Cavuto versus O’Reilly: “You push this populist nonsense that doesn’t make sense”
posted at 2:57 pm on September 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Palate-cleansing light comedy from last night’s Factor, courtesy of TV Newser. Are the bloodsucking oil companies really gouging Americans to oblivion? Or is O’R arbitrarily deciding what constitutes a fair price, in much the same way advocates of a tax on, ahem, “windfall profits” do? If it’s the former, why has gas historically been so cheap?
The folks demand guidance, my friends.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I used to watch O’Reilly–of late, he is so in the tank for Obama, I can’t watch him. He is so wrapped up in liberal white guilt, he has become a joke. Obama is everything he is supposedly against–can’t figure out how anyone with intelligence can twist themselves up so!
changein25 on September 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Cavuato helped show that a Harvard-Kennedy education ain’t worth the paper it’s written on.
John Doe on September 17, 2008 at 3:46 PM
‘His way or no way’ …. yeah. Except when he books Cavuto on his show to refute him. A better deserving person for that phrase is Olbermann.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Awesome! I needed a good laugh.
zmrzlina on September 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Bill O came across as a complete dumbass. How the heck could that happen?..heh
d1carter on September 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I’m paying, still, about $3.83 a gallon in SE Washington. My sister, in SW WA, is paying about what you are. Doesn’t make sense.
StephC on September 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
This was a great segment. Neil is the great American and Bill is the poo-poo crabby bear. Cavuto should be given a raise, out of O’Reilly’s paycheck. Neil C. is twice the man O’Reilly thinks of himself being.
Griz on September 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Bill in the tank for Obama? Strange. I’d say I don’t believe it, but it is O’Reilly after all.
OneGyT on September 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
O’Reilly gets credit for asking the question. But he accepted a shrug as an answer. He should have gone harder. And the message hasn’t gotten out. Obama is a dangerous man. But no one cares and O’Reilly seems so taken with him that he must have tingles in his legs too.
Anyone who was really looking out for the good of this country would be hammering home these relationships. No white Republican could have that many EVIL friends and advisors and survive politically. But Obama could well be President.
And consider: Obama is the one who will get that book from that Nicholas Gage Movie… you know the one that tells all the secrets only Presidents knows…. That just can’t be allowed to happen! (slid into sacrastic territory there–couldn’t be helped)
petunia on September 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I think you overlooked the main point. And that was the math. O’R’s math didn’t add up.
If what you said was true, then the oil companies were losing $2.00 per gallon, because they always say they make just pennies per gallon.
There profits didn’t show that loss. That is what Neil was trying to get across to O’R, O’R’s math was based on a fallacy…as proved by Neil.
What Neil won’t admit is that the oil companies will gouge us for every penny they can.
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
O’Reilly is in the tank for Omama. Sad deal. Not unlike a child. A little attention goes a long way apparently.
Griz on September 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Love Neil, love Brit, Shep has his moments, and I want to be Meghan Kelly’s pajamas.
pugwriter on September 17, 2008 at 3:52 PM
…. *thinks … unsure* ….. the PRESIDENT’S BOOK!!!!????
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Heh, The “O” Spin Zone :^)
db on September 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Exactly.
Tzetzes on September 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
O’Reilly is a blo·vi·at·ing popinjay with an affinity for falafels.
moxie_neanderthal on September 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
O’Reilly has never been a very bright guy.
DaveS on September 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Back off. Meghan Kelly is mine!
uncalheels on September 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
For me, the striking thing about this discussion of Cavuto taking it directly to O’Reilly is that, here on a right-leaning blog, we are almost universally cheering it on. Can anyone here imagine a discussion on Kos, DU or HuffPo where the lefties were cheering someone who was disagreeing with Olbermann?
azlibertarian on September 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Thanks for that insightful nugget of acumen.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM
wise_man,
Don’t know where you got that I hate Bill. I certainly don’t, I have just been disappointed as of late by what I perceive is a bit of an overblown ego. I am well aware that the interview aired prior to Sen. McCain’s speech, but still feel that it should have waited for another day.
