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; Tobin Smith, ChangeWave Research; Eric Bolling, FOX Business News; Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital; Matt McCall, Penn Financial, and Maria Cardona, Democratic strategist.
Trading Pit: Is Oil Bubble Bursting and New Bull Market Beginning?
Gary B. Smith: Yes, the oil bubble has burst. My "tell"? Tuesday (7-15-08) was the biggest volume down day on USO...ever. (USO is the exchange traded fund that tracks oil.) We may get a bounce back upwards, but at this point, the momentum is with the oil bears.
On the upside, look at Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and other major financial stocks. All up HUGE since Tuesday. Again, they may pull back a bit, but the upside is the easier path right now.
Tobin Smith: Oil is not done (meaning the bubble has not burst). We'll drop down to $120/barrel, and then we'll trade between that number and $130 – until we get into the winter heating season when oil will shoot back up.
As for stocks, what we are seeing is the classic "bear market rally", and we'll probably rally to 12,000. And then the fundamentals will take over. And on top of everything, everyone ignores the fact that we have the highest inflation numbers in 25 years.
You trade the bounce, build some cash and short the financials!
Eric Bolling: Yes, the oil bubble has burst and it will drop to $100/barrel. That means lower prices for consumers (like $2.50 gas). People will spend more and stocks will benefit. And It comes as no coincidence (to me) that this downward move in oil comes on the heels of Bush pulling the presidential portion of the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf this past Monday (7/14/08).
Matt McCall: With oil back in a normal trading range it will take the fear factor out of 200 dollar oil out of the market and investors can now turn their attention to buying again.
A big drop in oil will only occur if the global growth numbers come down. Therefore high oil is not necessarily a bad thing.
Peter Schiff: There is no oil bubble, so there is nothing to burst. What we have is yet another correction in a major, long-term bull market driven by a combination of legitimate supply and demand and the most inflationary monetary policies the world has ever seen.
The current stock market bounce is yet another bear market rally, and should be sold.
Dems' New Spending Plan; Will It Crash Economy?
High gas prices, a slumping housing and job market, and the Dems' answer: another round of spending.
But this time its not just tax rebate checks. Try more food stamps... subsidies for air conditioning... and more cash for states.
Total cost? At least $50 billion. You pick up the bill, of course.
So is this what the economy needs?
Tobin Smith: We can afford the money…we cannot afford the philosophy…outlawing recessions…next thing you know they are going to try to outlaw short selling — oh wait… they are! This is the ultimate Nanny State — privatize profit and socialize risk —LET capitalism WORK — let it take capital away from POOR users and redistribute it to GOOD users of capital…that's what recessions do… Our numbers say that 85-90 percent of the checks went to savings, oil or paying off credit cards…Stimulus checks IN NO WAY creates jobs…it could delay layoffs for a few months at best in retail… ALL we do is push out the recession for a month or two…and make it WORSE! IF they wanted to create REAL stimulus—-open up $500 BILLION of new investment in energy resource exploration and GREEN energy development in the US—pass expanded tax credits and funding for green energy AND open ALL drilling/pipeline installation TODAY.
Maria Cardona: This stimulus package is just what the doctor ordered for the economy; it is offering short term and long term solutions to the problems that ordinary Americans are facing. We are facing a real recession (Sorry Phil Gramm this is not a figment of our imagination), and Americans are hurting every which way they turn - form record high gas prices, to rising food prices, skyrocketing costs of health care, the mortgage crisis, the banking scare - Americans need more relief and the "everything's fine, no need to worry" attitude is not going to put our country back on track and is certainly not going to give Americans the help they need and our economy the shot in the arm it is clamoring for.
And if you look past the stimulus checks, this bill is also designed to help create jobs (through a boost in infrastructure spending). That's a long-term solution that I think critics might miss!
Gary B. Smith: The economics do support a stimulus plan (increased government spending). But this is still a bad idea. If only the Congress, the President and the Fed, would stop screwing with things. They are all about short term fixes, and ignore any unintended/long term consequences. In this not, not the least of which is an even bigger deficit!! And these kinds of plans are just not the kind of system America was founded on.
Eric Bolling: When my son wants to stay outside any play with his friends after the time he should be coming in and getting ready for bed, once in a while I say o.k. And sure as day, he comes in the following week and asks for another hour..."but you said yes last week". Get it? The stimulus was a one time transfer meant to jump start spending, the economy. If we do it again, people will absolutely be looking for another and another, and another. Talk about moral hazard; this is financial hazard. People will start to rely on these and get themselves in a heap of trouble when they stop.
Stock X-Change: "Dark Knight" Stocks
Click here to watch this segment in its entirety
Gary B's Pick: Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Tobin Smith's Pick: Assured Guaranty (AGO)
Matt McCall's Pick: American Superconductor (AMSC)
Eric Bolling's Pick: DreamWorks (DWA)
Peter Schiff's Pick: Harvest Energy (HTE)
Gary B Smith's prediction: IndyMac bank scare overblown! "XLF" up 30 percent by end of '08
Peter Schiff's prediction: Inflation gives silver more shine! "SLV" up 25 percent by end of '08
Matt McCall's prediction: New roads = new cash for Fluor; "FLR" up 50 percent in 12 months
Tobin Smith's prediction: Barbie/Bratz decision is big for Mattel; "MAT" up 40 percent by Christmas
Eric Bolling's prediction: Clean up with clean energy! "CLNE" jumps 50 percent in 5 months
Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In
Cavuto on Business
On Saturday, July 19th, 2008, Cheryl Casone was joined Ben Stein, "How to Ruin the United States of America" author; Charles Payne, wstreet.com; Adam Lashinsky, Fortune Magazine; Marc Lamont Hill, PhD, Temple University professor; Dan Weiss, Center for American Progress; Katrina Campins, real estate agent; Greg Warr, real estate developer.
Bottom Line: Should Congress Follow the President's Footsteps and Lift Ban on Offshore Drilling?
Cheryl Casone: Lifting the ban on offshore drilling. President Bush did it this week. Now, if Congress does it, could we see $2 gas? Charles, what do you think?
Charles Payne: I think the reaction will be down to at least $3.50. Look at this week, oil got hammered. This was the worst week for oil in a long time. If congress follows through, it might take some of the speculators out. Ultimately, taking advantage of our resources, which includes offshore drilling, would take gasoline down to $2 a gallon.
Cheryl Casone: So offshore drilling seems to be an added bonus?
Dan Weiss: Except for one thing. It is totally divorced from reality. The Department of Energy says it will take till 2030 before drilling offshore will make any difference in price. In fact, four out of every five barrels that's offshore is already available to the oil companies, and they have chosen to not produce it. We have to get the oil from places that already have it. Second, is that the only way to have a really quick impact in lowering oil prices is to take a little bit of oil from the already-full Strategic Reserve, put it on the market, and that will lower prices at the pump.
Cheryl Casone: A lot of oil executives have said it will only be three years.
Adam Lashinsky: I want to apologize for guffawing when Dan was speaking. He doesn't even know and love Charles as much as I do, but he stole exactly what I was going to say. Charles, what you say is entertaining, but it is irresponsible to say that gas will go down to $2 a gallon because we open more drilling. It may go down to $2 a gallon for a list of reasons, but that is not one of them. Dan is right. We have to start getting oil into the system, but drilling will take years. Drilling would have absolutely zero impact. Oil didn't fall last week because the president said we should drill of the coast. People are concerned we would have a global expansion with a moderate impact on the economy of China and India. That's what we're talking about.
Cheryl Casone: I want to bring in Ben Stein. It is the psychological impact on the consumer and the industry… if they think we will drill at home, there is an emotional and psychological aspect of the economy to make that it will lower gas prices.
Ben Stein: It is an argument without numbers. The idea that drilling offshore will lower the price is just preposterous! I don't even know how to describe how preposterous it is. But, it is a very good idea for long-term security, and we should be drilling. On the other hand, Mr. Weiss's comment that the oil companies are not drilling on huge amounts of land or under sea is also nonsense. The oil companies have a lot of leases. They don't drill on ever single acre they lease. They want the oil out as fast as they can, too! The oil companies are not holding out on us. They'd like to pump and sell more oil too.
Cheryl Casone: Again, Marc, some people say it does help psychologically. It's like investing in stocks. If people are afraid we're in a recession, even though we're not; it's the same thing with oil. You have to put that factor in.
Marc Lamont Hill: It is possible it will have a psychological effect, but there is no way to quantify it. I think the argument that drilling will not affect oil prices till 2025 is actually dangerous because we could be there for 30 years! I do not advocate drilling. It will have a dangerous impact on the ecosystem. I think the caribou care if we drill. There have been conferences, and they have been particular about saying that 70 percent of food comes from that area, those animals, and this could have a deleterious effect. Indigenous tribes have said that 70 percent of their food comes from animals in the region.
Ben Stein: They can have some other type of food. We need the oil. There are 300-million of us and 220 of them.
Marc Lamont Hill: What are you going to do? Send them Dominos pizza? There is a delicate equilibrium we have to maintain in order to keep they ecosystem alive and functional. And drilling can impact that.
Charles Payne: Bottom line, I like what you said, Marc. I do not understand people who say it will not have an impact for 20 years. It will. The immediacy, the short-term thinking, is why we are in the problem to begin with. We've got to do something. By the way, Adam, I didn't realize you were such a great oil trader. I should start coming to you so you can tell me next time oil is going to go down. You know what? I think the president's speech had something to do with the drop in oil. But, the bottom line is that this argument is some kind of scam. Look at what we saw in Katrina. All those oil wells down in the ocean and we didn't have a lick of oil that leaked out.
Dan Weiss: That's totally wrong Charles! That's totally false! There were 9 million gallons of oil spilled!!
Charles Payne: Exactly! Out of how many BILLIONS? Come on! You're with the Center for American Progress? Tell me. What is the answer then? Because you guys keep telling us what the answer ain't!
Dan Weiss: In 2006, President Bush said America is addicted to oil…
Charles Payne: What's the answer!?
Dan Weiss: Let me finish. Trying to get more oil out of the outer continental shelf is like curing your alcoholism by going to a different saloon. What we need to do is in the short run is lower prices by putting some of the oil in the SPR up for sale.
Charles Payne: No way. That is an illusion.
Cheryl Casone: Ok everybody. No one can hear when you're all talking at once. Neil doesn't like that and I know he's watchin'! Ben, be the voice of reason.
Ben Stein: The voice of reason is that it's not going to affect oil prices, but as a nation gigantic military interest and vulnerabilities around the world , we should be more self-sufficient. We should be drilling.
Head to Head: Housing or Stocks: Which Will Rebound First?
Cheryl Casone: This week, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P all jumping higher. And, new home construction jumping 9 percent last month. But, which rebound is for real? It's time to go "Head to Head."
Greg Warr: This is like saying, "Who is going to come second to last in a horse race?" Both housing and stocks have been beaten down. Right now, real estate is a smarter choice. It has been beaten down for such a long time. Houses are the "American Dream." That is what people want to get into. There are two factors that make real estate a good investment: Low interest rates and money coming in from private equity. It just has to have that marriage with that low interest rate and then they're just going to take off.
Cheryl Casone: Here the thing, Ben, I would think any investment you make now is going to have a return. We've got a really beaten down stock market that could really rebound in the next 6 months.
Ben Stein: I do not know the future; I'm not a fortune teller. But, a typical real estate correction takes seven or eight years. A typical stock market correction is about 18 months. Historically, stocks would be better. On the other hand, you do start getting returns immediately by rent and the pleasure of living in it. For a short-term return, I like stocks. For a place to play with your dogs, I like homes.
Cheryl Casone: Charles, he's making an argument that you should be doing both.
Charles Payne: First, Dan said at the start of the segment, real estate is a good buy anytime. That's nuts. We see an exodus of people losing their homes that are foreclosed on. I think people who want to buy a home, which is what Ben's talking about, then yes. As an investment, I dunno. Stocks are going to pop. You can make a lot of money with them. You can trade them. You can short them.
Cheryl Casone: I want to go over to Katrina really quick, because you're in Florida. And that market has been so beaten down. Here's the thing: People can't get loans to buy the homes.
Katrina Campins: It's the number one obstacle that I'm encountering right now regardless of how wealthy my clients are: Financing. However, real estate is really beaten up right now. It's really one of the best times to buy. Some of the smartest investors are buying right now. And, in real estate, you do make the most money when you buy. However, I think it's really important that the investor become familiar with the location. Every market is different. If investors have a mid-to-long term hold strategy, real estate make sense in the next two years. Be patient. Research the market. Buy a property at a discount and hold long term.
Cheryl Casone: Adam, you're in the Bay Area. I read earlier this week, homes down 25 percent for new home starts I believe. I know that prices have fallen just a little, so you're in a good place to say whether I should be stocks or real estate.
Adam Lashinsky: Bay Area is an unusual place because things were so expensive before the bubble. Story is different for the rest of California where the drop has been catastrophic. Charles and I disagree a lot, but this is one thing where he said something very important. You invest in the stock market. You buy a home to live there. We've seeing a once in a lifetime bubble in the residential real estate market. People have to get it through their thick heads that yes buying a home is a good investment, but it isn't an investment strategy. It's a lifestyle strategy. I think stocks will absolutely recover before the residential real estate market will recover.
Ben Stein: This shows how young you are, Adam. We have bubbles like this in California about every ten years.
Cheryl Casone: Greg, you're in California, a lot of people made a lot of money flipping homes in Arizona and California and Washington state. I'd have to think those days are done.
Greg Warr: They can be done. Charles said before that you can short the stock market. Unfortunately, the Federal government has rigged the real estate market now so that you can't short the stock market, and that takes a big play out of that.
Ben Stein: That's nonsense.
Cheryl Casone: Katrina, I'm going to give you the last word.
Katrina Campins: I would say overall real estate is always going to prove to be a good investment. My background is international finance and marketing, so I understand the stock market and what they're saying. If someone has real estate to be a mid-to-long term strategy, real estate is great for the long term.
More for Your Money: The Best Funds!
Click here to see this segment!
Dagen McDowell: Picking just one great stock in this unpredictable market can be a lot like trying to catch a falling knife. That's why Ben Stein says buying a basket of stocks with a fund will help you get "More for Your Money."
Ben Stein: Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX)
*Ben owns shares of this fund
Charles Payne: Oppenheimer Emerging Growth A (OEGAX)
Adam Lashinsky: Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX)
*Adam owns shares of this fund
FOX on the Spot!
Charles Payne: Ride high on the "HOG"! Harley revs up 25 percent in 1 year
Adam Lashinsky: Google's a go! Jumps 25 percent by 2010
Marc Lamont Hill: Apple knows what we want! MacBook Air price gets slashed
Ben Stein: Learn from brave soldiers! Stop whining and start buying!
Cheryl Casone: You need FBN! Call your cable provider
Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In
Forbes on FOX
Flipside: New Fed Crackdown on Shady Lenders: Bad News for All Homeowners!
Mike Ozanian, national editor: Cracking down on predatory lenders would tank home prices. It would cause a big decrease in the demand for home. When you get lower demand, prices fall.
Quentin Hardy, Silicon Valley bureau chief: What happens when you get higher misplaced demand? Prices bubble up and you get an explosion of prices like you did over the past 4 years. That ends up in a catastrophe and that would happen again. We have to have guardrails in the system.
Rich Karlgaard, publisher: This is a terrible development. The Fed is grabbing more power after it's proved itself incompetent to manage the stability of the dollar. The problem is in the opposite direction. The good people can't get loans right now.
Elizabeth MacDonald, FOX Business Network: Predators have wrecked the system for us. The free market has turned into a free-for-all. Let's put those guardrails back up and get rid of those roaches in the system.
Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief: You may have a different agency than the Federal Reserve regulating this. They should be punished for their incompetence rather than rewarded. But there should be regulations that say a homeowner has an income before getting a mortgage. Lenders should have to lay out what the real fees are and basic things like that. Who enforces this you can debate. But we shouldn't debate the fact that you should have basic banking practices.
John Rutledge, Forbes contributor: Truth in lending laws are not new and a lot of what the Fed is trying to do is just that. In 2000, before the last crunch, I wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that said the Fed, not the Treasury, should do bank regulation. The Fed is in charge of keeping the economy going. But they should do it locally, not centrally, so the whole economy doesn't shut down all at once.
In Focus: IndyMac Bank Customers Lose $500 Million: Should They Sue Sen. Schumer?
John Rutledge: We should roast this guy in public. What an idiot – saying in a letter that if depositors take their money out of a bank, the bank could be in trouble. This is how all banks operate. Politicians need to show leadership and show us how to get out of problems. They don't need to create the problems with their mouths open and their policy books shut.
Josh Lipton, Forbes.com staff writer: The bottom-line here is IndyMac customers can't sue Senator Schumer. As a member of Congress he is immune from lawsuits arising from statements he makes in his official capacity. You might criticize him but you can't sue him.
Steve Forbes: Let Senator Schumer suffer his own medicine. He defends trial lawyers who engage in these types of lawsuits, let him face it. Also let him face hearings like he puts people through. Why did he write that letter, etc.? Let him face his own medicine for once.
Neil Weinberg, senior editor: There is still no law in this country against stupidity. This was a really dumb thing for someone in his position to do. Especially at a time when we're seeing such a loss of confidence in our financial system. But it's not illegal.
Jack Gage, associate editor: He's not apologizing for this. He's riding his white horse claiming he is a patriot defending the people. He's not. He's causing trouble. The SEC is going through this. Christopher Cox is speaking out about imposing laws against people who start rumors and create runs on banks. This is no different. Schumer started this rumor. Now it's the taxpayer's problem.
Victoria Barret, associate editor: Suing him is not really an option. But I think we should investigate him. I think we should question why he looked at a bank that was hundreds of miles away and decided to point a finger. Many of his largest contributors run hedge funds that could have profited from the kind of precipitous drop on IndyMac stock. We don't know, but it's something we should look at. It's pretty odd that he would single out this one bank that's not in his district and not effecting most of his constituents.
Best Way to Slash Food Prices: Eliminate All Government Regulations!
Jack Gage: Competition will always be a better street cop than government bureaucrats. You have to look no further than the rise in food prices to see that the FDA, when it's trying to protect consumers, is actually driving up the price of food.
Quentin Hardy: The market would maybe sort out some things but it would do it over thousands of dead bodies that wouldn't benefit from regulated food or drugs or other good things the FDA looks after. You want to lower food prices? End subsides in agribusiness. End foreign farmers from not being able to sell here.
Mike Ozanian: The FDA just came out and said corn fructose syrup is as natural as honey! So now, all the corn processors have a $30 million campaign to promote this. Guess who is going to pay for this? All of us when we go shopping!
Rich Karlgaard: Getting rid of these regulatory agencies is just a nonstarter right now. The real problem is the dollar. The cheap dollar is affecting crop prices and oil prices which affect transportation prices and packaging prices. If we strengthen the dollar prices will come down.
Steve Forbes: Rich is right. The cheap dollar is raising the price of everything. Quentin is right when it comes to subsides and removing trade barriers. You do those two things and you've addressed 98 percent of the problem. We can't get rid of the FDA. The best we can do is get alternative agencies. Agencies are immortal. Once you create them they live forever.
Informer: Most Recent Buys
Click here to watch the segment
Jack Gage: iShares Latin America (ILF)
Neil Weinberg: iShares Home Construction (ITB)
Victoria Barret: Lamar Advertising (LAMR)
Josh Lipton: Yamana Gold (AUY)
Bulls & Bears | Cavuto on Business | Forbes on FOX | Cashin' In
Stock Smarts: Gore's New Green Energy Plan: Fast Track to $8 Gas?
John "Bradshaw" Layfield, Layfield Energy: Absolutely! We can't get off of fossil fuel. We can't get off fossil fuel for electricity. We gotta have nuclear. We gotta have a national grid. We got to have a production tax credit, which these green tree huggers refuse to implement. It would create millions of jobs. But we are not drilling off our outer continental shelf. We're not drilling in Colorado, Utah. Oil is going to go through the roof.
Terry Barnes, FOX Business Network: If you're going to try to do this in 10 years, you have got to do everything. You cannot rule anything out. To his credit, he has been reminded people all along that we have to do something and he makes the point over and over again that we are giving money to countries that hate us. We have got to stop doing this. It is a national security issue. You have to give him credit.
Chris Kofinis, Democratic strategist: I don't understand the logic of how it will increase the price of gas. People on all sides agree that that is the case. And the proposal has a very ambitious state to achieve it, but it is simple, we have got to be very forward-looking, move in a different direction, and we cannot continue to do what we have been doing and continue to say we will grow more.
Wayne Rogers, Wayne Rogers & Co.: That is true, and we won't wane ourselves off of that until the other fuels become competitive. I think Tracy's right; you can make that argument. If you'll forgive me, Jonathan, that they are saying you are unpatriotic if you do not support these alternative uses of fuel. You are held captive. By the way, Carter made the same speech 30 years ago, and we did nothing. I blame the Congress; I blame the people of the United States, because we have ignored it.
Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Asset Management: Is not Middle Eastern oil that Gore is against, it's oil. It is carbon emissions. Problem is, we use carbon emissions. We're productive with them. It powers modern civilization.
Jonas Max Ferris, Maxfunds.com: I don't think it has anything to do with this whole thing about money going to our enemies has nothing to do with our domestic electricity business. All of the money in electricity goes to U.S. companies. We don't burn Saudi energy to make our electricity really. As a domestic business, it does not hurt the economy to buy electricity. It is an environmental issue he is raising, not a "Don't send money to Hugo Chavez" issue. Electricity domestically, we could achieve this goal in less than 10 years. I could have my home in two weeks not hurting the environment, but it would practically doubled the cost of electricity to do this in the short run, so this is not some magical way to generate power. We have to keep down costs.
Lesson From IndyMac: Let All Failing Banks Go Bust?
Jonathan Hoenig: Absolutely.The government shouldn't be re-regulating banking, it should be de-regulating banking, and that includes letting IndyMac, Fannie and Freddie and Bear Sterns.
Wayne Rogers: Yes and No. You have the Federal Reserve, you've got the treasury and FDIC, and these are proper areas for the government to regulate in a certain extent. However, when they cancelled the Glass-Stegle Act, the congress, in its infinite stupidity, opened up this whole thing to what Jonathan would call deregulation. I' m not sure you would call it that, but, ok, the banks have been allowed to go so large, that they are too big to fail. If they were held to Glass-Stegall, they wouldn't be where they are today.
John "Bradshaw" Layfield: One thing that Wayne is dead right about is infinite stupidity. Our guys on Congress have got to be the worst Senate in the history of empires. These guys are morons. To let them be in charge of something they never saw coming is ridiculous. When is it going to stop. Do you bailout Wachovia? Do you bailout Wells Fargo? We either need a free market, or we do not need a free market.
Tracy Barnes: It should scare people. It's your money, do your due diligence. If you have more than 100 grand in a bank account, either separate it, or move it. Make sure your bank is solvent. If we were talking about 3 different tech companies, and one had a crappy computer, we would say, "Let it shut down. Move the door, and move on." We do it for other industries, we should do it for banks.
Jonathan Hoenig: Why do people trust and IndyMac bank? Because it is government- regulated. That's the whole point.
Chris Kofinis: My perspective is that one of the rules of government is to make sure we have a stable market place, but we want an economy right now where consumers are feeling really, really nervous about where we are going, and I think the idea of seeing a bank fail is something that's psychologically does bigger damage than just simply one bank failing. That doesn't mean that the government needs to save every bank, but they need to be very selective in terms of stopping it. The last thing you want is for people to lose confidence not only in the banking system, but the economy.
Jonas Max Farris: Because they don't fully understand the problem yet. Any IndyMac customer can tell you, they did not get bailed out by the government. The government is bailing out depositors, which is a system we've had since the depression, and they will continue to do that because since the 24-hour news cycle, if we had camera shots of these lines around the banks, we would see a line around all banks. The average person cannot determine if their bank is solvent or has made good loans and we need an FDIC system. The core issue is falling home prices, and they're not doing things to support it. You have to bail out people at this bank, because it is hurting the bank. In fact, the government is encouraging home prices to fall.
Teachers Unions Social Agenda: Will It Bankrupt Us If Obama Wins?
Jonathan Hoenig: What's proposed here is school becoming a second home, replacing parents, and, once again, forcibly asserting more unaccountable government control into people's everyday lives. I' m not an educator but I think the purpose of school is to learn how to think. Not get a cavity filled, not get a hot meal. And that's what is on the table here.
Chris Kofinis: Well, times have changed. AFT's proposal is an ambitious, but I think what it reflects is a growing reality that educators face every single day. Kids come to school that do not have a health-care, kids come to school with poor nutrition or they are not treated well at home. They have to educate them poor services, poor building support instruments. It complicates the primary mission of every educator, to teach kids as best they can. I do not know if this is necessarily the right solution, it seems pretty ambitious. It is something that I think maybe almost too difficult to manage, but I think it reflects a growing reality that we have to, as a country, focus on human capital and how to build that up.
Next Bull Market Leaders!
Click here to watch the segment
John Bradshaw Layfield: General Electric (GE)
Jonathan Hoenig: NTT Docomo (DCM)
Jonas Max Ferris: Vanguard Telecom Services ETF (VOX)
Wayne Rogers: United Technologies (UTX)