Skip to main content

tv   Cavuto on Business  FOX Business  December 11, 2016 2:30am-3:01am EST

2:30 am
>> home depot, i think it's up 20% in a year. >> jonas. >> shoppers say they're going to spend more money than last year which means no coal in stockings and unfortunately no gold because trump rooted the gold bubble. up 30% in a year. >> i'll take some gold though. neil is now. well, it's the interview that appears to be creating a fire dlmz storm and you saw it first on fox business network. >> so not the 1,100 that donald trump mentioned, you say it's more like 800 in total? >> it's 800. that's what the figure is. donald trump and governor pence are taking credit for 350 jobs that are research and development jobs that were staying here in indianapolis from the start. >> all right. that was carrier union boss chuck jones claiming that president-elect trump is taking credit for saving jobs at carrier that were never leaving in the first place. then donald trump firing back telling jones he ought to stop
2:31 am
yapping about union jobs and just start saving jobs. the back and forth and back and forth and here we be. welcome to everybody. i'm neil cavuto. charles payne, charlie gasparino, good to see this person in person, emily, along with ben stein. glad to have him back. we have dagen mcdowell who did usual great job sub hosting on "bulls & bears." kennedy is out today. charles payne, what is being argued here is it's not 1,100 jobs. it's more like 700 jobs or whatever. my bottom line is it's 700-plus jobs that wouldn't have been there had donald trump not intervened. >> it's nuts. of all the fights to pick with donald trump, the amount of jobs you saved from going to mexico couple weeks before christmas, which is what unions used to do or were supposed to do until they got too greedy and started to rip off the companies they supported, produced products that were too expensive for the
2:32 am
consumer and sought their membership roles decline by 80%. that's what you were supposed to do, chuck. he's doing your job. maybe you can find a lot of things to quibble about, this was the wrong one. >> you do not appear to agree with chuck. all right. emily, what's your take on this? >> so i think first of all, the way donald trump is talking to trump is probably the way a lot of people across the country have wanted to talk to chuck for a long time. the reason we're having this conversation is because we now have a president who's experienced on the business side and not something a lot of politicians can say, it's working well so far, let's see what happens in the future, but for now i think it was great. >> charlie, i saw this story evolved, and you and i were talking about this, he was a great guest, chuck jones, he was a fantastic guest. and he wasn't really excessively whining, but then i think he went back to his people and said you're not sounding angry enough. >> yeah. >> and it got worse. so i do think everyone goes back to their base or whatever. no, no, you've got to sound angry. you've got to sound crazier.
2:33 am
>> yeah, i mean, the quibble about a couple hundred jobs that, you know, donald was off by is like absurd given the fact that at least 700 jobs have been saved. if you really want to go after donald, and no union president would ever do this, it was his possibly excessive use of corporate welfare to keep the carrier employees in there, which i think is open game for anybody. i mean, basically carrier stayed, not just -- for a lot of reasons, but there was a component of corporate welfare. >> well, if it's corporate welfare, lots of states -- >> and it never works. >> well, it kept them there, right? >> well, now it did, but who knows what's going to happen. >> what do you make of that, ben stein? >> i make the fact gasparino is right, using heavy hand to keep -- it makes headlines, not going to work for a long time. the free movement of jobs and capital unfortunate for people
2:34 am
to lose their jobs, they should be retrained and compensated, but the idea that we're going to be coming from texas is a very bad idea and it scares me a lot. i wish mr. trump would think about it a bit tiny more. >> well, i disagree with that. but, adam, i see what's so wrong with president-elect making a pitch for jobs and doing nothing different we're told than a lot of these other pitches to remind them i'm going to cut regulations, cut taxes, you'd be crazy to want to leave when i'm about to do this. and indeed down the road if you want to after all that, go ahead. >> the way you framed it just now i think is totally appropriate, neil. what could be crazy about it is this notion of a president of the united states doing a one-si, and two-sie with individual companies and threatening them or coercing them. >> good point. >> we want to be very sure that doesn't happen. >> all right. by the way, you're saying that, gasparino is saying good point. you are on record.
2:35 am
charlie, you are on the same page, along with ben stein. >> it might be the first time he's agreed with me. it wouldn't be the first time i agreed with him. >> the whole week, neil, he went from carrier, which i don't think is the worst thing in the world but i don't like the use of corporate welfare because taxpayers are subsidizing corporate welfare. >> and taxpayers have been doing that to keep businesses in their state. >> it never really works. new york's been the king. it's horrible. but let me put, then he went to rexnord and attacked them and tanked their stock for a little bit, then went to boeing because he didn't like -- >> well, they all see what happens. i see your point and others want to follow. i do see that. what i think is that for him to be criticized for trying to do everything in his power, let alone as a president-elect to save jobs is not a bad thing. >> listen, i don't disagree with the merits of what ben, charlie and adam are saying. >> don't give ben credit. >> we should put an asterisk --
2:36 am
>> or one. >> i think you should put an asterisk on this one this time. president-elect made a specific promise to the folks at carrier, but more importantly i think he's trying to energize middle america who don't understand necessarily or care about the economic theories that we're talking about right now but they want their jobs for christmas. and i think it's working. i think the big news this week is the amaziing surge in consumr confidence. >> you know why there's a surge in consumer confidence? because a lot of people -- because of things like this. a lot of people reading this whether you're on the right or left, they're reading into this, this is a guy who's going to do his damneddest to make sure american jobs thrive. >> we wouldn't even be having this conversation -- >> you agree with me? >> of course i agree with you. >> we're in a minority in this communist panel. >> we wouldn't be having this conversation -- >> not to infinity. >> we wouldn't be having this conversation about american workers over the past eight years with president obama. >> say that again?
2:37 am
say that again? we wouldn't have this conversation if the underpinnings weren't what they were given the president that's in there right now. >> okay. let's make her point. president obama was the king of corporate welfare. and all these liberal democrats are the kings -- >> why is it corporate welfare toin centivize a company to stay here? >> we will transfer basically fair money to you if you stay a couple extra years. >> $7 million over ten years to a concern. $700,000 a year. >> i'm glad they're staying. >> factory jobs. >> look at the record where this is used. new york state, a basket case. california, a basket case. and by the way -- >> texas, not a basket case. >> they don't do it. >> texas is not a basket case. they incentivize, what do you think is drawing them in the 120 degree summer temperature? >> low taxes, less regulation. >> all right. ben stein, i don't know. you're equating this i guess with what barack obama did with
2:38 am
solyndra and solar power companies, right? >> it is the same government's heavy hand trying to control the free market. >> no it's not and you know it. >> yes, it is. government's heavy hand -- >> you never liked him in the first place and now you're getting childish about it. >> i like donald trump very much. >> no you don't. >> i've lost many friends here in hollywood because i voted for him, but i think he's made a mistake free movement of goods and capital and workers is a big, big part of what makes us a rich country. >> but part of it is your contempt for donald trump. >> no, it's not contempt for him. i think he's great. >> yeah capitalism. >> you're goading the wrong person here. >> final word on the subject. >> well, the one thing we haven't talked about is the real enemy here is automation, that's why these jobs are going away. donald trump's not going to be able to do anything about it, unions won't be able to do anything about it and so on. >> sadly the money they're getting from the taxpayers are going to invest in automation. >> bingo. >> here we go.
2:39 am
>> i don't know what gods you pray to. all right. this one really blew me away. after the break i have to ask ben about it. lawmakers in portland, oregon, are passing a new tax, want to at least, on the rich. specifically telling ceos that if you make a lot more, you have to pay a lot more. but could that hurt a lot more americans in the process? wait until you hear this one after this. today on forbes on fox, the white house still bashing president-elect trump for taking the call from taiwan's president who's our friend. what about when president obama reportedly reached out to two of our enemies, where was the outrage then? plus, with new warnings about repealing and delaying obamacare, the forbes plan has
2:40 am
2:41 am
2:42 am
2:43 am
to "cavuto on business." if you thought a class warfare was over after the trump election, think again.
2:44 am
because in portland, oregon, the city council they're just passing a law slapping up to a 25% surcharge tax on ceos making a lot more than the medium pay of their workers. you have to get knee deep in the details. i don't have the time or interest to do that, but the fact is here it's just weird. emily, what do you make of this? should that be done? >> two things here, first of all, what i love about this story is they're not redistributing anything to workers. they're redistributing the money to the portland city government. so the tax money is going into the city's general fund based on the stipulations of the law. and second of all, if you want to incentivize companies to retain top talent and to attract top talent, it's the worst way to do it. if you want portlandians to keep their jobs, not the way to go about it, but i think they're redistributing it to the government. >> i probably should have gotten into those weeds because i didn't realize that. do you think, adam, that that is a bad idea or a good idea? >> well, we just -- as you said,
2:45 am
neil, class warfare is here to stay. we have an income k president who won office by fighting class warfare. i don't think this will be particularly effective. but we know -- i think the country agrees we have rampant inequality. >> that's not what i asked. do you agree with this with what they're doing in portland? >> i think it's harmless because -- >> you like it or not? you like it or not? >> i don't love it, no. >> okay. ben stein. >> i hate it. i hate any government attempt to impose equality by the heavy hand of government that leads to the guillotine. i mean, obviously as my good friend up in the northwestern u.s. said -- i guess that's san francisco, said it's trivial. it's going to affect three people. but the sad truth is once we start down that path of government imposed equality, the end of it is -- >> but, ben, are you against
2:46 am
progressive taxation? >> no, no, no. i think progressive taxation is fine, but that's not the same as imposing a tax on people purely because it's unequal. we want something other than equality. equality means -- system everybody's repressed except the top party bosses. we want to have a progressive tax system. yes, indeed. but we do not want to say to people, you're successful, we're going to chop your head off. >> but can you put a number to it? can you put a ten times, 100 times what the top guy makes -- >> no, i cannot. i can only say certain government is bad. >> one thing is clear, this is the guillotine, this is fascism is where we're going here. it is literally -- >> you can always move. >> you're overreacting. they usually catch you and then cut your head off. >> got you. >> the fascists usually catch you before you gut across the border and then throw you into camps. obviously this is a very macro
2:47 am
slice of that. >> do you think companies will move because of this? >> yeah, i think so. >> do you think charles payne they'll move? >> you know, there might be the three people that adam and ben talked about might be okay with it. you never know what the mindset is. ultimately to emily's point, we've seen this on a broader picture. remember barack obama was ushered into office because of e because of evil corporate america and all the money they made, consequently his platform dealt with this kind of stuff and look what we got? the worst recovery in the history, sluggish economy, stagnated wages. so we already see -- social experiment that failed on a national level big time consequently we're rejecting the notion that somehow there's unfeddered regulations and rich people are too rich by electing someone worth $10 billion who says i love being rich. >> no, but we should be able to have a policy conversation about this. we're not talking about bill gates who started a company. we're talking about like how much are you comfortable with? how much -- >> why is government -- >> that has nothing to do -- >> answer that question.
2:48 am
how much is enough? >> adam, i'm just saying we've already gone through this experiment for the last iegt e eight years and i think everyone can agree -- >> if starbucks were in portland, it would have to move out because the outgoing ceo, the guy wants to retire, makes like 10,000 times his lowest paid workers. so starbucks wouldn't be able to do business. >> you know -- >> adam, be clear here if we're going to talk -- >> we're talking statistics about the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. i mean, the gap grew, i believe, under president obama dramatically. >> under democratic and republican presidents alike. >> it was pretty large this time. >> i understand it. >> they're doing something about it. >> taxing the ceo of a kpaeb because he or she earns too much compared to lowest earner, by that definition you'd have to move them all out of california, right? go ahead, ben. >> i'm sorry, are you calling on me? >> yes, you're fine. >> what we don't want is to try
2:49 am
to achieve equality by harming the rich. we want to try to achieve it or something towards it by improving the lot of the non-rich. you do not get to have a better society by making the rich poorer, you get it by making the poorer richer. that's exactly the opposite of what portland is trying to do. portland is a wacky place. i don't even know what to say about portland it's so strange. >> there goes that portland demo. i want to thank you very much. back on a record run of course since the election and now president-elect is revealing he sold shares back in june. now, he told me he sold them all a lot longer back than that. and now suddenly it's an issue, because he's missing his own rally? or because the media is
2:50 am
[vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette and her new mobile wedding business. at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and ta-da, paid twice as fast! see how at quickbooks-dot-com.
2:51 am
2:52 am
2:53 am
some may be jumping on news that president-elect trump sold his entire stock portfolio long before the election and before the record breaking rally after the election and they're questioning why he didn't say anything sooner. but it is not the first time mr. trump got out of this market. this is what he told me two years ago. >> i'm not a stock person, but a long time ago about three years ago when i saw what was happening with money and certainly how little you get on cds i invested very heavily in the stock market and i feel like a great genius, but i sold a few months ago, i said i'm getting out because i don't have confidence in our leadership. we will see what happens. >> my toupee was a lot better back then. charles, i don't know why this
2:54 am
is such a big deal, whether it was six months ago, two years ago, he's out, you could argue that he missed a rally because of it, but whatever. does it matter? >> i'm so confused about this. i mean, i can't believe this is -- >> i can't help you. >> i hope you do, adam. honestly i think it's irrelevant, particularly when congress has made millions of dollars with legal insider trading, perhaps the liberal media would want to look into that. >> very good point there. adam, try to pick up that. >> it's not about the media being upset about it being called the trump rally, it's part of this larger conversation about his conflicts of interest. >> is this a trump rally, by the way? adam, do you think it's a trump rally right now, what's going on, this surge in the market? >> yes. yes. >> you just defeated your own point. all right. gaspo. >> there is zero conflict, i believe, in the stock stuff. i think this is a tempest in a tea pot. he should have held his portfolio. is there a conflict? yeah, if he's running his
2:55 am
businesses out of the white house or delegating to his kids and they are somehow benefiting him that's where the conflict is. the media is trying to throw everything at the poor guy. >> that's their job, the poor guy, please. >> we're going nowhere on going after his businesses and dis en tingling themselves, this he thought if we can time these bashing of company to maybe you shorted shares if that's true what he says. is it an issue at all to you? >> i agree with the point that the media there are questions to be asked, they need to ask the right questions. keep in mind barrel over 50% of americans own stock themselves, this is not something that matters to the american people. they want to know how he's going to win their jobs back. >> be careful with that. now, ben stein, your thoughts on this. >> it's great that he sold it, he shouldn't have stocks at all, he is in a position that influences the stock market very much every day, every tweet, he should not have stocks at all. people in his family should not
2:56 am
have stocks at all. i think he has done the right thing by selling it. i don't think there has been reports that he was ever a short seller. >> that's a good point. >> that is a very good point. all right. i want to thank emily, good to see her in the fresh, hope to get her back although she's already told me never again. i want to thank charlie grass perino as well. donald trump may be selling but our guys have the stocks they say you should be buying.
2:57 am
2:58 am
2:59 am
donald trump is out but our guys say these guys should keep you in, as in the money. charles pain. >> i like paicarz. classic commercial trucks all the way. >> adam. >> consumer discretionary etf for a variety of reasons, we're heading into a bullish holiday
3:00 am
season. >> ben. >> don't by sweaters for your wife or your spouse or anybody, buy diamonds, diamonds are the way to go for now and for the immediate future and for the long-term future and forever. >> wow. i'd like to see just ben stein shopping. all right. we continue now with dave. president-elect donald trump still getting bashed by the establishment for his congratulatory phone call with taijuan's president. take a listen. >> some of the progress we had made in our relationship with china could be undermined by this issue flaring up. >> i don't want to undermine that progress, but someone here asked where was the outrage when our current president spoke with cuba's raul castro and when he reportedly spoke in secret with iran's leader rouhani. i'm david asman, welcome to "forbes on fox." let's go in focus to


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on