I also didn’t need his interview with Obama to know about the things you mentioned. I didn’t have a problem with the interview per se, my only problem was with the night it aired.
I have seen parts of it since and haven’t found anything to be impressed about. For those of us who will never vote for Obama, there was nothing new and for those who might be still undecided, I think it was probably favorable to Obama.
I do not hate Bill, I have always liked him, watched his show and read his books. I even receive his emails. I’m not sure exactly what is different about him, but I find myself disagreeing with him more and more and thinking that lately he is more into promoting himself than looking out for us.
Jvette on September 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’ll second that!
Loved when Neil chastises Bill, “You’re yelling again.” So calmly. LOL Neil is a smart and good man.
pannw on September 17, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Bill O’Reilly has probably done more than any other personality on television to contribute to the nation’s economic illiteracy.
Also, he seems to think that screaming is a substitute for reasoned argument.
paul006 on September 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Bill lay off the caffeine. Take your meds with decaf.
meci on September 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM
My god Bill is clueless on how the economy works.
Buford on September 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Love The Cavuto.
The Ugly American on September 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Cavuto is right, as usual: Recent drops in oil prices have not been proportionally reflected at the pumps, but neither were were previous increases.
As long as government does its anti-trust job properly, and keeps the oil industry from being dominated by a monopoly, then competition will keep prices down – while at the same time allowing them to go as high as the market will bear. O’Reilly lately sounds more and more like he thinks oil consumption is a God-given right. Populist nonsense is an accurate description.
greggriffith on September 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM
My apologies. More to the point of the general tone of everyone else here. Who are of course free to have it, just making an observation, – not specifically trying to make it sound like just you. Again, I’m sorry that I my comment was sloppy. (trying to comment in between working & people walking by.)
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I quit watching O’Reilly at least 3 years ago because the only thing fair and balanced with his show is the depth of his stupidity.
Helloyawl on September 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I watched that segment last night and
CAVUTO RULES !!!!
Always Right on September 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Yes they did show that loss. the oil companies like exxon where able to make up their loss on gasoline with the increase in oil prices. Pure refiners like Valero, and tesoro were losing money hand over fist. take a look at their stock charts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VLO&t=1y
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TSO&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Do they look like charts of companies making money?
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 4:03 PM
About as well said and on the mark as you can get, paul006.
Always Right on September 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Bill is a pinhead.
1. Cavuto made a simple math point and O’Reilly was clueless.
2. When leaders make warning signs public, they cause runs on banks, like what Schumer did to IndyMac.
3. The politicians were supposed to oversee Fannie and Freddie but they turned out to be just as corrupt if not worse. More gov’t regulation will produce the same results, unless we are not interested in growing our economy anymore.
pt on September 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM
CAUGHT YOU! Get back to work!!
Rod on September 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Bahahahahahaha!
1+
Ted gets the falafel vote.
moxie_neanderthal on September 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM
check the charts I posted above. Refiners LOST money. Big oil companies that pump the oil out of the ground made money. The ones that refine the stuff into gasoline lost money.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM
O’Reilly is an Narcissist idiot who is gradually turning into a Communist Narcissist idiot.
His radio program is impossible to listen to: it’s the opposite of “entertainment.”
…kind of like a better informed and less profane Bill Mahr…
landlines on September 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I like Cavuto. I don’t like O’Reilly.
There. I’ve said it.
Tennman on September 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Let’s talk reality.
During last week when oil was $119 a barrel and I paid $3.24 for gas.
Today the price is $97 a barrel, but today I paid $3.69.
If price gouging is not taking place, whether it be the oil companies or the operators, please inform me what the hell is taking place in light of the fact that demand has been going down.
Has the law of supply and demand been revoked?
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Here is the test…………
Now that it is out, will Bill ask Obama about the failure and result on the American Economy of the Democratic controlled government entity and political campaign contributors Fanny Mae and her little brother?
Seven Percent Solution on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
All right then…another idiot obama supporter to boycott.
