Michael Moore is not a hypocrite. He may just be sincerely misguided.

Yes, he has made millions of dollars from his documentaries which
attack the profit motive of the capitalist system, and this does
indeed look like the most embarrassing irony for him. But when you
understand him, or at least when you understand his misunderstanding
of capitalism, you will see that he is not in fact consciously
contradicting himself. He is merely a victim of a common but very
subtle economic fallacy that has afflicted societies since ancient
times.

[...]

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/03/m...handa-chisala/

http://www.tsowell.com/

In “The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp” in Economica,
November, 1945, R.A. Radford describes how an economy evolved and the
emergence of the middleman in an allied POW camp in WW-II:

“...More interesting was opinion on middlemen and prices. Taken as a
whole, opinion was hostile to the middleman. His function, and his
hard work in bringing buyer and seller together, were ignored; profits
were not regarded as a reward for labor, but as the result of sharp
practices. Despite the fact that his very existence was proof to the
contrary, the middleman was held to be redundant in view of the
existence of an official Shop and the Exchange and Mart. Appreciation
only came his way when he was willing to advance the price of a sugar
ration, or to buy goods spot and carry them against a future sale. In
these cases the element of risk was obvious to all, and the
convenience of the service was felt to merit some reward. Particularly
unpopular was the middleman with an element of monopoly, the man who
contacted the ration wagon driver, or the man who utilized his
knowledge of Urdu. And middlemen as a group were blamed for reducing
prices. Opinion notwithstanding, most people dealt with a middleman,
whether consciously or unconsciously, at some time or another.

“There was a strong feeling that everything had its "just price" in
cigarettes. While the assessment of the just price, which incidentally
varied between camps, was impossible of explanation, this price was
nevertheless pretty closely known. It can best be defined as the price
usually fetched by an article in good times when cigarettes were
plentiful. The "just price" changed slowly; it was unaffected by short-
term variations in supply, and while opinion might be resigned to
departures from the "just price," a strong feeling of resentment
persisted. A more satisfactory definition of the "just price" is
impossible. Everyone knew what it was, though no one could explain why
it should be so.

“As soon as prices began to fall with a cigarette shortage, a clamor
arose, particularly against those who held reserves and who bought at
reduced prices. Sellers at cut prices were criticized and their
activities referred to as the black market. In every period of dearth
the explosive question of "should non-smokers receive a cigarette
ration?" was discussed to profitless length. Unfortunately, it was the
non-smoker, or the light smoker with his reserves, along with the
hated middleman, who weathered the storm most easily.”

http://www.albany.edu/~mirer/eco110/pow.html