Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cavuto Schools O’Reilly On Obamanomics: There Is No Free Market
http://www.radioviceonline.com ^ | October 23, 2009 | Jim Vicevich

Posted on 10/23/2009 7:46:45 AM PDT by Biggirl

Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly in a cat fight over executive pay. Conficto gato or cat fight in Spanish.

Too much. Neil Cavuto from FBN (which if you do not have ….DEMAND IT … tried desperately to explain to Bill O’Reilly, why controlling the pay of even those companies taking bailout money, is just a bad idea. It’s a slippery slope. O’Reilly, at his populist best, scoffs. But there is a turning point about midway through. The money line … Bill, there is no free market. Watch all the way through and he will convince you too.

(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bloggersandpersonal; cavuto; foxnews; oreilly; sourcetitlenoturl; tedbaxter
From this cat loving lady.:)=^..^=
1 posted on 10/23/2009 7:46:45 AM PDT by Biggirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Limit the pay of bloviating Fox News commentators.
2 posted on 10/23/2009 7:48:46 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Soon everyone will win a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George Bush...well, except for George Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

I watched part of this - Cavuto let BOR have it right between the eyes - unfortunately BOR is too arrogant to actually have noticed he got schooled.


3 posted on 10/23/2009 7:52:32 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

I am not in support of limiting the pay of any company in the free market. But I could care less whether these wallstreet firms that were bailed out get hammered. In fact, for the good of those firms that made wise decisions and did things right, the TARP firms should get hammered.


4 posted on 10/23/2009 7:54:49 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (To liberals if something is a complete and utter disaster, it's because there's not enough of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

He looked like a deer in the headlights at the end of the interview.


5 posted on 10/23/2009 7:57:01 AM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
The problem is these firms shouldn’t have been bailed out to begin with. All of them so of been allowed to fail.

But that is water under the bridge. Going forward the rule should be that if ANY company is to big to fail, then it should be broken up into smaller companies using antitrust laws. No company in any industry should be allowed to be so big that the government HAS to bail it out if it starts to fail.

6 posted on 10/23/2009 8:07:02 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied, the economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kempster

I think he was in shock that Cavuto would dare question him.


7 posted on 10/23/2009 8:11:18 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
"It's a Cookbook, Bill!"

Great line as the clip closes. Yep...the Administration wants "To Serve Man"...

(Sorry for the Damon Knight/Twilight Zone spoiler, but it's nearly 60 years old. :-)


8 posted on 10/23/2009 8:12:31 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

Let me guess...you didn’t watch the clip before posting...


9 posted on 10/23/2009 8:13:12 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Not surprising that BOR is OK with the gov't dictating pay. He isn't a conservative. Government control over compensation in private enterprise, regardless of the circumstances is not a conservative position.
10 posted on 10/23/2009 8:14:39 AM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
Not surprising that BOR is OK with the gov't dictating pay. He isn't a conservative.

BOR's a control freak regardless of political bent. And I don't think he's a true conservative either. He's kinda bend-with-the-wind which he prefers to call Traditional.

Maybe where he's from it is.

11 posted on 10/23/2009 8:17:10 AM PDT by paulycy (Predatory Pricing = Public Option = Unethical Competition .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

I couldn’t believe Charles Krauthammer thought it was OK too. He said that last night on Fox News Special Report.


12 posted on 10/23/2009 8:20:22 AM PDT by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
"It's a Cookbook, Bill!" Great line as the clip closes. Yep...the Administration wants "To Serve Man"...

Classic line, I was going to comment on that too.

13 posted on 10/23/2009 8:21:11 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

O’Reilly is very clever but he is not smart. Watching the exchange it was painfully obvious that BOR did not understand the full raminfications or end game. Like Cavuto was playing chess and BOR was playing checkers. Cavuto said that slashing the pay impedes a free market system; other firms that were not bailed out have no incentive to keep paying high salaries. They can lower their pay, because there is no fear that the employee will make more at the bailed out firm.
Cavuto said it’s a slippery slope. First its the Wall Street and Car companies, then who knows? I wonder what O’Reilly would say if Obama bailed out GE/ NBC and slashed their compensation. He would be getting a call from Murdoch that his contract is going to be rewritten.


