee to me that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture is complete bullshit.  Even if you want to argue that net revenue doesn't "walk and talk" like net income you can't argue that regarding Sicko which explicitly says "profits"

Once again this has nothing to do with the false premise that started this thread






OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2014, 04:47:52 PM »
Stone cold hypocrite.



Not even close. 


more cherry picking.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40628
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2014, 05:02:47 PM »
Another anti-capitalist liberal hypocrite.

MICHAEL MOORE OWNS 9 HOMES
by JOHN NOLTE  23 Jul 2014

Added: The Smoking Gun was the first outlet to report this, and did so weeks ago.

According to the Detroit News, anti-capitalism "everyman" filmmaker Michael Moore owns 9 homes. On top of a $2 million, 10,000 square foot lakefront mansion in Torch Lake, Michigan, there is a Manhattan condo that was once 3 condos, and 7 other properties. Moore's secret role as a land baron was revealed in divorce papers:

The filmmaker, 60, who split his time between a home here and one in New York, is leaving his wife of 22 years, Kathy Glynn.

His hit movies and best-selling books have begat a lifestyle far from most ballcap-wearing, duck-waddling denizens of Flint.

Moore and Glynn own nine properties in Michigan and New York, including a Manhattan condo that once was three apartments. CelebrityNetWorth.com pegs their wealth at $50 million.

In legal pleadings, Moore blames his wife for the expansion of the 10,000-square-foot home on Torch Lake, which has a value of $2 million.
Since his 1989 "Roger and Me," Michael Moore has earned upwards of $50 million trashing capitalism.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/23/michael-moore-owns-9-homes

This should not surprise anyone. Michael Moore isn't a liberal so much as he is a guy who makes a ton of money off both conservative and liberal people with his controversial films.

I think this last paragraph from and article about him rather sums up who Michael Moore is.

Quote
In closing, Moore is summarized as having become extremely wealthy and an icon of the ”international left wing” due to frequently painting the American public as being ”racist, greedy, exploitive, uncaring, and criminal,” but Moore exhibits many of those same traits that he criticizes.

For more on Moore, go here: http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/book_summaries/daisnaid/daisnaid_moore.php



Quote
Activist, author and documentary film maker, Moore brings into the spotlight less-known perspectives on serious issues. He is the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and most recently Sicko, three of the highest-grossing documentaries.

In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Moore invited Madonna to show her documentary, I Am Because We Are, on the tragedy of Malawi’s AIDS orphans, at his home town film festival in Traverse City, Michigan.

Not famous for his singing voice, Michael contributed to the “Occupy This Album” box set that came out in May 2012 in support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

 
Charities & foundations supported 1

Michael Moore has supported the following charities:


Raising Malawi

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2014, 05:28:40 PM »
Not even close. 


more cherry picking.

It's spot on and consistent with his anti-capitism hypocrisy.  He should donate his money to the other 99 percent.  Turn one or two of his nine houses into a homeless shelter. 


Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40628
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2014, 05:49:36 PM »
It's spot on and consistent with his anti-capitism hypocrisy.  He should donate his money to the other 99 percent.  Turn one or two of his nine houses into a homeless shelter. 



He's definitely no Michael Gates in the charity department.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2014, 04:54:27 AM »
It's spot on and consistent with his anti-capitism hypocrisy.  He should donate his money to the other 99 percent.  Turn one or two of his nine houses into a homeless shelter. 



No.  He doesn't say people shouldn't prosper, that people should give all there money to the poor etc.   He criticizes certain aspects of capitalism practiced by the 1%.   

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2014, 09:21:17 AM »

the quote regarding Moore's take on various films mentions his compensation is based on "net revenue" and "profits"

For most types of business net revenue is Revenue less sales returns and allowances.

Clearly it has a different meaning in this industry because Box Office Receipt less 50% to the theaters left 130 million in what should be "net revenue" but then they deducted  the expenses of "marketing, production, and distribution" before arriving at "net revenue".   Production likely includes the cost to make the film.  So Net revenue sounds a lot more like "net income" or "profits" than it does "net revenue"
Further on in the same quote it said he was entitled to "50% of the profits" of Sicko"

So in both cases his income is directly tied to the financial success of the film whether is net revenue (calculated after a bunch of expenses are deducted) or "profits"

Either way it shows your guarantee to me that Michael Moore's compensation was not based upon the net income of the venture is complete bullshit.  Even if you want to argue that net revenue doesn't "walk and talk" like net income you can't argue that regarding Sicko which explicitly says "profits"

Once again this has nothing to do with the false premise that started this thread



straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong.  you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA.  SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters.   and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake.  Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else.  it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it.  sales less returns and allowances.

your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting.  I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well.  Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks.  but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.

the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn.  and it works.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2014, 09:40:13 AM »
Why bother?  Honestly - you think Straw cares one bit about getting schooled?

straw i'm an accountant. what you are saying is absolutely wrong.  you can futz around with your wording and fool a bunch of drunk college kids but not a practicing CPA.  SALES RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES are NOT the amounts they pay to the theaters.   and the author of the article has it wrong as well, which is why you made the mistake.  Net Revenues is NEVER defined as sales less commissions, or anything else.  it is always defined as exactly how YOU defined it.  sales less returns and allowances.

your problem is that you are relying on the accounting knowledge of some author who doesn't know the first thing about accounting.  I also know enough to know that people like Michael Moore don't get into deals to make movies unless they KNOW that they will be compensated well.  Maybe at the beginning of their career they use some of their own money and take risks.  but at the point he made this movie it's nothing less than silly to think he wasn't in a deal to make a shit load of GUARANTEED MONEY.

the bottom line is this guy makes tons of money by convincing college kids who know nothing about the world that they are owed something they don't have to earn.  and it works.



JOHN MATRIX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13281
  • the Media is the Problem
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2014, 09:42:19 AM »
Not even close. 


more cherry picking.

Lmao, YOU are cherry-picking, moving the goal posts and setting ridiculous standards. Have you even seen the movie in auestion?? Capitalism: a love story?? It is CLEARLY a case against the capitalist system...esp towards the end.

But he could prob come out and say 'i hate capitalism' and you would still say that 'didnt count' lmao

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2014, 09:45:28 AM »
http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/01/michael-moore-signs-10-million-deal-for-documentary-on-socialism/

see the deals he signs?  $10 million off the top.  then 10% of GROSS profit.  not net income.  Gross profit.  this is a deal a seasoned film producer receives.  not fucking 27% of the NET INCOME of a film.

no one who made those kinds of deals would be worth $50 million.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Liberal Hypocrisy
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2014, 11:08:11 AM »
He's definitely no Michael Gates in the charity department.

That makes him even more of a hypocrite. 

I wonder if his nine houses are investment property or if he actually lives in all of them?