SaintOlaf on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Note to O’Reilly: Juan Mac tried to warn us a couple years ago and the bill he co-sponsored to deal with Freddie and Fanny never made it out of committee.
pugwriter on September 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Maybe all that Obama to O’R “can’t we be friends” knee touching in that interview really did “get” Bill to become O’s newest best friend.
marybel on September 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Back off. Meghan Kelly is mine!
uncalheels on September 17, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Obviously your taste is exceptional and an equal to mine, but I claimed her first!
Nanner nanner nanner!
pugwriter on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
“Greed is not good” and all politicians are to blame for blah blah blah…and will someone help me get this stick outta my rear?
Good for Neil; I’m not sure how right either side is, I just can’t stand that self-important thug, O’Reilly.
Christine on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly, even when he is getting his clock cleaned by a number-nerd.
Bicyea on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
If price gouging is not taking place, whether it be the oil companies or the operators, please inform me what the hell is taking place in light of the fact that demand has been going down.
Has the law of supply and demand been revoked?
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Hurrican Ike is what is going on. what is going on is a shortage of SUPPLY. In NC many gas stations are out of gas. The Supply was damaged by the hurricane. Refinery row was hit head on by the storm. Refiners while most not damage to a massive degree still need electricy to function. the entire coast of Texas is without power. It will take weeks to get supply flowing again. We are seeing a supply crunch and gasoline will go up. The scary thing is that the gov is not saying anything about it. They might not want to cause a panic.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Someone get O’Reilly some thread and a needle. Cavuto handed him his ass, and he needs to reattach it.
Jim M. on September 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM
What O’Reilly ignored is that current inventories take time to run through the system. Oil does not come down at the pump until the supply of oil purchsed at the higher price is gone.
Jim M. on September 17, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I guess somebody should have the decency to state that the gasoline is the property of the gas companies, and they should remain at liberty to charge whatever they want for a gallon – $5, $10, $50, $1000….whatever.
We have no right to their product. We have no obligation to buy it. Somewhere between lies a price point that balances our sense of value with their desire for profitable reward.
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Better do a little more analysis…
I am going to let you find out the big error…seeing as you think O’Reilly’s math is more accurate then Cavuoto’s.
You still stand by the statement that the Oil companies are losing $2 per gallon in profits???
Read my post again…
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM
After that disaster, I sent O’Reilly this pithy comment:
“Even if the oil companies made zero profits, and sold gasoline at crude cost plus refining costs plus taxes, the percentage change in gasoline prices would be less than that of crude prices, either up or down. Cavuto is right. Do the math and stop misleading the folks.”
What O’Reilly doesn’t seem to get is that crude costs are only PART of the price of gasoline, and refining and transport costs and taxes don’t depend on the price of crude. So if, for example, the crude used to make gasoline cost $3/gallon, and refining/transport/taxes/profits cost $1/gallon, gasoline would cost $4/gallon. If crude prices dropped to $2/gallon, gasoline would cost $3/gallon. In this example, crude costs would have dropped 33%, and gasoline costs would have dropped only 25%, and oil company profits would be unchanged. A percent change is a fraction, and in any fraction, a bigger denominator makes the fraction smaller. But that’s too complicated and not pithy enough for O’Reilly.
Throw in two hurricanes that shut down lots of refineries, and that’s REALLY too complicated for O’Reilly. But Cavuto gets it, and maybe should get O’Reilly’s job.
Steve Z on September 17, 2008 at 4:19 PM
No gasoline is not the sole property to do what they want. Much of the “property” is gained from public land, we lease that to them and we have the right to remove it or add controls to it as we see fit.
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM
…. crap.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Wrong. They pay their money for the right to access that land and make use of it. That is the end of ‘the public’ claim on them. The oil they extract, and all derivative products, is their private property.
