Fox's Cavuto and guest see move toward "scary" "nation of communists" in Capitol Hill legislation targeting oil and pharmaceutical companies
On the November 1 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Charles Payne, CEO of Wall Street Strategies, a stock market research company, claimed that this year has been "so awful for [President Bush] and the Republicans" that the United States is becoming vulnerable to an "anti-capitalistic, pro-communist" movement, warning, "We better be careful." Payne's remarks came at the end of a segment discussing government regulations on the oil and pharmaceutical industries.
To introduce the segment, host Neil Cavuto asked, "Will we soon be replacing pictures of President Bush with Karl Marx?" and "So, red [communist] we [United States] go huh?" To which Payne replied, "It's looking that way." As evidence for his assertion, Payne cited a "movement" that has "really [started to] steamroll": "taking profits from a company because you think they're too profitable." Payne appeared to be referring to a proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to create a temporary windfall profit tax on the oil industry to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief.
Payne defended oil giant ExxonMobil Corp.'s recent surge in profits with a falsehood, "There are a whole lot of businesses that are a lot more profitable." In fact, last quarter, ExxonMobil posted a profit of $9.9 billion, the largest quarterly profit ever posted by a publicly traded corporation, coming during a time when hurricanes reduced the company's U.S. production capabilities by at least 5 percent. The record profits sparked Senate hearings into high energy costs, requests for investigations into price gouging, and renewed efforts for a windfall profit tax on oil companies' profits that are not used for exploration and development. But when Cavuto asked if Payne's concern was that such inquiries and proposals were "destroying what made this country great," Payne responded, "Exactly. What I'm really nervous about is that this is becoming a populist view."
From the November 1 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Will we soon be replacing pictures of President Bush with Karl Marx? Well, my next guest is seeing red. He says that the clamor for oil companies to give back profits, for pharmaceutical companies to give away valuable flu drugs, and the antics we see probably on the Hill today -- communism, pure and simple. Joining me now is Charles Payne. He's the CEO of Wall Street Strategies. So, red we go, huh?
PAYNE: Well, it's looking that way. It really is alarming though, Neil. When you talk about taking -- in a capitalistic society -- taking profits from a company because you think they're too profitable and, you know, making them pay a price for that, it's a little scary. Now, we had examples of this right after the Iraq war. One of the movements that began was this excessive profit-taking tax, where any company that benefited off Iraq - the War or the rebuilding -- should give back those profits. And now we're starting to see that type of thinking really steamroll. You know, it's --
CAVUTO: Even the Republicans, right? [Sen.] Judd Gregg [R-NH], he was supposed to be on this show today, but he's caught up on this whole sort of soap opera on Capital Hill. But, his argument has been, you know, that the oil companies are different because they provide a valuable national, almost emergency, service.
PAYNE: Yeah, well, by the same token though, we learned from the 1970s that we can change our behavior as consumers. Also, we live in an environment of supply and demand. Obviously, if the prices were too high, we would stop using it. I mean, obvious. Yeah, we need to get to work, and we need to go to schools, but there's a lot of wasteful usage of oil. The bottom line, though -- take ExxonMobil for example. Yeah, they made $110 billion in sales, but they only brought 10 percent of that down to the bottom line. There are a whole lot of businesses that are a lot more profitable, so if you start talking about targeting a specific business, where does it stop?
CAVUTO: Yeah. So, your concern is that with the best of intentions Capitol Hill, now with Republicans in concert, is destroying what made the country great.
PAYNE: Exactly. What I'm really nervous about is that this is becoming a populist view. If you go on the street and poll the average man or woman, they do view the oil companies as some sort of villains. They do believe that the pharmaceutical companies should give away their patents. You know, not knowing that it takes innovation to create these sorts of patents, that you must protect that innovation. Not knowing, that it takes a lot of money to drill --
CAVUTO: But what about when you have international emergencies? Let's say there is this pandemic bird flu thing, which I'm not quite sure that there is. But, nevertheless, the fear is out there -- that you have an obligation as a company to share that technology?
PAYNE: I would submit that there may be some times when you have to do that, but I think we're putting the cart so far in front of the horse right now. And again, we're talking --
CAVUTO: So, we're all becoming a nation of communists?
