are you interested in safeguarding your investments with gold? alamos gold is a growing canadian gold producer with a long track record of outperformance. alamos gold. invest with us. our growth sets us apart. ♪ welcome to "power lunch," everybody. alongside kelly evans, i'm tyler mathisen. elon musk responding that ai bought chips from nvidia. but had them shipped to two other companies instead. ahead of friday's jobs report, we're talk to former

secretary marty walsh. let's get a check on the markets. before that, stocks have been mixed this whole trading session. dow hanging on to 86 quarter point gain. the s&p lower by 7. the nasdaq lower by .2% today. today we also have five states and washington, d.c. holding primaries. and though the presidential nominations are all but guaranteed, one key issue on voter's minds is what happens to those tax cuts set to expire next year. it's a $4 trillion question with huge implications for the economy. megan ka sell la joins us now with more. megan? >> reporter: kelly, former president donald trump and some republican lawmakers are signaling they want to see a full extension of those 2017 tax cuts. but it will come at a price. new research on the joints committee on taxation says a full extension would cost $4 trillion over the next ten years and committee for responsible federal budget those cost estimates are now 50% higher than initial estimates from

2018. costs are rising for a couple reasons, part is simply inflation and rising wages. so the base of income to tax is larger than it was. economists also been able to see the tax law in action for several years now. so they have better data on which they're basing those estimates. but the bigger question is what all of this means for the size of the u.s. debt. so without corespondenting pay fors, this would add $4 trillion to the 20 or so trillion the u.s. is already projected to borrow over the next ten years. the economists i spoke with says this matters for debt sustainability. look at our debt to gdp ratio, it has been holding fairly steady. debt growth is manageable as long as it increases more slowly than the broader economy. but extending the tax cuts can be the tipping point that changes that. economists with brookings estimate that without major cuts in spending, debt would soar to 211% of gdp within 30 years. that's up from what the 1209% level of where it is now. kelly, this is highlighting one

key economic at stake in november's election. trump so far is talking about full extension, biding is pushing to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy. kelly? >> that's super interesting, megan. obviously seems unsustainable if those tax cuts are extended, but it's hard to imagine that president trump could campaign on anything but keeping them in place. and yet, practically speaking you have to wonder if under either administration taxes will end up going up. >> reporter: you do have to wonder that. you could chalk some up to campaign rhetoric. that's possible hooer. a lot of the folks i spoke with both economists and political analysts think that even republicans in the next administration if they had control of congress would find a way to pay for some of this. there's likely an in between for the corporate tax rate, between the 21% level where it is now and the 35% level where it was. maybe they could land somewhere in between. but it is clear, it's a good campaign talking point, right, to say you're going to fully extend tax cuts. that's one way to get businesses

on your side. >> megan, thank you very much. reporting from washington. for more on the fate of the trump tax cuts no matter who wins the election, let's get to our panel. kyle, senior fellow at the american enterprise institute and brendan duke, policy at center for american progress. welcome to both of you. kyle, let me begin with you. does anyone credibly believe anymore that major tax cuts in any substantial way, quote, pay for themselves? >> well, i hope not. i think if you're talking about $4 trillion reduction in revenue, you're going to make impact the economy some ways. you're going to encourage some people to work. maybe investment rises. that might raise a little bit of revenue to offset the cost. but you're still going to lose revenue overall. i think the data is pretty clear from the tax cuts in jobs act from between 2018 to about 2019

that the federal government did lose revenue. now, that's not to say that the tcj didn't make improvements to the tax system, but i think it's a stretch to say that it paid for itself. >> how much of -- part of that if i'm recalling correctly, was creating a window through which u.s. corporations could bring foreign domiciled profits back into the u.s. at favorable tax rates. kyle or brendan, whoever wants to take this, did that happen in any big, material way? or anotherway to put it is, are a lot of profits still sitting overseas untaxed? >> so, part of the reforms to the international system included what they call a deaned repatriation provision. so whether the cash was brought back or not, the federal government deemed that money to be repatriated and taxed at a lower tax rate. this was in exchange for a new system going forward that would

tax foreign profits at a low minimum tax rate. and for think profits taxed above that, they would be excused from tax. now, i think it's a separate question whether that has any impact on the u.s. economy. but i certainly think the government collected revenue from that provision. >> we're digging through the numbers, brendan, but my understanding in part, correct me if i'm wrong, that government revenues despite the tax cuts have been, you know, somewhat steady over the past -- covid makes things a little bit weird. but that spending is kind of structurally three or four points higher than it was pre-pandemic. do you think that spending is structurally higher because inflation remains in the system and will work its way out? or is spending structurally higher and will it stay that way? >> so, i think a key thing is that the projected deficit over the next decade is actually lower than projected pre-covid. which is really good news.