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 4:24 PM
He spanked O’Reilly…rightfully so.
windbag on September 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM
O’Reilly is usually very sensible. With Cavuto last night he sounded like an idiot that never took Econ 101. Give him a break and conclude that he is on the side of sensibility most of the time (just last night).
duff65 on September 17, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I agree with O’Reilly that the oil companies are guaging us however once I saw Cavuto’s point, I had to agree with him that this particular argument by O’Reilly is bunk. You can’t just selectively choose what time frame you will use for the statistic. That was a weak argument by O’Reilly.
mike volpe on September 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Bill O has had the same effect on me that Chris Matthews has. I used to like Matthews. I knew he was a lib and I didn’t agree with him much but he at least tried to be fair about 4 years ago. Then he contracted Bush/Cheney Derangement Syndrome and now Obama gives me a thrill up my leg syndrome and I can’t stand him. Bill O used to be right on with most issues for me. But now he is just a screaming idiot who says things that don’t even make sense. Whoever first called him Ted Baxter was so right. I don’t even tune in when he has exclusive guests anymore he annoys me so much.
church on September 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Oh, by the way, there IS someone who took on the big oil companies and won. Sarah Palin, and her efforts will be rewarded by a cheaper gas pipeline through Canada. SHE GETS IT, and needs to come tell O’Reilly a thing or two.
Steve Z on September 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM
O”Reilly is and always has been a loud mouth, sensationalistic blow hard. He’s nothing but bad joke and I rarely if ever watch him.
rplat on September 17, 2008 at 4:33 PM
This is incorrect. Oil companies didn’t raise prices to $7/gal because they don’t set the price at the pump…gas stations do. The price you pay at the pump is a reflection of the total costs in the gasoline supply chain (crude oil producers, refiners, wholesalers, taxes, etc) + the gas station owner’s take.
You’ve just described every single business that exists in a capitalist system. Businesses charge what the market will bear. There is no “they”, because “they” is everyone. There is only the DEMAND of the market and the SUPPLY of the producers. You can’t have one without the other, nor can you separate one from the other – any change in either affects the price. If oil producers want to affect the price of gasoline, they can either raise or lower their production. If consumers want to affect the price of gasoline, they can either raise or lower their consumption. But either way, both have to dance.
Once again, no different than every other company.
It would be more accurate to say that when oil crossed $140, those selling oil futures were finding fewer buyers who were willing to buy oil contracts at that price. IOW, buyers began to get very nervous about whether the price would continue rising – if it didn’t and started to fall, they wouldn’t be able to make a profit and would have to sell their contracts at a loss. So purchasing slows. Then stops. Then someone with those $140 contracts says, “OK, I want out of this. I’ll sell for $139 and cut my losses”…and prices begin the march back down.
Again, no different than any other company.
This is also incorrect because you’re assigning moral attributes to an amoral system. There is no “right” or “wrong” in a free market – there is only the market and what the market will bear. “A little greed” and “Unrestrained greed” are relative terms, that will mean different things to different people according to their own moral views.
O’Reilly is good for calling “Bullsh!t!” but that in no way means that he isn’t prone to it. Cavuto was right on the money.
rvastar on September 17, 2008 at 4:37 PM
The only thing that would have been better after Cavuto handing bill his lunch. Would be Neil reaching out and slapping O,Reilly silly
thmcbb on September 17, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I gave up on O’Reilly when he joined the “Iraq was a mistake” brigade. I won’t deny that mistakes were made in Iraq but mistakes were made in WWI and II too and that doesn’t make them any less necessary and right. Iraq was not a mistake. The fact that Al Qaeda sent its best and brighest there and we sent them back in bodybags or in pieces attest to that.
Rogue on September 17, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Guys, whether oil and gas is taken from federal, state, or privately owned lands those extracting the oil and gas always pay a royalty of anywhere from 1/8 to 1/4 of the proceeds.
Which means that for every 100 dollars of product that comes out of the ground the royalty owner gets $12.50 or $25.00 respectively and they do so without having to bear any of the costs or risks of development whatsoever. So, yeah, “we” are getting paid.
And this is before the taxing entities begin hitting these companies with severance and income taxes.
Natalie on September 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM
It is not so much as losing money. The refiners margins took a major hit. They were not making as much per gal with gas at $4.00/gal and oil at $147/bl as they were at gas $3.00/gal and oil at $60/bl.
I’m not sure if they lost $2.00/gal in margins I doubt it. however their margins got crushed. The big oil companies like exxon were able to keep margins due to the price of oil. the refiners lost the margin fight. they could not raise gasoline to the price it would have needed to be to keep their margins intact. Thus the oil and gas did not follow the same price increase. On the way down the refiners were able to keep gas higher and increase their margins as oil fell. the breaking point at this moment in time for the demand/supply curve for gasoline is $4.00. gas will stay around $4.00-$3.50/gal until the refiners can make back their money(this is where Caveuto is wrong). Once the refiners are cash flushed again the enternal battle for market share will require refiners to push prices down.
Oil and gas while connected are not a 1:1 ratio in price. Gasoline follows supply/demand in the gasoline market. Oil follows supply/demand in the oil market. They are not the same market. Like i said they have a connection but they also have enough differences to make them trade independently of each other besides the macro trends (this is where OR was wrong). Gasoline will continue to be high due to the supply problems in TX. Oil shot up today as investors try to move into hard assets to avoid the storm of the stock market.
Are the oil companies and/or the refiners making every penny they can form us. Yes. Do they give a crap about consumers? no Do they floow the same laws as any other business? yes and no yes because there is a price that is too much no because the that price is artifically higher than other stuff because oil/gas is a requirment for people to power the economy.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 4:51 PM
To suspend the election on November 4th..?
J_Gocht on September 17, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Rush was right. O’Reilly is Ted Baxter.
By the way, didn’t McCain “warn us” about Freddie and Fanny two years ago?
Sugar Land on September 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Sorry, current factors like Ike should not be resulting in immediate price increases in gas.
At the present there should be plenty of oil in the pipeline and the price should not be effected. Granted it will happen later but not at the hyper rate it’s occurring today.
Can you say ‘speculation’? Can you say ‘short-selling’?
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM
OR is such a tool. He doesn’t want the government to run companies, he only wants them to tell us when companies MAY be making a mistake. Pinhead or Patriot, you decide…..I already have, pinhead.
David in ATL on September 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Get on your knees and pray for speculators….without them your retirement will be bleak.
The whole market is speculation. Get. A. Clue.
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I love Fox News but I have to admit that the liberal criticism of the shouting pundits has a kernel of truth to them. Cavuto is the only one with in depth knowledge of his topic. The rest of them are generally pointed in the right direction but are poorly briefed. I much prefer the old William Buckley “Firing Line” style of calm debate. Who will bring it back? The only saving grace is that the liberals are not just poorly briefed, but disinformed and often unhinged to boot.
A very interesting book on oil which is fun and informative read is “Oil on the Brain: Petroleum’s Long, Strange Trip to Your Tank” by Lisa Margonelli, who follows the oil back from your gas station to the source, phytoplankton floating on the sea a hundred million years ago, cooked at 300 degrees F for eons two miles down.
More to the point, she interviews an oil middleman who scoffs at the idea that the oil companies fix prices. He says they all hate each other and are too competitive to ever collaborate on anything. Margonelli also points out that nobody knows all the variables which affect the price of a gallon of gas. The economists have yet to break it down, because it’s too complicated. O’Reilly is bloviating here, spewing populist nonsense that panders to economic boobs.
And really, how many times have we heard this conspiracy nonsense? At the beginning of every summer, when gas prices seasonally rise, the media is awash in conspiracy theories about the evil oil companies. Every fall, when the gas prices seasonally fall, the critics go quiet. You never hear the oil companies accused of a conspiracy to make prices cheaper.
When products like oil become commodities, the profit margins get squeezed hard by the competition. Your gas station owner gets perhaps one percent of profit on a sale. The government profits more than that on taxes, yet you will never hear O’Reilly nor Obama calling for a windfall profits tax on the government.
The profit center in a gas station is the snacks, which account for the overwhelming majority of net income. The profit on chips and soda can be 50 to 100%, but you will not hear the economic illiterates calling for a windfall profits tax on Diet Coke, Fritos, and Hershey bars.
The problem that economic boobs like O’Reilly, Obama, and Democrats in general don’t understand is that the oil companies make a lot of money absolutely because they are big, but make only a moderate amount of profit, about 7%, relatively. That’s no windfall. That’s an ordinary business doing a competent job of providing a good we all need at a reasonable profit.
Even if it were a windfall profit, that is no justification for the government to steal it or legislate it down, as O’Reilly recommends. High profits attract competitors who bring profits down by supplying more of the same scarce good. That’s how prices create a more efficient market. Interfering with the price mechanism is simply stupid and counterproductive.
Just think how nuts it would be to confiscate the legal and legitimate profits of oil companies as the market price of gas is increasing due to the rise in demand? You are wounding the very vehicles which deliver the gas, increasing their costs and risks. Who will invest in companies that they government randomly robs? Attacking the oil companies because the price of gas is rising is like burning your grocery store because the price of coffee increased due to a drought in South America.
I trust the market to fix this far more than the government.
Tantor on September 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM
He can’t even do the ‘dirty talk’ thing right….did you read the transcripts of that lawsuit? Pathetic. He’d make a russian dockyard whore’s skin crawl.
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
.
Oh yeah!
stacman on September 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Bill O’Reilly is an ass.
Jdripper on September 17, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Nicely done :)
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Whee! I love me a good O’Loofah smackdown. He’s really quite the simpleton. An angry, angry simpleton.
Mark Jaquith on September 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM
BO so desperately wants to be loved, adored and feted by the MSM and democrats at large. His populist shtick has been making me noxious for some time now.
Kudos for Cavuto for learnin BO on economics 101.
epluribusunum on September 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I definitely agree with the “short selling” by the sorry bastards that want to drive good companies into the dust for their own personal enrichment, that is definitely part of the present scenario.
Actually AIG is a victim of those despicable bottom feeders…!
Hang tough folks…!
Don’t let the sorry bastards grind you down…!
J_Gocht on September 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM
rvastar on September 17, 2008 at 4:37
You are wrong when you say:
This is also incorrect because you’re assigning moral attributes to an amoral system. There is no “right” or “wrong” in a free market.
a free market without morals is bound to fail. a free market without morals leads to revolutions. (see Obama’s recent poll numbers) A free market is not amoral unless the people that live under that free market are amoral.
While you have a point that:
You’ve just described every single business that exists in a capitalist system
the difference is that people can not just quit buying gasoline. They NEED it. That would be like saying if some company could corner the market on water. that company would be entitled to charge whatever the market would bear for that water. the oil companies and gov thru their policies/lobbying/ and strong arm tactics have made gasoline/disel the only transportation fuel in this country.
This means that they no longer have the right to act like any other company. the oil industry itself with mergers has gotten rid of internal competition. So they have destoryed the competiton both internal and external and now can be considered a monoploy. The gov has said over the course of its history that they have a right to control monoplies for the commmon good. Therefore saying the oil companies should be allowed to act like any other type of company is wrong. Price controls are not the answer. The answer is requiring oil companies to increase supplies, to have a control on thier profit margins. A flat return no matter what the price of oil is.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM
The “gov” can say whatever it likes….doesn’t make it automatically right. OUR (US) government has NO constitutional authority to dictate ANY aspect of OUR economy.
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Ok. If you see gas running out next week or two weeks from today. Would it not be prudent to increase the price so the demand is less so you can prolong the supply hoping that new supply will come online before the entire supply is exhausted? speculation? I call it being proactive. Last friday all the gasstations in my area was out of gas. The only one that had gas was charging $4.63/gal. was I pissed at the price? alittle but I was happy to be able to buy the gas to get to work. Would I have been happy that their was no gas but atleast they did rip me off, while I stayed home? No. I gladly paid the $4.63/gal to get to work. Now if it was to go to a movie or something I didn’t need to do I would not have bought it. increase in Price will ensure supply until the IKE damge can be repaired.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
O’Reilly (Oh, really?) needs to keep Cavuto of the show. Cavuto shows Bill O. for the dumbass that he really is.
Pelayo on September 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
If we invaded Pakistan then Al Qaeda sent its best and brightest there as well. And we would have killed them as well. I think that going in was the right thing to do. But in hindsight, if we didn’t go in, and Saddam stayed behind the UN sanctions and waited for them to be over before he restarted his nuclear program, then it would have turned out better for us. Less money spent, less lives lost and in many respects, it would have been ‘better.’ Still, the Iraqi people would have remained under the tyrant, the rape rooms and torture chambers would have gone one … but as has been mentioned, O’Reilly bailed on this when no WMD’s were found. That’s his right to do.
Sine we’ve gone in, any talk of leaving before it’s done has been meet by him with opposition. He tried to make that point to Obama several times, and to at least acknowledge that the surge worked. O’Reilly is hardly in the tank for Obama. He has a show and tries to get people on his show for ratings. Again, that monster.(sarcasm) Neil Cavuto can do what he wants on the Neil Cavuto show, and O’Reilly can do what he wants on the O’Reilly show. His ratings pound all of the competition, and theres a reason for that.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM
LimeyGeek on September 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
might want to reread that document. Esp the right to control interstate trade. Last I notices oil/gasoline is pumped/trucked across state lines. the gov has full consitutional rights to control/limit/regualted that process.
unseen on September 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Big whoopeedo…O’Reilly didn’t follow up on any of Obama’s answers…the shrug is a good example. As for Ayers, he let Obama get away with the same BS answers he’s been giving…”I was only 8 years old,” “We served on some boards together,” “He’s well-respected,” “He’s done alot for education…” Instead of “opening up” the subject for others to bring up later, why didn’t O’Reilly follow up those board and education comments with questions about the CAC? He had the info, I know because I emailed it to him, and I’ll bet others did too.
Deanna on September 17, 2008 at 5:13 PM
I wonder if there’s been any discussions over at Roger Aile’s office about giving Cavuto the anchor’s chair when Britt steps down- although how would Fox Business get by without him?
marks on September 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Maybe if O’Reilly had yelled a little louder I’d understand the difference between a “watchdog” and a “regulator.”
Blacklake on September 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM
The Stock Market works on one and only one overriding factor – FEAR.
However, investing in the Stock Market is very simple, you:
BUY LOW AND SELL HIGH.
Unless you’re a Speculator at which time, you:
SELL HIGH AND BUY LOW.
I just can’t figure out why everyone isn’t a millionaire.
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Cavuto kicked OReilly’s ass and he knows it.
Roger Waters on September 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I’m glad Cavuto didn’t back down to O’Reilly. I watch the show but O’Reilly’s ego is getting out of control and yes, I think he’s sucking up to Barry big time. Sharpton spanked him a while back so he’s a bit gun shy.
UnEasyRider on September 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
So McCain is right…at least on the third or forth time he’s tried his hand at defining and describing the present problem?
“WE NEED A COMMISSION…”
“WE’RE IN A “TOTAL CRISIS” CREATED BY WALL STREET “GREED…”
Has Johnny Mc struck the right chord, with those statements…?
J_Gocht on September 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM
You paid $4.63 while I only paid $3.69?
As they say, something is rotten in Denmark!
And quite frankly, both of us are being had.
pocomoco on September 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
wise_man O’Reilly, is that you?
sinsing on September 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
He followed up when he could. He had a limited amount of time to ask as many questions as he could. He tried, he moved on. The fact is that no one else (to my knowledge) asked Obama about Ayers. And if anyone did, I could have been Olbermann is a ‘can you beleive these A*hole neocons trying to derail your campaign’ types of ‘questions’ about Ayers. And while some people on the left claim that O’Reilly shouted him down and was the typical neocon puppet of Roger Ailes doing the evil right wing’s smear job by asking the Ayers and rev. Wright questions, I think it’s pretty amusing that some here think that O’Reilly is in the tank for Obama. And that’s clearly not the case.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 5:32 PM
TURN OFF HIS MIKE!!!!
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Aye, it is…and it’s my right not to contribute to his ratings either on TV or radio since it also shows he’s an idiot. And I don’t.
Rogue on September 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM
O’Reilly is just such a phony asshole. Two more months before his annual “War on Christmas” shtick.
Hilts on September 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM
And I’m so proud of you, Rogue.
wise_man on September 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »