DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Bulls & Bears

This past week's Bulls & Bears: Gary B. Smith, Exemplar Capital managing partner; Pat Dorsey, Morningstar.com director of stock research; Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research editor; Scott Bleier, HybridInvestors.com president; Cheryl Casone, FOX Business correspondent and host of "Fox Business Now" on Yahoo! Finance.

Trading Pit: Would 2007 Stock Gains Be Wiped Out if Terrorists Hit U.S.?

The trading year is half over and by any measure it's been quite a six months for stocks. All indices are solidly higher, with the Dow and S&P hitting multiple all-time highs.

But at the same time, a reminder that terror is never far away. Car bombs, with the potential to kill and injure hundreds, found in London. Would a "successful" terror attack on U.S. soil wipe out the stock gains of 2007?

GARY B: The green arrows that we've seen so far this year would all be red the moment the market opened after an attack. We've come from the mindset after 9/11, that we can't have another terrorist attack. It won't be on our shores. It will be diverted. It will be minor. If there were a successful attack, and certainly if it's a major one that cripples some vital industry, the Dow would certainly lose those 1,000 points it's gained so far this year. All the gains would be wiped out in a second!

TOBIN: There's no doubt that we would be down, but by the end of the week we'd be right back up again. The bigger issue is that we understand this threat. Terrorists cannot stop a 13 trillion dollar economy!

CHERYL: If we have an attack on our soil, the markets would be down, would sell off, and would not come right back. How many times do we hear people in Washington D.C. say, "It's not if, it's when we're going to have another attack."

PAT: 9/11 was different than anything we had ever seen because it was unexpected. And that's the one thing that Wall Street hates the most, the unexpected. The market fell about 12 percent in the five trading days after 9/11. But two months later it was back were it started. Terror wasn't on the radar screen. At this moment terror is on the radar screen. Sure, it's going to hurt for a few days, but we are going to come back. An attack won't hurt as much as it did the first time. The markets will differentiate a psychological impact from a potential economic impact.

SCOTT: The market would go down if there were a terrorist attack on our soil. But the fact is we would come back rather quickly. The market cannot stay cheap. Every investor knows in the back of his or her mind that terror is out there, and that it's probably coming.

Home Depot Forced To Pay To Care For Illegals?

Home Depot and other private companies are being forced by some local governments to spend their own money to shelter and help day laborers, many of whom are illegal aliens. The argument: even if that's not its intent, the store creates the demand for the workers who show up in the parking lots—so the businesses bear the responsibility.

CHERYL: This is ridiculous! I cannot believe these local governments are getting away with this. They are saying, we'll give you a permit, but you have to build centers for these day laborers that have NOTHING to do with Home Depot. Home Depot has a non-solicitation policy and has nothing to do with these people. Yet Home Depot is supposed to take care of them?

GARY B: The public cannot band together and vote collectively unless they do it through the government entity. In this case, the government has to be responsible for the general upkeep of the community. That's why you have no littering laws and things like that. Otherwise, no one would be responsible. In this case, the government is doing what it is supposed to do.

TOBIN: This in insane! These people are going to Home Depot because they know the day laborers are there. This is just a continuation of the rules that don't work. We don't have an immigration policy that works, so now we're going to create another law that doesn't work!

PAT: This became an issue because it was attached to the immigration bill. It's involving the federal government in a local issue: zoning laws! It's saying that Congress has nothing better to that than to decide were a park goes in a community. This is purely a local issue, and one that certainly needs to be dealt with at the local level, and not at the federal level.

SCOTT: It's not Home Depot's responsibility! If you have people loitering on private property it becomes the problem of the municipalities or police departments. Home Depot must either hire its own security or call the police. Why should the company have to set up an employment bazaar on its property? It's private property! The bottom line is that this is a problem for the municipalities, and that's who should pay for it!

Stock X-Change

"Transformers" hits theaters this week. Which stocks could literally "transform" your bank account?

If you want to see what everyone had to say about these stocks, click here.

GARY B: Quidel (QDEL)

PAT: Corporate Executive Board (EXBD)

TOBIN: American Superconductor (AMSC)

SCOTT: Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)

Prediction

Gary B's prediction: Apple iPhone is huge flop! Not worth $600 price tag

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Cavuto on Business

On Saturday, June 30th, Neil Cavuto was joined by Charles Payne, "Be Smart, Act Fact, Get Rich" author; Laura Schwartz, laura.gather.com; Ben Ferguson, "The Ben Ferguson Show"; Rebecca Gomez, FOX Business Correspondent; Gregg Jarrett, FOX News anchor; and Tracy Byrnes, New York Post business writer.

Bottom Line

Neil Cavuto: London foils yet another terror plot as the U.S. bitterly debates the question of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is it time to spend money and resources on securing our borders first?

Charles Payne: Absolutely. Forget about the amnesty issue right now. I think everyone, Wall Street and Main Street, wants our borders secure. Something major is brewing. Let's secure our border. I think the American people should demand that.

Ben Ferguson: It doesn't matter what you do with immigration; as long as the border's still open because people are still going to cross. But, what's even bigger than that is this issue of national security. You look at what's going on in London right now and you realize how many terrorists could get across the border and into our country. It has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with national security. If one of the 9/11 terrorists would have come through on our border with Mexico, we would have sealed it up so fast that it wouldn't have even been an issue. Secure the border; then deal with immigration.

Rebecca Gomez: Ben is finally seeing the light on some of this immigration stuff. It has always annoyed me when…

Neil Cavuto: Ben has annoyed you?

Rebecca Gomez: Well, him as well. (LAUGHTER) But, what's annoyed me is when people use the war on terror as justification for keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. They are completely separate issues. These terrorists are coming into the country, and we need to focus on the Internet, money laundering, and infiltration of their communities.

Neil Cavuto: You're talking about the border, are terrorists coming through the border?

Rebecca Gomez: No they're not coming with the coyotes through the Mexican border.

Neil Cavuto: How do you know?

Rebecca Gomez: We haven't caught any yet. Homeland Security should focus on securing the borders and other means to stop terrorists from coming into the country.

Gregg Jarrett: Well, it's only a matter of time before a large group of terrorists gets through our porous border and launches an attack; only then will we take it seriously. So we can do two things: virtual fences with ground sensors -- we have the technology, and the second thing is the improved detection of fake documents at the border. Eighty-four-thousand people were busted just crossing the Canadian border with fake documents. Those are the two solutions, and it's going to take a terror attack for us to do it.

Laura Schwartz: There are two pivotal pieces of legislation right now in the Congress, except Republicans are blocking it. One of those is a 9/11 security recommendation. It's been six years since that horrible attack, and it's been three years since we got that recommendation so this wouldn't happen again. It took the Democratic Congress to act on that, and it passed bipartisan. Mitch McConnell, the leading Republican in the Senate, is blocking it.

Neil Cavuto: Laura, I don't want to make this about politics. I'd like you to try to take that hat off. Here is what I want to focus on—if this does galvanize our attention on the border. This London incident passed with no injury, so does that ease worries?

Charles Payne: That's my concern. The finger pointing is outrageous, and I don't think anyone on Capitol Hill can be proud that they walked away from this issue. We don't have any security down there, and I want a physical barrier, not just some sensors.

Gregg Jarrett: They'll poke their way through or crawl over physical barriers; they've been doing that for dozens of years.

Rebecca Gomez: No disrespect to the people running across the border or the Rio Grande, but these terrorists are much smarter. They're going to use fake visas and high-tech means to cross the border.

Neil Cavuto: I'm curious about where this whole thing is going with the immigration bill going down in defeat. It seems at best it is going to go nowhere. Ben, your concern is what?

Ben Ferguson: My concern is that we are going to always tie the border to immigration reform, and that's what we saw happen in Washington this week. We're going to secure the border IF we let all these people have amnesty. We're going to secure the border IF you pass this bill. I'm saying, give it to me by itself, and don't tie politics to national security. If you're a terrorist near a border right now and you see 50 million people come across our border from Mexico, you see that it's a pretty good way to enter America and it's not that hard to do.

Neil Cavuto: A lot of the incidents we see in countries where there are attacks are homegrown. I have to wonder if this argument even addresses that.

Gregg Jarrett: Well to some extent it doesn't, and that's a great point to be making. And in addition to the southern and northern borders, you have 95,000 miles of shoreline and thousands of ports too. We already have homegrown terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabe's who share the same Jihadist philosophy, and we need to do a better job of getting into the mosques and infiltrating them, because there is always a mosque connection.