PAYNE: It's scary, it really is scary. I think what helped this out is that President Bush -- this year is so awful for him and the Republicans that he's become vulnerable, and it's sort of added fire to this movement. But, definitely anti-capitalistic, pro-communist, and we've got to be careful.
CAVUTO: All right, Charles Payne. Thank you very much.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
"If you go on the street and poll the average man or woman, they do view the oil companies as some sort of villains."
Well, gee, maybe people are noticing that while they're getting gouged at the pump, the oil companies are rolling in money. It's possible that it occurs to people that prices should only jump that fast if they need to for the company to make a profit, not in order for them to make record profits!
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
OMG! Some people don't think a corporation should be able to bend consumers over a barrel* any time they want! What is this country coming to?
Freakin' robber-barons.
* pun intended?
I understand the point the guest was trying to make, and it's a valid opinion but he formed it in rather apocalyptic ways.
Since a huge number of bankrupcies are medical related, and the drug companies seem to be a link, there is a cancer drug that cost $17,000 a month, come on. The drug companies need someone to look at them.
As for oil companies, anybody ever seen them not make profits. Cry for the multi-millionaires, please.
Yes, and because of expensive drugs which counter the nausea induced by chemotherapy, marijuana, an extremely safe and relatively inexpensive drug, remains illegal in most states. The drug companies have a strangle hold on our country, as do the oil companies. Till this grip is loosened there is no free market. They OWN the table, and the game is fixed.
Because feudalism is so much better.
Communism or Socialism? Mmmmm Communism sounds a lot scarier. >:-}
I DON"T believe any PRIVATE company should be forced to give/donate their PROFITS (by taxes or otherwise) to anyone as suggested by Sen. Charles Schumer(D-NY) **to create a temporary windfall profit tax on the oil industry to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief.** OR any other charity.
HOWEVER, like everyone I'd like to see LOWER gas/oil prices. IF we are DELIBERATELY being gouged by these companies THEN those "do nothings lawmakers" in Washington should get to the bottom of it. Fat chance since they are all too BUSY trying to screw EACH OTHER over.
Cavuto &his guest are being SILLY here with their talk of communism...
I give their "scare tactics" a BIG YAWN.
Yes it does... that's what [alleged] cults do, jeter2. They use "loaded language"* to manipulate their masses.
*Defined at [link to www.refocus.org]
I'm sorry, but who is this Payne guy? What types of stocks does he own? What types of stock does his company own? What types of stocks does he recommend? Could there be a financial conflict of interest here?
He's an extremist with an immoral idealogy trying to act good and moral. The sad thing is that people watch this program.
When I hear an argument like this "oh this is communism because they are trying to punish - PUNISH - companies for being successful".
First off I roll my eyes because its clearly a sophist statement.
Second I wonder if these people, who I assume are educated, really know what communism is.
Third I find myself wishing that there was someone on the show to offer a true counterpoint. Many of the post here get to what this issue is about. Payne, for all his success and education, gets it wrong. But I don't think its stupidity. He's either an idealogue who believes this garbage because it supports his belief system or he's lying to help line his own pockets and those who he knows benefits from the profits of these types of companies.
Here's what this is about. This is about consumers with little to few choices (anti-capitalistic itself) who feel forced to buy gas to get to work to make money or buy drugs to save their lives at outrageous prices. The market does set the prices in a perfect capitalist economy, but if there is lack of competition and choice (and why this is so is complex) here you have an entity that is more powerful making huge profits at your expense. So in other words, marketplace prices are manipulated because there is insufficient choice to the consumer for corporate entities overpricing and they know it.
Most people don't care about other's being successful. Most people understand successs and that you need differing rewards to motivate people. However, its hard to be sympathetic to the plight of billion dollar companies making huge profits when you have trouble putting food on the table.
Payne and those who live very well, with no fear of hunger any time soon, have a warped moral system where Profit = Good = Happiness = God = Truth. Funny how these people only appear happy on the surface. It could be the warped moral system that they hold so dear. And its not enough that they suffer for it without recognizing their strange addiction. The true tragedy of the idealogy is that those who can be content without millions are often compelled by physical survival needs to work long hours just to get by. These are people who seeks happiness through community, religion/spirituality, friendship and raising strong families, but that's kind of hard to do when you are busy working all the time to pay the gas bill so Payne can add a little more money in an attempt to fill his empty soul.
i would prefer communism over theocracy.
"i would prefer communism over theocracy."
Communism seems to come with despotism though. I'm not sure if there could be something like a communist democracy. I'm not sure why not. Perhaps too many people do badly under true commmunism and they'd vote for a new system.
There are some nations that seem to do all right with varying amounts of socialism. Besides, if you take a straight Marxist approach to it, any government that claims to be communist is automatically lying; a true nation of communists wouldn't have much of a government.
Which means that most of the states that have claimed to be communist are just garden-variety authoritarianism with a few extra trappings. Of course, so are some countries that have called themselves democracies or republics. It's the actual policies that make the difference, not the buzzwords.
Irene
I'm not sure if there could be something like a communist democracy. I'm not sure why not.
There certainly doesn't, on the fact of it, seem to be any theoretical incompatibility between communism/socialism and democracy. On the other hand, the emperical evidence for incompatibility seems pretty damning.
You might be interested to read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, where he argues that a centrally planned economy will inevitably require capricious and authoritarian government. His argument isn't watertight, but is quite insightful. Impressively insightful when you consider that he wrote the book during WWII, a time when the mood among western intellectuals was quite pro-soviet.
Authoritarianism is one of the guiding principles shared by both Communists and Theocrats. If Cavuto and Payne really cared about democracy and republicanism (note I used lower case for both), they would decry the *authoritarianism* espoused and promoted by both groups.
We think the reason they're making huge profits is because they are not competing, and the reason they are not competing is because they are so busy MERGING.
Wouldn't it be a SHOCK to hear that on FOX?
its a commodity thing that is all
It's finally happened, Fox "News" has become a parody of itself.
Just a few thoughts on profits by the oil companies. I looked only at Exxon-Mobil and came up with the following: Appoximately 10% profit for last reporting term ($9.9 Billion on $100 billion in sales). Assuming that gas averaged $3.00 for that period, and deducting average state/local/federal taxes of about $.46/gallon, that leaves the net price of gas which Exxon-Mobil sold at $2.54/gallon, leaving their profit at $.254/gallon. Assuming that we think E-M should earn some profit, would you be satisfied with a $.10-$.15/gallon price reduction at the pump? Price in the local area has already dropped about $.25/gallon in the last couple of weeks. Drug companies are another matter. I personally think they spend too much on advertising, but I am glad they are spending what they do on R & D. Maybe someone would like to dig into price, costs for that industry.
Well, this is not exactly price per cost. But the gov't spends more than the drug industry reports to spend on drug research, usually in the unprofitable stages of experimentation and research. This would not be a big deal, but guess who benefits? That's right the drug companies, they frequently assume the benefits of this research, which is necessary but non-profitable, at no cost. And we can't collective buy drugs as a country? Talk about 2 huge give aways to big pharm.
Isn't it funny that when a union gets a good deal for their members, cons scream about the workers making too much money. To cons it's OK for corporations to make more than fair market but it's not OK for union workers to do so.
Look at this guy's website.
$150.00 for a 5 page "report" on Activision. From a man who thinks we're moving toward communism. Bet the font is huge.
What sucker is going to fall for that?
Oh, right - the kind that thinks Fox is "fair and balanced"...
Oil companies across the nation reported across the board record profits for the third quarter. Just at a time when people needed price breaks the most. Marx discussed the rising of the workers against the owners of the machines, and that appears to be what this discussion was about. The funny thing is, the violent uprising that was described in dos kapital is brought about by the same inequalities perpetuated by the oil companies screwing us over. Oh the humanity!
[link to money.cnn.com]
More demagoguing.
Rather than have a real discussion of the issues and resolutions, just blunt the critics by calling their positions pro-communistic. That will keep the critics' mouths shut.
The system that Cavuto and Paine were referring to sounds more socialistic (social redistribution) than communistic (everyone contributes, everyone gets), but calling the opposing view socialistic won't scare the viewers as much because there are many Western countries that have rather successful socialistic policies (Canada, Sweden). On the other hand, we are not a true capitalistic market either.
Knowing what has happen to this country regarding oil needs no presentation. In fact, most Americans would say we are experiencing the worse raise in gas prices in their life time. This CEO, Charles Payne, stated he was scared the American people were moving too far to the right when it suggest too much profit was made by the oil companies. Mr. Payne neglected to consider that the American populous is in outrage at the fact that while we have been paying record prices at the pump, the oil companies have posted continued profits. It is in this unbalanced company/customer relationship that the populous claim unfair excess profits. I recall saying when Bush got re-elected the oil prices would go "ski high" and I am betting I was not the only one who made that projection. Even though my predictions were right, I never thought the oil profits would be so huge, and the American people would endure so much hardship. I have two serious questions. How did this happen? Who is responsible for manipulating the market in a way to allow this billion dollar profit scenario?
Now Fox news has a Wall Street CEO come on TV to announce what he's scared of. After all of this seamless and endless profit party, Charles Payne is scared. So what let him be scared; I am sure he's getting paid for it. Yes this fear Mr. Payne has is bought and paid for by the Oil interest, and I would surprised if this paid for fear has any basis for legitimate concern. Considering the source, it was on Fox news.
joseph asks, "Who is responsible for manipulating the market in a way to allow this billion dollar profit scenario?"
RESPONSE: Our public servants make many laws and regulations regarding the oil industry. The oil industry is subsidized and given tax breaks and given regulatory advantages constantly. Something called the "oil depletion allowance" has made many a millionaire in Texas.
The question you have to ask yourself is, does Big Oil LOBBY for advantages, which often have a zero-sum affect on their customers? In other words, does a government decision mean a dollar is transferred from the customer TODAY to the oil company, that was not being transfered YESTERDAY? The answer is, of course, YES, and this is what they lobby for.
Do consumers have comparable lobbying clout? Not even a fraction.
The oil companies cannot be blamed for seeking ever greater advantages and profits; this is what capitalism demands they MUST do.
Our representatives, on the other hand, are supposed to seek a balance, between public service and serving special interests. When does a merger too many result in a working monopoly? When does "like behavior" meld into collusion? What represents a REASONABLE level of profit?
Government could make rules that would result in ALL the "chips" to wind up in front of oil men. Is this a GOOD thing for America? Is it "market forces", or have artificially granted advantages eliminated competition, and thus violated the most basic tenet of capitalism?
If we keep putting Republicans in power, the dynamic will shift dramatically AWAY from the people, and TOWARDS those with the most money and power. It is inevitable. Some think that this is the natural progression, survival of the fittest. Others see the oil companies "gaming the system" to BUY favors to which they have no moral or natural RIGHT.
Oil companies are entitled to their profits but when you commodity is not a luxury but has become a necessity to the survival of the economy and in keeping America humming along, the gouging is just plain wrong.
Beside the "ten" percent crap is not in proper context. TEN BILLION DOLLARS profit is pretty mindboggling. AND I can't see why they feel they NOW NEED TAX BREAKS AND TAX INCENTIVES.
I don't need a lot of items in my life, but unfortunately oil is one that I do need as do almost all Americans and for oil companies to hurt people while they roll around in cash just seems wrong. Very wrong, but it is indeed the capitalist way.
Greed UBER ALLES!
Knowing what has happen to this country regarding oil needs no presentation. In fact, most Americans would say we are experiencing the worse raise in gas prices in their life time. This CEO, Charles Payne, stated he was scared the American people were moving too far to the left when it suggest too much profit was made by the oil companies. Mr. Payne neglected to consider that the American populous is in outrage at the fact that while we have been paying record prices at the pump, the oil companies have posted continued profits. It is in this unbalanced company/customer relationship that the populous claim unfair excess profits. I recall saying, when Bush got re-elected, the oil prices would go "ski high," and I am betting I was not the only one who made that prediction. Even though my predictions were right, I never thought the oil profits would be so huge, and the American people would endure so much hardship. I have two serious questions. How did this happen? Who is responsible for manipulating the market in a way to allow this billion dollar profit scenario?
Now Fox news has a Wall Street CEO come on TV to announce what he's scared of. After all of this seamless and endless profit party, Charles Payne is scared. So what let him be scared; I am sure he's getting paid for it. Yes this fear Mr. Payne has is bought and paid for by the Oil interest, and I would surprised if this paid for fear has any basis for legitimate concern. Considering the source, it was on Fox news.