when you exclude interest which is obviously an important part of that. so that's good news on the deficit front. but what we're talking about right now, we're talking about extending these tax cuts not part of the baseline and would exacerbate that and would cause debt to continue to grow, interest rates to rise and, you know, make buying a home, investment of business much less affordable than it is now. so i think that really lays the stakes that we actually made some good progress on the deficit over the last few years relative to pre-pandemic projections. obviously again, when you exclude interest. but the -- passing these tax cuts without paying for them, putting them on the credit card would exacerbate the situation. >> i think part of the problem is what you said. so it would be one thing if we were arguing about the size of the deficit. and we had no debt. but because the debt is already so high anything that adds to it feels concerning. so a lot of people who argue that the tax cut plan was bad -- are actually more concerned what it did to the debt pile and how

much it boosted us. here we're starting at 120% of gdp and you could make a case that the interest payment on that is now the most important factor going forward. so i don't know if we should really be asking about the plans around tax cuts or if we should simply be looking to the federal reserve and potential and economic slowdown to lower rates and maybe bail us out of the situation, brendan? >> look, i think the key thing is that both candidates actually have proposed pay fors, for extending the tax cuts in some sense. president biden has proposed you know letting them expire for the top 2% of households. households making over $400,000. and paying for the extension of the tax cuts below that amount. donald trump actually does have some pay fors. he proposed 10% tariff on all imports into the united states and 60% tariff on all imports from china. that's a huge revenue raiser. $3 trillion over ten years. heps pay for the tax cuts but really hurts families. it actually wipes away all the tax cut they would get from

extending those tax cuts. wipes out any tax cut they would get from extending the trump tax cuts. >> so, let me turn back to you, kyle, if i might. are there people out there who seriously believe that you can get to anything approaching a balanced budget or debt reduction or deficit reduction without strictly by cutting spending? gave them truth serum, would they say, you know, to get there we really are going to have to raise some revenues? >> i think lawmakers, policy analysts, need to be realistic about what's politically possible. if you look back to when republicans were in control last, they had the chance to reduce spending. they really weren't able to reduce spending significantly. so more politically realistic outcome is that taxes may need to go up somewhat, but spending

may also need to come down at the same time. now, whether you could get to a deal that eliminates the deficit or reduces the debt, i think that that would be highly aggressive. but at least things could become -- be made to be more sustainable in the long run. that's important given the fact that interest rates are so high. it's not just the level of debt as was discussed. but it's also the interest rate on that debt that has risen significantly -- >> let me try one final question on both of you if i might. very quickly. brendan, i'll start with you. what if all income -- i mean, all income, corporate, capital gains, carried interest, all of it was taxed at the same rate? >> some sense president biden tried to move toward that. he wants to equalize the tax rate between capital gains and worker's incomes for high income households. he actually proposed applying the minimum tax to unrealized capital gains for billionaires.

so i think there's ways to move that direction. there's also other loopholes to deal with. so i think that certainly has to be a part of the discussion. >> we have to leave it there. thank you, gentlemen. >> interesting stuff. in fact, let's get over to the cnbc ceo council where eamon javers is sitting down with house speaker mike johnson. listen in. >> i think we do well to hold fast those principles. ronald reagan said they call me the great communicator i wasn't, para phrasing. i was basically communicating the same great things that had gutted our nation since its founding. it was about the message, not the messenger, he said. and those same great things we are now the stewards of. we abandoned them at our peril. we're fusing these new ideas, new emphasis into the tested and tried and true principles. that will serve us well in the day ahead. >> you talk about the idea of free markets being so vital to your coalition, but i think trump shattered the norm on free markets with his approach to

tariffs on china in the first term and look ahead to a potential trump 2 term, the president is now campaigning on so% across the board tariffs. that's not something traditional economic conservatives would have supported. it is something the new populists are supporting. is it something you are supporting? >> i believe there's a role to play for that. and i think we'll have some very thoughtful discussion, vigorous debate about exactly when that can be applied and how it should be. you can't argue with president trump's approach. i'll say this, the first two years of the first trump administration, i came to washington the same time he did for the first time, january 2017. and everyone in this room knows, we had achieved the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the united states. we had every demographic doing better, the economy was roaring and we did that because we applied those tried and true ideas under trump's leadership. the tax cuts and jobs act. reduced taxes. reduced regulations dramatically. and that unleashed the free market. it unleashed the free enterprise

system. we effectively tried and i think achieved getting the government off the backs of job creators, entrepreneurs, risk takers so they could do what they do best and everybody was doing better. this new team in charge, reflexively did almost the opposite and i think it's not a mystery of how we get back to prosperity. we implement those same plans and principles again. >> what you just said, though, does not sound like a ringing endorsement of 10% across the board tariffs. the idea that we'll talk about it, we'll have a discussion, that doesn't mean, yes, sir, i'm going to salute and march and execute that oncapitol hill. >> well, look, i don't know that we know all the details of all the ideas yet. but i'm open to those discussions. but as the speaker of the house and leader of my party in the congress, i'm going to be very careful about what i commit to on the front end. but listen, it is a thoughtful debate. we're in interesting times. unprecedented times in many ways and i think we need to zapt to that. >> one of the things voters are screaming out loud that inflation is an enormous problem

for them. the economy is by almost every measure an incredible economy. inflation has been the sticking point. that's the thing. that's the thing that voters seem to be screaming about the most. the trump agenda is it is inflationary. you do the 10% -- deport millions of people who are currently employed, that's going to be inflationary. how do you deal with inflationary pressures and populist agenda at the same time if there's a trump 2 in '25 and you're the guy executing on capitol hill. >> well, we make those plans methodically and carefully implement them and i think you have to be careful. i've spoken with president trump about the deportation necessity. i think that's right. by our estimates maybe as many as 16 million illegals have come across that open border since joe biden took office. but the reality is deporting them all is not a simple thing. i'm not sure you can locate many of them. that's part of the problem. >> how do you practically do

that? the size of the police department would be enormous, logistics of that would be enormous. >> it would. >> legal fight around it would be epic. >> it would. the point is so the theory in this probably different than the application of it. that's what we have to sift through. look, i think this is doing untold damage to the country. it's catastrophic what the open border has done to us. we're going to be dealing with this for decades to come. it is a nation-changing, nation-shifting kind of problem. we'll have to deal with it and develop responses as we go. >> the other thing we have seen with the rise of economic populism on the right is this idea that -- talked about republicans years ago and the idea was we're with the job creators. we're with the ceos. we want to help the big companies thrive and grow. now you see a movement on the right, economically, hey, these ceos in terms of the culture wars are not with us. the republican base necessarily. they're jamming maybe cultural values down our throats that we

don't like. ceos are not our natural ally. many cases they're our enemy. target, disney, anheuser-busch, all the companies that you can list, targeted by the conservative movement. that's something very new for ceos, like we have in the room here to hear from the republican party. do you feel like you need to build a bridge to those ceos of those targeted companies? do you feel like the republican party has gone too far into targeting individual companies, individual ceos? >> in many ways it was a righteous response. what happened a lot of the corporations sort of went too far. the pendulum swung too far. i think some tough lessons were learned by some of the biggest companies in america and that is to be a good corporate citizen, you don't have to wade into the culture war issues. it doesn't seem to be a smart business proposition. what we need to do is go back to the fundamentals, i think, and take care of customer's needs and desires and kind of stay in your lane. i just think it's good business practice. i think that's advisable going

forward. look, depends on how you define populism. if you look it up in the dictionary, one definition it is appealtology the needs and desires of ordinary people. that's not a bad thing. that's what we're for. we're for hard-working people, hard-working families who are having a very difficult time right now. there's a lot of unrest. there's a lot of angst in the country. people are angry about a lot of things. if i was a corporate ceo, i would be looking for less things to anger them about. but far be it for us to give advice. i think the market drives a lot of that. and we learned some tough lessons. >> another target of economic populus is the federal reserve. as a leader in washington, where do you stand on the concept of the federal reserve, back to first principles. the independence of the federal reserve. do you think it should be politically independence or do you think a re-elected president trump should feel free to fire jay powell and install somebody who will lower interest rates or do what the president wants? >> i've always had concerns about the fed as an institution

itself. it is manipulation of the markets at some level and understand why it was created and what the idea behind it is. but they have been wrong on many occasions and wrong in recent years. i had chairman powell come and address probably late 2019 or maybe early 2020, before covid, i was the chair of the republican study committee, largest caucus in congress. largest caucus of conservatives. and we had all the fiscal hawks in the room and chairman powell there and he gave a quick update on the economy and spoke for 10 or 15 minutes and never mentioned the federal debt, by way of example. all the hands went up for the q&a. mr. chairman, i can anticipate what they're about to ask you, they're about to mention the debt. chairman powell said, i think too much emphasis is placed on the federal debt. wrong room to say that in. this was all the fiscal hawks. i could see the steam coming out of their ears of my colleagues. they told us inflation was going to be transitory and all these things. and i think some mistakes have been made.

i have some concerns about it. should it be a completely independent body and immune from politics? probably. but you know, i think that a lot of attention has to be paid with their activities and the jurisdiction they have and the broad influence they have on the markets. >> so would you advise a re-elected president trump to fire jay pow snell. >> i don't want to call for anybody's job today. i would say that i'm sure that that will be in the -- on the decision matrix. i'm sure the leadership of the fed would be top of mind and the president will get a lot of advice from a lot of people who are on that subject probably a lot more intelligent than i am. >> do you have anybody that you like better? is there a short list? >> i don't want to break news here today. >> you and i are on opposite sides of that tension. i'm trying to get you to say something. >> i know you are. >> right. >> i got enough controversy as it is. i don't need new ones. >> fair enough. your caucus has a lot of fiscal hawks. but your critics will say when trump was in power, we ran up the national debt, right? there was a lot of spending and

there was tax cutting and that was bad for the debt. how do you answer those critics who say everyone is concerned about the debt when they're out of power, they get in power, they want to spend money and appeal to voters? >> well, that's probably accurate over the history of the country. and in recent decades for certain. but we have kicked the can down the road now and run out of road. we're almost 35 trillion in debt, of course. it's not a sustainable trajectory and everyone here knows it. the mandatory spending is 72% of the federal budget. we spend a lot of time arguing over discretionary spending and how to limit that and how to limit the size and scope of the government overall. but now it has gotten very serious. now we're spending our grandchildren's finances. and they're not going to enjoy the same liberty and opportunity and security that we have known because it simply will not be affordable. so we have to do big things. we have to do it in a bipartisan fashion. it's not lost on us that we're probably beyond the days of having 35 and 40 seat majorities in congress anymore because

redistricting and gerrymandering, we're probably going to have small majorities on one side of the other for foreseeable future. you need very thoughtful and responsible members of congress to sit around a room and arm wrestle about this to figure out what the real answers are. we have some ideas. and we'll have groups working on that. i believe we have to start in the beginning of the new congress to address it seriously or we'll be derelict in our duty. >> bipartisanship, your speakership was in many ways saved by democratic votes on the floor of house of representatives coming to back you, no, we need to keep this current speaker in place and avoid some of the tum ult. did that experience of getting democratic votes to back you up as a leader change your perspective on the partisan warfare we have in washington in any way? did you reconsider any of those members once you saw them voting for you? >> no. look, i'm somebody who has built a career on relationships. and i think it's really important. we mentioned ronald reagan earlier.

you know, i really like the way he did the job. he was a happy warrior. he and speaker tip o'neal, democrat at the time, everybody remembers that famously friendly relationship. they didn't agree on policy almost any of it. but, they didn't hate one another. when i was a freshman in congress in the 115th congress, 2017, i authored a document called the commitment to civility. just a one-page simple statement, a summary statement, basically restating the golden rule, we treat one another with dignity and respect. even though i'm by some estimates a hard core conservative, i'm not mad at anybody who is not. right? so we got every member of my freshman class to sign the commitment to civility. 52 out of 53 members i think signed on. few months later steve scalise was -- there was assassination attempt on the baseball field. we all remember the tragedy. that freshman class project about civility, you ought to make that congress wide. we did. people from john lewis to kevin mccarthy and everybody signed on. and 170 or so members ultimately

signed on. we were advancing the idea, the very simple idea, that we're not going to agree with one another all the time, but we still have to regard one another as colleagues and not enemies. i have been trying to implement that within my own team and my own camp but also across the aisle. we're not going to agree on a lot of policy, increasingly so, but we can respect one another. it's a really important part of the job. >> i'll ask you about some of the news of the day. we saw this historic conviction of president trump last week in new york. you called that a banana republican trial. i wonder if as we watch the hunter biden trial unfold this week, is that also a bana that republic trial. >> i haven't been able to watch any of that. i hope not. i think what happened in manhattan was a travesty. i say that as a former litigator, somebody in federal courts for 20 years litigating high profile cases. i don't -- what happened there was unprecedented. the charges were illegitimate in

my view. they targeted a political opponent. they used the judicial system to do it. the entire case is based upon the testimony of a known purger. the whole thing. regardless of how i feel about it or any of us, the american people are upset about it. as of saturday i traveled and done political events in 118 cities and 29 states in the last six months. and everywhere i go, east coast, west coast, up state new york, deep south, doesn't matter. the sentiment is the same. people are losing their faith in our institutions because they see this. they see the weaponization of the judicial system itself. and as a institutional law attorney and somebody who believe in the our institutions and trying to conserve the greatest nation in the history of the world, i am really concerned about that perception. if you don't have equal justice under the law, or if the people don't believe that you do, you lose a very important element of what is necessary to maintain a system of government like ours, constitutional republic. >> perception of reality?

>> i think it's both. >> on the one hand, is the system biassed in favor of president biden when it comes to the donald trump trial? but somehow not biassed in favor of him when it comes to the trial of his own son. >> well, i don't know. we'll see how the trial of his son plays out. but you know, you can make an argument there that -- has he had a fair jury that's been selected? i don't know. we'll see. i haven't had time to dial in on that. but i can tell you that i think it's reality and perception as it pertains to the case in manhattan that it should never have been brought. and i think every legal analyst -- every one that i talked to and most that have been on television, right and left, acknowledged if it was not donald trump, those charges would not have been brought and this would not have been pursued. and that's the problem at the end of the day. >> you went to the trump trial to show your support for the former president. obviously you think that was an appropriate thing to do. would it also be appropriate for president biden to go to the hunter biden trial and show his support for hunter biden? >> dr. jill biden sat in on the

front row with the motorcade and the secret service and the whole thing. >> sure. but an elected official like yourself going to show support for somebody on trial. do you think that would be appropriate for the president of the united states? >> it's his son. i wouldn't complain about that. i didn't go as speaker of house. i happened to be in manhattan raising money the night before. it was on a whim. i called to -- it occurred to me he was going to be back in court the next morning. so i just made a call. and we arranged it last minute. it was spontaneous. it was my idea. it wasn't his. i just wanted to go and say, not as speaker of the house, but as an individual and an officer of the court, by the way, that this is offensive to us and this is not who we are as americans and we got to protect and preserve our system of justice. >> that's interesting that it was your idea to go because there's been a lot of reporting that suggests trump and the people around him were trying to rally support to get political figures to show up for him. are you saying that nobody from the trump team asked you guys or -- you personally. >> no. 10:15 the night before i called -- one of his assistants who was with him.

i said, the president is back in court tomorrow, right? i've been a little busy. president is back in court tomorrow, right? i'm a few blocks away. just occurs to me, maybe i'll show up. come to trump tower. i guess i'm breaking that news. it was my idea. >> the former speaker, kevin mccarthy said that every american should accept the election results in the fall. do you agree with that? >> well, i hope so. that's the intention. i agree with the sentiment. i mean, we absolutely have to make sure that it will be a free and fair election. and i trust and hope and believe that it will be. yes. >> if it is a fair election and biden wins, will you vote to certify the biden victory? >> of course. fair election, yes, of course. that's our responsibility. that's how our system works. i believe in the institutions. we have to preserve it, yeah. >> you think republicans generally will vote to certify biden win. there's been some question about whether there are any circumstances in which republicans would vote that way, given that it is a near certainly that former president

trump, if defeated, will say again that there was some kind of fraud in this election? >> listen, we hope that it's a just and fair and free election. there's a lot of work being done across the country in the various states to ensure that that's true. we hope there's not fraud. we hope there's not illegals voting and all the rest. we're doing everything we can to make sure that happens. look, we're the rule of law team. i mean, we believe in the rule of law. it's one of the seven core principles that i a articulated earlier. we're the last best hope of man on the earth as reagan used to also remind us. we have to preserve it and the peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental precept of our nation. and so, yes. we'll defend it at every turn. and hope and pray that we have an election that can be trusted. and i hope that's true. >> give us a sense of how the election is playing out in the house of representatives? are you going to be speaker of the house again in 2025? >> all right. that was eamon javers along with house speaker mike johnson covering everything from the level of debt to the

independence of the federal reserve to the recent trial of former president trump and whether he himself would support an election result if joe biden were to be re-elected. we're going to take a break, monitor this from our ceo summit down in washington. if there's more news to share, anme"perun" t. meti, ow lchwill be back in just two minutes. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

trading at schwab is now powered by ameritrade, giving traders even more ways to sharpen their skills with tailored education. get an expanding library filled with new online videos, webcasts, articles, courses, and more - all crafted just for traders. and with guided learning paths stacked with content curated to fit your unique goals, you can spend less time searching and more time learning. trade brilliantly with schwab.

a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

♪ welcome back to "power lunch," everybody. the major average is turning positive across the board. but our next guest sees a lot of continued risks out there. 10% market correction from the recent highs. here for our "power lunch" exclusive is ron krzyzewski, chairman and ceo. got you mixed up with the coach. he joins us from the cross sector insight conference in boston. i'll call you ron from here on out, just to be safe.

welcome. good to have you with us. why do you think the market is a little bit vulnerable to a 10% pullback? what are the factors that are -- that could cause that to happen? >> well, first of all, you know, we and i have been saying all year that we didn't believe that the fed would be decreasing rates significantly. and as the market comes to grips with that, coupled with the rally we had, we believe that there's more short-term downside risk to the market. we think 10% correction investors should be prepared for. to be a bear from may to october isn't necessarily hard. it's hard to be a bull during those times. that's our belief. i believe really that the fed is not going to decrease rates this year for a multitude of reasons. >> we just had a rather interesting conversation. i don't know whether you heard any of it with aeamon javers an house speaker mike johnson.

it ranged from the level of debt and deficit and tax policy to the recent trial in new york of former president trump. do you think the market has discounted the election result in any meaningful way, whatever that means? and i ask it in part because remember that the stock market set records under president trump. and it has set records under president biden. so i guess i'm kind of asking, does the market care? >> that's a great question, tyler. look, the market has done well under all forms of administrations. and i don't really think that the market cares. i think the market would care if they thought there would be unified government. one party controlling whether it's the republicans or the democrats, i think the market generally would not like the pendulum effect of policy that could come from unified

government. so maybe that's an indictment against government as a whole. >> interesting. uh-huh. >> ron, i just want to -- sort of ask you a question about the banks, which maybe you have a strong opinion about and maybe not. it's been conventional wisdom that the big banks will benefit post silicon valley and the small banks will really struggle. why is jamie dimon selling stock and talking down his own company's prospects a the investor day? do you think that we have taken these conclusions for granted and perhaps the opposite kind of trade should be warranted? the small banks -- are they actually doing better than we anticipated? >> look, i think the new deposit regime where deposit are more dear, rates are higher, is a tougher environment for banks without scale. and so, you know, i do think it's been tougher environment. but look, i think, kelly, and i talk about this and go on a tangent for a second.

the real issue and the next crisis in the banking industry will be a run on small banks when investors are not confident that deposits aren't sure. the two tier system where the big have implicit government guarantees and small banks do not is a problem that congress needs to take up and regulators need to take up now before the next crisis comes and everyone just wants to pull their money out of all the mid size and regional banks. i'm concerned about that. >> i think you're exactly right and we hope they will do something or a lot of people think there's an implicit guarantee of everybody's money in the in the meantime, speaking of a friend who might have moved money out of chase recently because it doesn't pay anything, is that actually that large trend going on where people have realized, no, the smaller banks are often places where you can get better yield right now versus the big money centered ones? >> well, i think that's the basis of our phenomenal financial system is that we have

more than 4,000 banks. we don't need 4,000, but we don't need five. and the best banking is done by local bankers who know the local communities and the local businesses. i don't think jamie would disagree with that. i think he sees the strength of the community banking system. i just want to see that those community banks have the same level playing field that the big banks have. again, i think my big bank brothers would agree with that. >> all right, ron. thank you very much. we appreciate your time today. hope to see you again soon. >> thank you for having me. >> you bet. coach r. we'll call him. something like that. after the break, ice rinks and hot economy, we'll speak to the head of the nhl player's union, marty walsh, get insight on the labor market and the sports industry. "power lunch" will be back after this.

how do you find the perfect father's day gift? simple. just type wt.com. weathertech has hundreds of premium products that will keep dad's vehicle looking its best. like laser-measured floorliners, cargo liner and seat protector for extra interior protection. sunshade blocks harmful uv rays. the cupfone perfectly secures his phone while driving. order these american made products or a gift card at wt.com. happy father's day.

well, the stanley cup final matchup is set. connor mcdavid and the oilers will take on matthew kachuk and the florida panthers. game one taking place this weekend. panthers will be fighting for their first-ever victory in the finals. edmonton looking to end a 14-year drought. let's bring in marty walsh,

executive director of the nhl player's association. and president biden's former labor secretary. joins us live from the 2024 cnbc ceo council summit in d.c. mr. walsh, welcome. as a former mayor of boston, i know you must have been disappointed as the bruins got knocked out, we were disappointed to see the rangers go in new york. >> well, listen, you have a florida team that's very hot. they're playing their second-straight stanley cup final and i'm looking forward to this stanley cup starting this weekend. it will be exciting. best hockey player in the world, connor mcdavid, incredible team in florida panthers with matthew tkachuk and his team. it's just going to be a great series for hockey. >> very good defense on that florida team. let's broaden out a little bit. take you back to our days as labor secretary and get your broad comments on what seems to be an uptick in union growth, membership, activity, whether

it's the uaw or unions at starbucks or unions on college campuses. or votes to unionizing the automobile industry, one of which was successful at volk volkswagon, the other not successful at last in alabama. wheredo you think the union movement stands today? >> i think it's strong, it's growing still. i think in 2020 when early days of the pandemic, it turned our world upside down, obviously. i took other as labor secretary in march of 2021. those 12.5 million people out of work then and a lot of buzz words, not going back to work and all this. i think it gave the unions an opportunity to think about a purpose to start organizing again. you have large groups of employees that hadn't looked favorably upon the labor movement in generations all of a sudden saying, wait a second, let's take a look. we have an opportunity for collective power by organizing.

and i think the labor movement has taken advantage of that in some cases. i think there's more to go and more to do there. and i think also employees we have seen over the last three years now employees have been put in better positions in their jobs, be able to get raises, work for higher pay, better benefits, things like that. i think the pandemic has certainly -- i don't think, i know the pandemic certainly has changed our work force. not forever but has for right now. >> it's a little unusual, it seems to me, that there is as much union organizing on college campuses as there is, not only employees of the colleges whether they are student employees or full-time employees, but also potentially organization of athletes which will bring us back sort of more closely to the nhl questions. what do you think of that? and is it a good thing? >> well, right now dartmouth

college organized and trying to get a contract. i'm not sure what the end result will be. i've had conversations with liz schuler at the afl to ask her talking about coming one a template. when you organize a college sports team, what does that mean moving forward? e everyone is working through that to figure out what it means. i think when money entered the picture in college sports as far as paying athletes, it changes dynamics. my old governor charlie baker, ncaa right now, we had some conversations about this. and i think a lot of people kind of see where it's going to go in the future. we're not sure. >> where is all of this going in the future for those of us who are still wondering whether it was, you know a great thing to change college sports into something much more kind of boring and professional? >> yeah. i don't know if college sports is ever boring. for me, any way, depending on

the sport you liked, college football certainly wasn't boring, the basketball the tournament, baseball, hockey, softball and all the other sports. i think that colleges right now and the whole ncaa and the football leagues over there are trying to figure out what the future of college sports is. i think what i hope it doesn't happen, i hope it doesn't destroy college sport. that's an opportunity for a lot of younger people to get in through the public -- become athletes, become professional athletes go through college. look at what's happening now with the wnba and the excitement they've had and the viewership they've had and see the excitement there. so, i'm not sure what the end of the road is. i don't have enough information on what they're talking about inside colleges right now. but i know for a long time colleges ignored the calls by players and the money they were making. and now they have to sit down at the table with these athletes and talk about what the future looks like. these colleges made a lot of money moving forward here.

and i don't begrudge anyone making on on the back of these college players are saying, wait a second, hold on f you're going to make the money on my back and my blood, sweat and tears, i want some of that. >> yeah. just makes me think, the whole point of the past was to get that degree and maybe implicit there, maybe the degree is not that valuable. i don't know. any way, it's for society to debate, marty. >> you're right. i'm concerned about that as well. waef lot of hockey players, nhl players leave college after one or two seasons and we setup program called unlimit and we want to make sure we'rehelping our players move forward. that college degree does mean stuff. again, we could have a long debate on it. i'm of the mindset when you go to college, try to get your degree f you're an athlete, play your sport. if you get drafted, you get drafted. i just think there's opportunities here. but colleges made a ton of money on this stuff. i think that -- they never had this conversation. and now it's -- i wouldn't say it's too late, now they're

trying to put the jeanmy back in the bottle and figure out how do we move forward. i hope everyone gets to the same page and does it. you'll never see the elimination of college sports, but you don't want to see college sports be deminnished in any way. >> marty walsh, we appreciate your time. >> thank you. still ahead, something here doesn't quite compute. elon musk accused of ordering nvidia to ship thousands of ai chips supposedly reserved to tesla to other businesses such as x. but musk claims there was just simply nowhere for tesla to store them. we'll dig into all of that when "power lunch" returns.

sure, i'm a paid actor, and this is not a real company, but there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. search talent all over the world with over 10,000 skills you may not have in house. more than 30% of the fortune 500 use upwork because this is how we work now. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

welcome back. amidconstant criticism, elon musk stands by the claim he can turn tesla into an a.i. leader. new documents reveal he asked nvidia to ship shipments to x, not tesla.

musk confirming cnbc's reports, explaining the chips would have been backlogged in the tesla factory. cnbc laura is here to discuss what she's learned. take us back to the start here. what exactly what happened. what did musk do? >> in september 2023 elon musk ordered nvidia to ship 12,000 of these very coveted a.i. chips gpus from nvidia to x instead of tesla when they had been reserved for tesla. and then in exchange, tesla would get the next shipments of shipments in january and june. so, he effectively delayed tesla's being able to continue building out data center and a.i. infrastructure by five, six months. >> so, who paid for the chips, tesla or x and xai? >> there's still a lot to be reported out here ostensibly tesla would have paid for tesla's chips and x for x's chips. >> we don't know if tesla paid

for chips that ultimately went to another entity. we don't know that yet. but musk stepped in, big footed the process and said, hey, tesla is not ready to use these chips, not able to put them to work, but x and xai are, so send the chips there instead, is that the nub of it? >> he's saying now tesla wasn't ready for them. this begs the question as to why x corp had the resources to get to work standing up a brand-new data center but tesla, who has been talking about developing robo taxis, very sophisticated computer vision and a.i. wouldn't prioritize that and wasn't ready. these delays weren't previously discussed in detail with shareholders. >> thank you. interesting story. suou'll follow it for us. more "power lunch" next. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪

these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. (♪♪) ♪ well i was raised by careful hands ♪ ♪ yeah, they made me who i am ♪ ♪ so i'm off to see... ♪ we invent them. we design them. we build them. and one day, we have to let them soar.

♪ i'm always coming home ♪ [crowd chanting] they ignored your potential, and mocked your ambition. but it's not the critic who counts. with every swing and block, your game plan never changed. ♪♪ some still call it luck. let them. because you know what it's always been. inevitable. ♪♪ ♪♪ [ inner monologue ] i needed some help. good thing i knew someone... ♪ ♪ or... some-thing. [ a.i. copilot ] glad you called, j. [ a.i. copilot ] it's time for an upgrade. awesome. ♪ ♪ [ inner monologue ] i knew what i had to do. because they never stop. no time to waste. this isn't sci-fi.

this is precision ai. ♪ ♪ time now for sometechnical

support. three charts in three minutes, plus our chart is jessica, director of product at options play. first up, jessica, we have apple. this is one you're watching in preparation for the worldwide developers conference that kicks off this friday. big apple event. what do the squiggly lines tell us? >> absolutely. so, first we have a 13-weekly moving average. this is the line of defense. converges with the 50 daily average you hear commented on. this represents one quarters worth of prices. look at the slope of the line. more importantly, apple has been stuck in this trading range. right now i'm looking at this level here, which is about 194 to this 199. i expect it to find this as an area of resistance. unless there is a catalyst, that catalyst being wwd -- >> could be that convention. >> that's right. but that is a key area. around the 200. it's really 199 and some change. that's where a lot of supply

exists. question is, is demand going to come in and overtake? it depends on what happens. >> it could be the news headline that does it. >> that's it. this is important because it's a huge component of the s&p 500. >> and in a lot of people's portfolios, whether they know it or not. let's go to salesforce. this is one of the dogs of the dow, one you're watching in light of the recent selloff. you think it is also showing a buying opportunity. tell me why. >> that it is. so, 13 weeks is going to be one quarter worth of prices. normally look at the 26 and 40 for two and three. the 200 weekly is what i like to call the longer term trend. the quarterly gets us our trading cycle. if this is breached, it is considered very bad. >> and it's breached. that's what we're seeing when that little blue line goes down below it. >> this is a wick. >> a what? >> a wick. we have a candle that represents the open and close for the day. and then the wicks are the high and low. it did not close below.

it touched here. actually over where you are, there is something called a bullish engulfing candle around 234 to 250. it's where the day -- a good day overtakes it the previous. this is weekly. so a huge, week overtook it. that is now the area of support and that's good. as long as that 230, 250 area is maintained and this is maintained, it's absolutely a bullish opportunity. now those old milestones, because remember a downtrend is a series of lower lows and higher highs. we want to see higher highs and lower lows, now it has to overcome those like it did over here. >> if we keep seeing what we're seeing over here, that is a bullish opportunity. >> that is a bullish opportunity. this cannot be breached as it is there. >> as it is here. as it was here. >> this is -- would have been support. now it becomes resistance once you breach support old resistance, new support doesn't go through. bullish opportunity. >> timely, it wouldn't be a day

without gamestop. a lot of options activity on this one. walk us through it. >> i layered on the 40-weekly average. we look at the 13, because that represents one quarter. we look at the slope of the line in addition to where the security is above or below. sloping down, downward trend. we see a flattening when the trend starts to shift. that's also part of the dow theory. we saw that here. now that's acting as support. what happens, then, we have to overcome those series of lower lows and lower highs. we'll have you draw it on here, tyler. >> lower high, lower high. >> those become train stops. >> a what? trading stops. >> a train stop. they end up back at their destination, things squeezed without any fundamental valuation behind it. i see the risk of a gamma squeeze. >> that sounds bad. >> it is. with speculative excess, like bubble mentality.

a lot of activity really spurring buys that create artificial demand because we're looking at supply versus demand. what i need to see here, it's really the -- the train stops are 21, 28, 40 and 48. once that demand comes in, i need to watch to see if those are maintained. again, fundamental. careful to watch. >> watch out for your gamma rays, or whatever it is. thank you for watching "power lunch." "closing bell" starts now. welcome to "closing bell." i'm scott wapner from the new york stock exchange. the final stretch gets under way. i'm going to show you the scorecard with 60 minutes to go in regulation because it's looking a little different than it was just half an hour ago. in other words, it's green. it was red. the major averages have spent much of the day in the red. even if -- even as yields have fallen but buyers apparently have seen enough. they started to buy some stocks. most s&p sectors were red, but