14 posted on 10/23/2009 8:22:37 AM PDT by slackerjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
I don't agree with Cavuto to the extent that his point is that limited executive pay at firms like GM will automatically give GM a cost advantage which will drive down exec salaries everywhere.


15 posted on 10/23/2009 8:23:50 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
I couldn’t believe Charles Krauthammer thought it was OK too.

A little bit shocking, but the real crime was when they government bailed them out and essentially became their owner. Once they consented to government ownership, setting salaries is pretty much expected.

16 posted on 10/23/2009 8:24:07 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: slackerjack
Like Cavuto was playing chess and BOR was playing checkers.

Bingo. ;0)

17 posted on 10/23/2009 8:25:32 AM PDT by paulycy (Predatory Pricing = Public Option = Unethical Competition .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
"Cavuto Schools O'Reilly on Obamanomics...."

No one can "school" the closet fascist, O'Reilly. His is the final word, the final decision, the final answer, the final solution.

He made my blood boil again last night with his sly remarks and innuendos. After playing the clip of Vice-President Cheney's refutation of Obama's Afghanistan lies and distortions, O'Reilly was right there starting off with the remark...."now if what Cheney is saying is true....."

I about threw a shoe into my TV set. But BOR is full of these sly little bon mots, mostly against conservatism. Start paying closer attention to all his little asides and "final words" which close a topic and are not subject to refutation or correction by a guest.

....and hold on to your shoes.

Leni

P.S....see my tag line and be informed about this man.

18 posted on 10/23/2009 8:27:17 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Bill O'Reilly: 9/8/09: "Communism is not a threat to us anymore"-10/20/09: "Obama is not a Marxist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Nope...there were no conditions placed on accepting the funds. This was all done after the fact. And then the gov't had the chutzpah to say it had the right to decline repayment.

The extreme result could be that anyone who has some some of tax subsidy (mortgage interest deduction, claiming dependents, student loans, etc.) would be an excuse to control your income. If you think that's far-fetched, who could have imagined 10 years ago thing that have happened in the last 9 months?

19 posted on 10/23/2009 8:28:56 AM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: slackerjack
Unless I am mistaken, Cavuto's point was that merely limiting the pay of TARP recipients would, in and of itself, put such firms at an economic advantage such that said cost advantage alone (not the regulation of comp at other firms) would force other NON TARP firms to reduce pay to hold costs down and stay competitive.

That's specious reasoning and just doesn't hold water.

20 posted on 10/23/2009 8:29:23 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

BOR wants to land an interview with BObama so bad he won’t open his eyes/ears to see or listen to others on subject.
BOR wants everyone to agree to his point of view.

JMO, still have that in USA.


21 posted on 10/23/2009 8:31:47 AM PDT by MrsTn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Cavuto,always makes BOR look ignorant.
22 posted on 10/23/2009 8:32:42 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Hey Karly-poo, should we limit the pay of the bloviators at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, NBC, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and George Soros?


23 posted on 10/23/2009 8:34:20 AM PDT by RobaWho (I Love the U.S. Constitution, as written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

I think his point was that non-TARP execs would be punished because their salaries could be depressed because the market for those jobs is being influenced by government fiat. He sees this as a way of the govt depressing incomes of those who were not part of the TARP situation in the first place. It is a way for govt to decrease the compensation of high earners, those people so despised by liberals and class-envy enthusiasts. He is correct.


24 posted on 10/23/2009 8:34:29 AM PDT by clintonh8r (My country. Not my government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

I dont disagree with points 1 and 2. I do think that you might be a little off on point 3. Once the government gets their nose under the tent, they will get greedy and they will be jealous.

This action will get the “workers of the world” all riled up—in fact, this will get all workers looking at the pay of their managers and executives. Most average worker-bees have no idea what the top folk make. I know from experience that Senior VPs in the run of the mill financial institution make eight to ten times that of their front line employee. Bonuses of 60-80% were not uncommon. I was actually a little unsettled when I found out the pay scales.