Ben Ferguson: I think we've done a good job with that part of national security in America. The FBI and CIA are doing a great job of locating people in this country, the homegrown terrorists. Look at the 9/11 bombers—they all came from other countries.

Rebecca Gomez: But they didn't come over a wall or because of the absence of one, Ben. Building a wall and dealing with terrorism are two different issues.

Neil Cavuto: Laura, I'd like to see where you think this goes then. If it does get our attention back on terror, how far does it go?

Laura Schwartz: Well, number one, with the demise of the immigration bill yesterday, members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, are going to have to take out of that bill the parts that can't get passed. $4.4 billion for border patrol and security, but I think it's also going to take the end of the Republican blocking by Mitch McConnell to pass the 9/11 recommendations which deals with port security among other things. And lastly, the Homeland Security Appropriation Bill which will put 3000 additional troops on the border because we need both physical action and intelligence.

Charles Payne: Forget about the Republicans and the Democrats—I think they should agree on a securable border. That's it, period.

Head to Head

Neil Cavuto: John Kerry and a few other Democratic Senators pushing for the government to regulate the opinions heard on talk radio.

They call it the "Fairness Doctrine" and it would dictate content on the airwaves.

But isn't that what the free market is for?

Tracy Byrnes: It's ludicrous. First, when did John Kerry become relevant again? That's another story. The economy thrives on the fact that free information is available on the Web and talk radio. Creative juices are flowing, and any good journalist shows both sides of the story anyway. We don't need the government proof-reading our work. I think it ruins our whole industry, and I don't agree with it at all.

Laura Schwartz: Well I don't think it's as much about this Fairness Doctrine talk that we've heard, but we should have a better informed debate. Congress themselves, Senators Lott and Feinstein said this weekend that they have got to explain things better. We are a responsible listening public with many different platforms to get our information from. We can fact-check whatever we want, but the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer.

Ben Ferguson: First of all, as a talk show host, I'm glad that I'm not hired by the government, and I shouldn't be fired by them either. The fact that certain Senators don't like what talk radio has done with the immigration bill doesn't justify the government saying, "we're going to put this guy on after you to level out your conservative views and our liberal views. To me, that's absurd. If you look at our freedom of speech, we have the most diversified media that you can possibly have. Even individuals have the opportunity with YouTube and other things to say what they want to say, and for them to say they are going to level the playing field in 2007 is crazy. If a bill doesn't pass, don't blame it on me, blame it on yourself, but don't fire me for it!

Neil Cavuto: Is there any legal standing for the idea that you can level the playing field?

Gregg Jarrett: None whatsoever. This would not survive constitutional scrutiny. It would be struck down 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court. When it was in force, there were very few radio stations on the airwaves. Diversity of opinion was quite scarce. Then, it could only barely survive constitutional scrutiny. Now, you have on AM radio alone, 2000 plus talk radio stations, which is great diversity. John Kerry is trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine because he is a sore loser.

Neil Cavuto: Well, to be fair, there are other Democrats in Congress pushing the same thing. I guess what it comes down to. Let's say I'm a businessman — well, I guess I am. I want to make money, so if I can find a compelling liberal personality to be popular and get high ratings, I'm not going to care.

Charles Payne: What it comes down to is what the listeners want. You can't force the public to accept something it doesn't want. We've had Air America and liberal shows — I can't get in a cab in New York City without hearing NPR. The bottom line is the listeners make the choice. It's not the conservatives; it's not business people. If the listeners don't want to hear what you have to say, John Kerry, they're not going to listen.

Gregg Jarrett: The other thing is, all of this was brought up by a liberal think-tank called the Center for American Progress, which is a bit of an oxymoron. At any rate, they only look at a slice of the radio stations and they totally left out NPR, which, as Charles pointed out, is heard nationwide. So you have to consider the source of all this.

Laura Schwartz: That report did say the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer. They looked at structural imbalance of the stations, and they said very clearly that the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer.

Ben Ferguson: Look at Air America which is supposed to be the cream of the cream of the crop of talk radio. They filed bankruptcy I think twice already, they've had to restructure multiple times, CEO's come and go. It doesn't make money, and if it doesn't make money, then it's not on the air because people aren't listening to it. It has nothing to do with a certain network or a certain group of stations boycotting liberal talk radio. Clear Channel tried it and it failed in their markets.

More for Your Money

Neil Cavuto: Bruce Willis saves the day and Wall Street in "Live Free or Die Hard." Now get the stocks that could save your bottom line: unstoppable names in "More for Your Money."

If you'd like to see what each had to say about their stock, click here.

Charles Payne: Bear Stearns (BSC)
* Charles owns shares of this stock.

Ben Ferguson: Deere & Co. (DE)

Tracy Byrnes: Morgans Hotel Group (MHGC)

FOX on the Spot

Ben Ferguson: Fred Thompson declares on July 4th; wins in '08!

Gregg Jarrett: Pro-business Hillary wins 2 terms; market soars!

Tracy Byrnes: Congress sinks to new low with self-approved pay hike!

Charles Payne: Chavez oil grab backfires; regime collapses within the year!

Rebecca Gomez: Life without illegal immigrants will cost U.S. dearly!

Neil Cavuto: America will learn terror lesson all over again

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Forbes on FOX

In Focus: London Car Bomb Scare: Good for GOP and Stocks?

Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief and Giuliani campaign senior policy adviser: I think the recent events in the U.K. underscore Giuliani's message that the Democrats have a pre-9/11 mentality. They're treating terror as a crime issue. It's a national security issue. Firmness works. You saw this after 9/11. Nine days later President Bush went before Congress, gave a Churchill-like speech and the markets rallied from their worse fall since the Great Depression. Markets like leadership.

Quentin Hardy, Silicon Valley bureau chief: We have a Republican in power now and adjusting for inflation the stock market is about where it was when he started 6 years ago and 9/11 happened on his watch. Rudy has been moving away from the anti-terror guy and trying to broaden his platform. If he goes back to his bias towards fear, people are tired of fear. Fear is what terrorists want. This is clouding his message.

Steve Forbes: That bomb in London could have killed hundreds of people. We don't know what else is out there. That's not fear, that's reality and we have to live with it.

Rich Karlgaard, publisher: It depends on who the Republican nominee is. If it's Rudy Giuliani, whose brand is tough on terror, it's going to be good. If it's Mitt Romney, maybe less, because that's not where his experience base is. Fred Thompson falls somewhere in the middle.

Elizabeth MacDonald, senior editor: I don't see this helping any of the candidates. There is a serious lack of vision and that is the Muslim world sees us as having a self-serving hypocrisy. Not doing enough for Palestine while at the same time supporting tyrannies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Lea Goldman, associate editor: If a terror attack happened on U.S. soil, I think you would first see the markets recoil but they would rebound because they're prepared for that. If that happened, Giuliani would trounce Hillary and Obama because no one speaks about terror with more authority, authenticity and credibility than Rudy Giuliani.

Neil Weinberg, senior editor: The reality is a car bomb isn't going to change the earnings of American corporations. So in the end, it's not really going to have a big effect. If a car bomb did go off here, I'm not so sure that Giuliani is going to be the one to benefit from it. He's been really close to George Bush and people might blame Bush for not protecting us.

Flipside: It's "Good" Business "To Do" Business With Dictators!

Michele Steele, Forbes.com reporter: I think Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are going to regret saying adios to Venezuela this week. The fact is, the world needs Venezuelan oil. The U.S. is very dependent on Venezuelan exports. With the country taking over that oil industry, production is only going to go far south from here. This is bad politics and bad business.

Mike Ozanian, senior editor: I think it's not the responsibility of public corporations to get involved in politics. Companies should do business wherever they think that they can make the most money for shareholders.

Steve Forbes: People like Chavez are turning against economic freedom. Capitalism is not allowed in Cuba, whenever it emerges it gets squashed by Castro. Same thing in North Korea. We tried to negotiate with North Korea in the mid 1990s and they broke every agreement.

Elizabeth Macdonald: In Venezuela, per capita income hasn't changed since 1957. Don't be naïve to think that doing business with these kinds of countries is going to topple them.

Victoria Barret, associate editor: Being in countries like Venezuela and Cuba helps us. And companies are increasingly playing that role.

Dennis Kneale, managing editor: Capitalism helped bring down the Berlin Wall and liberate the Eastern Bloc. Trade is good!

Is Barack Obama Making a Grab For "God's" Money?

Rich Karlgaard: I think it's a very interesting try by Obama. There use to be a religious left in this country. It helped end slavery and was instrumental in bringing about civil rights. But we haven't heard from it for decades. So to see Barack Obama going after it is interesting to watch. I don't think he'll be successful though.

Lea Goldman: I think it's a more calculated move than an honest reflection of where he stands religiously. If he can get the fringe of the religious right, then he's effectively neutered one of the most powerful voting blocks in this country.

Steve Forbes: The problem is he's wrong on the major issues. What has split the religious left was the abortion issue. He's for abortion, even for partial birth abortion. He's wrong on that, he's wrong on stem cell research. I think at the end of that day, that's going to hurt his efforts.

Quentin Hardy: I think Obama's making a really good point about how certain Christians in this country have laid claim to political issues and all of Christianity. I go to Church. I'm appalled when certain political candidates say they don't believe in evolution, when the President flies back and horns in on Terry Schiavo and I'm appalled when certain religious leaders say that 9/11 is God's punishment on America.

Mike Ozanian: It all comes down to economics. The vast majority of this country is religious. But I think economics is the major issue. It won't work for Obama because all he believes in is taking money from people who have a lot of it and giving it to people who have less of it. It won't work.

Informer: iPhone or iFlop?

Dennis Kneale: iPhone is a hit; buy Nokia (NOK)

Michele Steele: iPhone is a flop; buy Palm (PALM)

Neil Weinberg: iPhone is a hit; buy AT&T (T)

Lea Goldman: iPhone is a flop; buy Research in Motion (RIMM)

Victoria Barret: iPhone is a hit; buy Verizon (VZ)

Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In

Cashin' In

Our Cashin' In crew this week: Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co; Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Asset Management; Jonas Max Ferris, MaxFunds.com; Dagen McDowell, FOX Business News; Ann Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"; Leigh Gallagher, Fortune Magazine.

Stock Smarts: Smart Move for Biz Leaders To Embrace Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton courting business leaders last week and even landing on the cover of Fortune magazine, all lauding her pro-business stance. Not too long ago, she was talking about "taking" things from people for "the greater good." What kind of President would Hillary Clinton be for Wall Street?

Ann: Hillary would not be a very good President for business. The fact that all these corporations are giving to Hillary also points out how low corporations will go. They are not supposed to have a soul. When Republicans turn into corporate shills is just frustrating. Along with the idea that corporations are our most loyal Republicans because they support capitalism.

Leigh: A lot of Wall Street is behind Hillary Clinton. We are really seeing a shift here. It's not soulless corporations that are behind her, but individuals that are big in the business world. For example, people like John Mack, CEO of Morgan Stanley; he is a former Bush supporter and now is fully behind Hillary.

Jonathan: Let Hillary have lunch with whomever she wants. Go to her webpage and see what she advocates. You'll see she is not a capitalist.

Leigh: She is really speaking to business points right now. Health care has gone en vogue. It is no longer what it was. It has become trendy for business people to talk about how health care needs to be reformed.

Dagen: Businesses want universal health care because they want some help getting rid of the money problems they are facing with skyrocketing health care costs.

Leigh: Wall Street hates uncertainty. Wall Street loved it the last time a Clinton was in the White House. Look what happened to the economy. Business feels comfortable with her; they like her experience, and like the fact that she has been in the Senate.

Wayne: Hillary's ideology is so anti-business. This is a woman who was involved in "Whitewater," "File gate," and "Travel gate." This is a dishonest woman. I want you all to do a little reading. There's a book called Her Way written by two investigative reporters. Whatever Hillary says is meaningless. Take a look at her behavior, not what she says.

Jonas: Business is putting money behind her because they know a Democrat is going to win. They are betting on the leading horse just to ensure future government policy doesn't punish their own businesses. This doesn't necessarily mean they are fully behind her. Your average Republican will be better for business than Hillary, but Hillary is the most positive for business out of all the other Democrats because she talks a populist game.

Ann: Hillary may be better than the other Democrats, but the difference is being thrown off the 13th floor or the roof. Hillary is going to be a president with an agenda.

Dagen: When you do talk to people in business, the uncertainty of a Hillary Clinton is what does come up. The big question is, "How liberal is this woman going to get if she is elected to the White House?"

Jonathan: Hillary talks for hours about the importance of the collective.

Jonas: It's all talk!

Wayne: She's nakedly ambitious. All she wants to do is get elected. She'll say anything to get elected. She has a history of this. Read what she has done.

End of the "Melting Pot": Threat to Our Economy?

Ann: We're not a country that attempts to assimilate immigrants the way we used to. It's stunning what we used to do 50-100 years ago. Corporations like Ford would have a six month training program to teach new immigrants, not only how to speak English, but how to be an American. Civic organizations did it, the federal government did it, and local governments did it. That is when we all think fondly of the melting pot, but you had to have people melt.

Jonathan: A hundred years ago, we didn't have the restrictive quotas that defined illegal immigrants. People showed up at Ellis Island and they were here. I'm not surprised that there's not a melting pot now because why would you want to melt with a country that treats you like a criminal, just for coming here.

Ann: We're talking about straight immigrants. Illegal immigration is different.

Wayne: We were never a melting pot. The idea that we were a melting pot is crazy. We are a pluralistic society. We wouldn't have to do all the things for racial balance and all of those laws that happened. We wouldn't need all of that if we were a melting pot.

Dagen: Whether or not you agree on if we were a melting pot, there is a perception in this country that people are not assimilating. People move in as legal immigrants and do not learn the language. You heard Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about it recently by telling a group of Hispanic journalists that people need to stop watching Spanish-language TV and learn English. That's actually something that could work in this country: messages from people who came here and succeeded.

Jonas: You can always buy foreign-language newspapers in parts of the country where there are a large group of immigrants. Some places still even have signs in other languages. As far as the economy goes, we want immigrants coming in and working. Hillary Clinton is for the H-1 visas that would bring in high-end tech workers. That's good for the economy.

Ann: This is why the immigration bill went down. You Wall Street types are so out of touch with what is happening in America. This is preposterous. When Italians, Germans, Jews came here, they became Americans. They are also running hedge funds and corporate America.

Jonathan: And one hundred years from now, Mexicans will be running hedge funds. Why would they want to assimilate when you make is so hard to get here?

Ann: You are fixated on illegal immigration and you're fixated on who we have to blame here. America is not a country that tries to assimilate immigrants anymore. We're so into this multi-cultural thing now.

Wayne: Ann, you're wrong. No one tries to assimilate. This country has always been multi-faceted.

Paris Hilton: Brilliant Businesswoman?

Ann: Yes, she's a brilliant businesswoman like Joey Buttafuco was a brilliant businessman. He got a lot of attention too. If she were a brilliant businesswoman, she would have skipped that Larry King interview. Part of her allure was that she is beautiful, wears fabulous clothes, goes to all these great parties, and there's the mystery that she must be really cool to hang out with. Now, having heard her talk, she's very blank.

Leigh: Paris does earn a fair amount of money on her own. She had a book on the New York Times Bestseller list; her show, A Simple Life, was a hit; and she gets anywhere from $10,000 to $120,000 to show up at a nightclub. She's created herself a force of nature.

Dagen: That was all before she went to jail. A few weeks ago, I thought she was a genius businesswoman, but now she is oversaturated. We're sick of her. Even the cover of US Magazine claimed "100 percent Paris Free." Now she is going to be reformed? People won't want to read about that. They want to read about her partying.

Wayne: I think this whole thing is a ridiculous conversation. There's this adulation in the United States with celebrity. It's not about what Paris achieves; it's about who she is.

Jonathan: Paris is a celebrity. Let her make a lot of money for showing up at a nightclub. I think the real test is what will Paris' brand be worth when she is 30-something and fat. Probably zero. Unlike Debbie Field, Meg Whitman, or Anita Roddick, I just don't see Paris as building any business.

Jonas: You are all out of the demographic. If you think the people who are buying the Paris Hilton perfume are watching the Larry King interview, you're crazy. Her fans still admire her. She is a young Martha Stewart. We might not think so, but we are not her target audience. She's got all these products that all do fairly well.

Dagen: Her talent agency just fired her and she's off the Forbes Celebrity 100 list this year.

Best Bets: $tocks for Ann to Buy With Her Next Book Advance

Jonas: Vanguard STAR Fund (VGSTX) (Minimum Investment $1,000.)

Wayne: BE Aerospace (BEAV) (Friday's Close: $41.30.)

Jonathan: CurrencyShares British Pound Sterling (FXB) (Friday's Close: $201.63.) Jonathan owns.