The government wont HAVE to do anything, there will be a movement towards more organization and unions will see a revival.

THAT is the agenda here.


25 posted on 10/23/2009 8:35:10 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kakaze
Cavuto,always makes BOR look ignorant.

Cavuto makes a *lot* of people look both ignorant and mean.

I like Neil.

26 posted on 10/23/2009 8:36:07 AM PDT by paulycy (Predatory Pricing = Public Option = Unethical Competition .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

O’Reilly is just a boob when he gets on these populist rants. His thing about the oil-companies and gas prices in 2008 was ridiculous.


27 posted on 10/23/2009 8:38:54 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobaWho
Hey Karly-poo, should we limit the pay of the bloviators at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, NBC, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and George Soros?

Nope. Just O'Reilly. He's Fox's Chief Bloviator. (The original post was sarcasm, even though I wouldn't mind seeing O'Reilly hoist on his on petard).

28 posted on 10/23/2009 8:40:26 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Soon everyone will win a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George Bush...well, except for George Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
BOR is a fool sometimes. He was SO enamored with his own voice and opinion, he didn't notice he was made to look as economically stupid and blind as the dims.

Nam Vet

29 posted on 10/23/2009 8:40:57 AM PDT by Nam Vet ("Goodnight Mrs. Calabash, Wherever you are ! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Thx for reading my rather arcane comment.

First, I was responding to Cavuto's point that the restriction of TARP recipient comp would spread throughout the economy WITHOUT addition regulation and restrictions.

I agree with you in that their initial move to restrict pay is a harbinger of their desire to legally restrict ALL business.

As I said, such restrictions would eventually have to be placed not just on partnership performance but even on the actually growth of companies...and it is hard, but not impossible, to see how they would tell companies to limit their sales to a certain level.

If they implement that level of control, they will have killed the golden goose.

30 posted on 10/23/2009 8:42:41 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
I think it would be accurate to say that Neil tried to school Ted Baxter. I can't see that O'Reilly ever did actually understand Neil's argument. It's so very hard for O'Reilly to hear anyone else when his big mouth never stops motoring.
31 posted on 10/23/2009 8:43:39 AM PDT by lonevoice (If Fox News is the only outlet reporting it, did it really happen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

There are two issues here: The government setting salaries for those companies that have accepted and have not repaid TARP funds and setting compensation for those who have either not accepted or repaid. Banks routinely place restrictions on compensation and payment of dividends by the borrower until the loan is repaid. This is just prudent lending. As long as the government is the lender, it too should do so. If the government has been repaid or never lent, it should keep its nose out of the matter. This latter right recently proposed by the FED scares the me.


32 posted on 10/23/2009 8:43:42 AM PDT by DOGEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl; All

Isn’t the issue of crazy executive salaries stemming from the salaries being set in many cases by a board of directors that consists of...... executives? Maybe of other companies though?

IMHO, one major problem with the corporate world is that the executives are operating on a ‘get-in’ make $$ ‘get-out’ mentality that is not punished by bad results, and is usually very shortsighted. Its an ethics/morality kind of thing that the government cannot regulate.

The larger a corporate entity is, the more insulation the execs have fron Joe stockholder and Josephine consumer. Until a better, cheaper option comes to the market.


33 posted on 10/23/2009 8:49:38 AM PDT by jbp1 (be nice now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

What about some of the firms and small banks forced to take TARP so they could lend it to the banks? What happens when their pay gets limited, and they had no choice?


34 posted on 10/23/2009 8:58:46 AM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
BTW, I was a senior VP at a very well known Wall St firm and I was paid a percentage (roughly 10%) of the fees I generated for the firm (not including what was required to sell the securities, if any).

My secretary were paid extremely well compared to others in NYC. In fact, in most years I paid her a bonus equal to her salary. The support staff, mostly young MBA's, were also paid handsomely out of the fees I generated, but their comp was decided by the Department Head with input from me

But as you can see, as a senior investment banker, my pay (except for a small salary) was almost all bonus. It was big but the pressure was intense.

Wall St firms compete with each other (i.e. the investment bankers at my firm competed with those at other for the same deals) and the more they are payed, the smarter they get (odd isn't it).

Also, the more the bankers are paid, the more creative they get. That is a good thing but also a bad thing. It is this arrangement that requires the firms to have good commitment committees to review and decide to put the firms capital behind such deals.

As a final note, if I hadn't made a lot of money for the firm, not only would I have received a minor (or no) bonus, but I would have had my staff removed (and possibly fired) and I might have even been fired. If I had been fired for poor performance, word would spread around Wall St and my career would have been over.

35 posted on 10/23/2009 8:59:59 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kempster

Yes he did, I think he was leading up to the Patriot section being given to Michelle Obamao.


36 posted on 10/23/2009 9:01:32 AM PDT by MaxMax (Obama can't play in the Olympic reindeer games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

“Let me guess...you didn’t watch the clip before posting...”

You guessed wrong.

Ford will prevail over GM regardless of where Obama sets GM salaries. TARP will hang over the heads of those that accepted it. They are the ones who sold out. Let ‘em rot.


37 posted on 10/23/2009 9:09:03 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (To liberals if something is a complete and utter disaster, it's because there's not enough of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

“What about some of the firms and small banks forced to take TARP so they could lend it to the banks? What happens when their pay gets limited, and they had no choice?”

They had a choice. A very difficult one. But they had one.


38 posted on 10/23/2009 9:25:38 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (To liberals if something is a complete and utter disaster, it's because there's not enough of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
Your other post didn't address the competition angle so it seemed not to be based on the actual clip. I think that the overall idea is bad and I think the rather interesting part is that the part of Mr. Cavuto's argument that Mr. O'Reilly bys is the spurious part. I.e., if the claim is that these executives are worth that much pay and that by capping the pay we are hampering the ability of the TARPed entities to compete, then why would unTARPed entities have to drop salaries to compete? The fact is, the execs aren't worth their pay, and the stockholders are letting themselves be robbed by insiders, yet that doesn't undercut the problem with government bailouits.
39 posted on 10/23/2009 10:08:55 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; BubbaBasher

If the government is holding the risk, the have the reins as any owner should.

But government shouldn’t be the owner...the owner should be whatever private entity would have purchase them at actual market value.


40 posted on 10/23/2009 10:16:51 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Exactly right. Thought I said spurious, specious is an even better description.


41 posted on 10/23/2009 10:17:56 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

The way our incentive was structured was based on my department, but with a multiplier based on company performance. If the company failed to hit targets, the bonus multiplier was zero. And we know what something times nothing comes up to.

My first bonus was more than $50k. (And that did not count options and stock grants! I was a happy boy!) I almost fell off my chair, as I was not even aware that there WAS such a plan (we had been acquired and I was the only senior officer carried over—a point that was not lost on me, but evidently it was lost on the HR department.) I had a little bit of guilt because the front line people would see quarterly bonuses in the hundreds of dollars. But, I took it, paid the taxes and paid off all of my debt and bought my wife a new car and some fun.

If the front line knew my compensation, they would have rioted.

My point in addition to agreeing yours is this whole conversation is going to cause a lot of people to actually read those annual reports. That would be interesting.


42 posted on 10/23/2009 11:08:43 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
I presume from your handle that you are from Vermont (which is a lonely place for a conservative;-)). I lived in Vermont for a few years and found it to be an incredible beautiful state, if more than a little liberal.

Do you still live there?

Another note about Wall Street, while I certainly found it too be surprisingly generous to successful investment bankers and traders, I probably would, in retrospect, have chosen a different career.

I majored in what use to be called econometrics and had an opportunity to continue toward my doctorate and then go on to an academic career (probably doing dusty research in a basement with a bunch of eggheads) or to go to Wall Street.

IMO, I chose poorly.

Now that I am retired (well, semi-retired), I know there is a lot besides making money and, in fact, am a little ashamed of myself.

43 posted on 10/23/2009 12:11:35 PM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson