thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'll fareed zakaria. we'll start with the tour of the globe. french president macron's claim that nato is facing brain death in the trump era. ukraine's continued central role in america's impeachment

inquiry. and china, will xi get a new trade deal with trump? all that with our panel. also 30 years ago this weekend, the berlin wall cracked. at the time there was much excitement and hope for the future. what happened? finally, work, work, work, work, work. the standard five-day workweek began in a new england mill more than 100 years ago. but is four days at your job actually more efficient? we've done the work to help you figure it out. first, here's my take. there is an odd growing consensus these days that american democracy needs to be saved by mark zuckerberg. people from elizabeth warren to

aaron sorken are demanding that facebook stop running obviously false political advertising. so let me pose a question. would everyone be as comfortable if the person deciding what constitutes real news versus fake news were not zuckerberg but rupert murdoch? it's not a fantasy. in 2005 news corp. bought myspace, then the leading social network on the planet. had things worked out differently, it would be murdoch or a band of fox news experts who would be determining what counts as legitimate political speech. are you still comfortable? broadcast networks cannot censor political ads. it's considered an infringement of free speech on large public platforms. cable companies like cnn are not regulated the same way and, thus, can make their own decisions.

facebook, of course, is a larger platform than all the networks combined. it now serves as a sort of global public square and surely it should be open to political speech. the criticisms of facebook are varied and many are valid. it has been far too lax in allowing and even promoting incendiary messages that provoke violence in countries like myanmar and sri lanka. it snuffs out competition, a separate matter. many argue zuckerberg is being disingenuous when he says it's an open platform open to all views equally. facebook's algorithm promotes certain types of materials over others which could spread fake news and lies. the other encourages engagement and belief. stamp collectors and animal lovers could more together.

it helps elizabeth warren supporters see material they like and helps trump-leaning voters see the stuff that excites them as well. here's the real issue. america has become deeply polarized, and each side wants to believe the worst slander and lies about the other, and the problem is worse on the right than the left. the situation with facebook is a symptom of this problem. if facebook didn't exist, trump supporters would listen to talk radio, watch fox, go to other websites. facebook accentuates partisanship more than it causes it. a professor on computers, ethics and public policy explains it makes very little sense to think the choices about what speech is allowed and not allowed should be made by unaccountable tech ceos behind closed doors in a corporate boardroom. companies are focussed on their own bottom line which is best catered for if they maximize

engagement to their platforms. i don't want mark zuckerberg deciding what speech is legitimate in america. i want the government to set parameters for him and other technology companies as to their obligations for what they increasingly are, large news platforms. there are many good ideas out there. invoke something like the fairness doctrine which for decades required a range of views in programs. the chair of the federal election commission has a simple suggestion. don't allow microtargeting, serving ads to a specific segment of the population. americans feel overwhelmed in the digital era by the power of the tech giants. but weinstein argues they distrust government even more than they do the tech companies. so they want facebook to regulate american democracy. what we need is the opposite. american democracy should regulate facebook.

for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column. let's get started. let's get right into the events of the week with today's terrific panel. richard haas is the president of the council on foreign relations and a former director of policy planning at the sate department. neil ferguson is a senior fellow at the hoover institution. and ronna is a global economic analyst for cnn and has a new book out called "don't be evil, how big tech betrayed the founding principles and all of us." ronna, what do you think of what i just said about facebook? >> well, i think it was a provocative position, and i like that part. i think that you can argue the idea of whether facebook should be policing free speech either way.

i think you make a strong case that maybe you don't want mark zuckerberg deciding what's truth and what's not, but i think what's really interesting here and what gets lost, one of the reasons that facebook and google and the other big platforms don't want to deal with political speech is they don't want the exemptions they get as being internet platform companies to be taken away. there's a wonky provision, cda230 in 1996, part of the communications decency act. it allows them to be not liable for anything said or done on their platforms. once it goes away, the black box of algorithms is opened up and you can see into the targeted business model. that's in debate right now not just in the u.s. but in the eu. should we allow this kind of surveillance capitalism to exist? how should it be regulated? >> you think they would resist? >> i think that's their business model. these are advertising companies.

facebook and google get80%, 90% of their revenue from advertising. they're giant media and advertising firms. if you take away targeted advertising, they don't have a business model anymore. >> in your book, you say the crisis of the old order, the old free reign for tech is over. you wrote a book about some of these issues, terrific book, "the square in the tower." do you think we're in a new age of regulating big tech? >> well, the question is how. i agree with ronna that section 230 of the communications decency is the achy achille's heel of the tech companies. that's why they would rather washington went down the road of anti-trust.

they can win that fight or at least protract it. it's a far less serious threat than removing or removing section 230. just to be clear, because i think most viewers and legislators don't get this. the key is text 230 is it's the catch 22 of the internet. it allows them to say when it suits them, we're not publishers. we're just technology platforms. it's nothing to do with us, what appears in the platform. when it suits them to remove, they say we're perfectly within our rights. there's no first amendment. they're private corporations. they're publishers when it suits them and technology when it suits them. it was fine when they were startups in the mid 1990s. i can see why the section was written. it's a complete aye knack nichl now. but that's where congress should be focusing the attention. not on anti-trust which i actually think is a wild goose chase. >> there's too much to talk about. china. there seems to be some kind of a deal. do you think this is -- this means relations between the trump administration and china have kind of turned a corner? >> in a word, no. for two reasons. one is it's a deal, but it's a deal light. this is not a comprehensive omnibus trade deal. it's significant for what it doesn't really include,

questions of state subsidies. the monitoring of technology issues and so forth. to have reciprocal tariff reduction is not the big thing. second, there's a host of other issues -- human rights, political control by governments, south china sea, taiwan, hong kong, what have you. this relationship has moved more quickly than any other foreign policy i can think of in years. this is not going to be a transformational moment at all. >> the markets are wrong to celebrate? >> absolutely. i mean, the markets are responding to the fact that algorithmic trading programs look for good news for china and the u.s. they go up and down based on that. i agree it's false optimism. this is part of the big tech story as well. the trade war is a tech war, is an existential war about who's going to control the high growth industries of the future. that gets to the fact we're not

going back to a reset no matter who is in office. we're not resetting to the '90s. i think china and europe are moving in different ways in the rules of the road. it will be interesting to see where europe goes. china is one belt, one road infrastructure plan is also about rolling out 5g and 5g standards into europe. >> very quickly. you said you think we're at the start of a new cold war with china. you think it's that serious? >> yes. i agree, but i'd go further than richard and ronna. i think cold war 2 has begun and the trade negotiations is distracting people that the tech war is more important. and china's vulnerability is in hardware. it imports more high end semi conductors than oil in terms of dollar volumes. that's their vulnerability. it will take beyond 2025 for them to be self-sufficient in the area. that's where the u.s. is going to be applying more pressure in

the years to come. tariffs are a blunt instrument. that's a precise one. don't go away. next on "gps" if you heard the reports that ukrainian president zelensky was planning to announce on "gps" that he was investigating the bidens, you might have wondered what was that all about. i'll explain next on "gps" r than being a mo-tour? ." r? -i do. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

was preparing to interview ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky for "gps." it's true and i wanted you to hear it from me. we had been trying to get an interview with him since shortly after he was elected. he's a fascinating character. his country struggles with russia important geopolitical story. those efforts to talk to zelensky picked up speed in september. i met him in kiev and asked for an interview and he agreed in principal. we began coordinating with his team. then on september 19th "the washington post" reported that the whistle-blower's complaint revolved around ukraine. shortly thereafter the ukrainians pulled the plug on the planning. of course, none of us were aware of a secret campaign to pressure him nor he announced an investigation into biden or his son on "gps." we'll hope to be able to bring you an interview with him at some point. let me bring back richard, neil, and ronna. where do we stand in your view

with the impeachment? the extraordinary thing it seems to me you have five or six senior officials who have pretty much laid out a quid pro quo, that there was pressure on ukraine and the quid was the military aid, the quo was you have to announce on my show or somewhere else publicly there was an investigation into the bidens. where does that leave us? >> i think we're on track for the house to impeach president trump. i think it's significant politically because unlike the mueller report, the zelensky call and all the fallout that there has been since the partial transcript was released have really moved independents on this issue. if you look at the polling, during the mueller era, only about 30% of independents thought trump should be impeached or removed. i think that's significant politically. now, of course, the senate is not going to find the president

guilty and remove him. that i think is absolutely clear. however, i don't think mitch mcconnell is simply going to kick this into the long grass. i think there will have to be a process in the senate. >> let's assume what neil is saying is right. impeached, acquitted. he goes into re-election. net, net, does it hurt or help him? he's going to say i was vindicated, acquitted by the senate. >> he'll say that. it's also possible he'll be cencen censored in the senate. that's halfway when removing him from office and acquittal. the democratic candidate will obviously say different. i think the real question is public opinion. does it turn? and that's the only thing that moves republicans away from the

president or i think it's a distant shot and during the general election. what is public opinion? that's what matters. what are the american people concluding? what does this really lead them to do whether they give him another four years or not? do you think i can change subjects quickly. do you think america needs another billionaire this time, a real one from new york who is worth about 20 times what donald trump is purportedly worth to save american democracy? >> it is a game-changer. i did a column a while back when howard schultz was running. i said we don't need another billionaire. bloomberg is different. this is someone who has clearly started from modest means, made his entire fortune. has given a lot of it away. is a proven leader. i think the real question is how his background -- he's a jewish billionaire. how does that play? >> pro gun control and pro gay marriage. >> yes. as they say in the uk, it's throwing the cat among the pigeons. >> in the uk you have the choice now between jeremy corbyn, a socialist, and a hard brexit boris johnson. it seems like johnson is going to win.

>> you used the word seems. look carefully at this election. there's all kind of ways it can go wrong for bors boris johnson. it's all about constituency candidates. i worry about how far the conservatives are going to get where they need to get to to a majority. they don't have one now. they've been in power nine years. they're going to lose seats to the scottish nationalists and in england to the liberal democrats. there's a brexit party taking votes away in other parts of the party. it's a bigger mountain for boris johnson than the polls lead you to think. if there's one thing we learned from recent years, don't base your views on national opinion polls. meanwhile our french ally, president macron says nato is brain dead and it's all donald trump's fault. >> he called the american president unstable. look, nato has issues.

on the other hand, it obviously faces a significant russian threat. and the problem with president macron's position reminds me of the health care debate, repeal without replace. there's not a serious alternative to nato. the question is how do you keep nato intact, dealing with turkey, dealing with donald trump, dealing with the italian government? you need nato to live, not to fight, but to be ready to fight another day. so i don't think walking away from nato -- if anything it feeds into donald trump's argument that we don't have to take it seriously. it's the only thing we still have that ties america to europe and basically keeps the russians out. i think the french president was way off base. >> we will have to leave it there, and reconvene. fascinating. thank you. next on "gps," what if i told you a government employee in a relatively obscure central african country had enough money to buy michael jackson's famous white glove? what if i also told you he bought a 100-room mansion and yachts? what in the world coming up next.

eliver pizza. only marco's can deliver america's most loved pizza. hot and fresh, and right to your door. dough made from scratch, every day. sauce from our original recipe. and authentic toppings like crispy, old world pepperoni™. because the italian way is worth celebrating. every day at marco's, get two medium, one-topping pizzas for just $6.99 each. hello to america's most loved pizza. hello marco's.

my bladder leak underwear.orried someone might see so, i switched. to always discreet boutique. its shape-hugging threads smooth out the back. so it fits better than depend. and no one notices. always discreet. tthe bad news? ouyour patience might not.ay. new depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®. wayfair's got your perfect mattress. whether you're looking for a top-brand at a great price. ready to upgrade. moving in. moving on up. or making big moves. deliveries ship free and come with a 100-night free trial. no matter your budget. or your sleep style. we have quality options for everyone. so search and shop. save and snooze. and rest easy, knowing that we've got your back. literally. that's what you get, when you've got wayfair. so shop now.

now for our what in the world segment. when president trump suggested holding the g7 at his golf resort, many americans were incredulous. even the hint that a sitting president might derive financial benefit from his office is unthinkable. in much of the world, that's the tip of the iceberg. take the oil rich in central africa. the president has been in power for 40 years and is believed to be richer than queen elizabeth. the u.s. department of justice has said his son, the vice president, amassed more than $300 million by, quote, relentless embezzlement and extortion. he admitted no wrong doing, but on a government salary, he's

amassed an eye popping array of assets. some of which has been seized over the years. they include a malibu beach house, 101 room mansion, yachts, and michael jackson's famous white glove encrusted with crystals. meanwhile, a majority of the population lives on less than $2 a day. across the globe between 20 and $40 billion is stolen every year by public officials according to the world bank. usually that money is embezzled from poor countries and spirited to rich ones through shell companies. corruption at the top has been hard to fight. holding foreign leaders accountable for looting coffers. is a revolutionary idea at odds with centuries of practice. during the cold war leaders in

the west needed allies in the fight for dominance against the soviet union and were happy to look the other way on corrupt dictators. but with the fall of communism and the growing expert consensus that corruption causes poverty, multilateral organizations including the u.n. began to forge a series of agreements to fight it. over time, the norms along with the ground swell of anger and popular campaigning by advocacy groups have forced some consequences for some leaders. and "the economists" reports some places that have long been havens for ill gotten wealth are now starting to reform themselves. "the telegraph" reports a tiny nation of san marino seized $21 million from a man who reportedly spent more than $100,000 on crocodile skin shoes. and the fd says the tax havens

of the isle of man have agreed to share information about the true owners of companies after british members of parliament lambasted them for complicity with money laundering. the uk is beefing up the investigative muscle. last year britain began using something called unexplained wealth orders which can force people vulnerable to corruption including foreign officials to account for suspicious purchases. the u.s. is perhaps the farthest along. it launched a squad in 2010 that later went after billions of dollars allegedly smuggled out of malaysia. there have been some significant results. the seemingly invincible form of prime minister of malaysia currently facing trial for his alleged role in that 1mdb scandal. he pleaded not guilty to all

charges against him. as "the times" reported, authorities seized almost $300 million worth of assets from his homes last year including 12,000 pieces of jewelry, more than 500 luxury handbags and $29 million in cash in 26 currencies. the sprawling operation car wash investigation that began in brazil upended politics across that region, toppling presidents and ensnaring politicians have all over latin america. of course, significant challenges still remain. the vast majority of embezzled wealth is still undetected. but this is mostly a good news story. over the last decade, more has changed than in a long time. a cause for some hope. up next, the democrats had some big wins in tuesday's off-year election. but is that all indicative of what will happen next year in the big decision, 2020? >> i'll talk to the new york times' nate coe.

rigorous fundamental research. with portfolio managers focused on the long term. who look beyond the spreadsheets to understand companies, from breakroom to boardroom. who know the only way to get a 360 view is to go around the world to get it. can i rely on deep research to help make quality investment decisions? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

and everyone has dad's eyebrows! we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs. democrats are rejoicing this week. they seem to have taken over the governor's mansion in kentucky although that race is still contested. and now hold both houses in the virginia legislature. before you decide this may bode poorly for president trump, listen to nate coe. he reported this week on the

largest poll "the new york times" has done on the 2020 election so far. it has some stunning findings. basically, the president is very competitive in the key states that swung him the electoral college in 2016. elizabeth warren faces a challenge in those states. to discuss in detail, welcome nate. so as i said, the top line it seems to me is despite the fact that the president lags behind, when you do the matchups, warren beats him by 10 or 12, and biden beats him by more, yet what you're saying is when you look at those states, that won him the electoral college, he's surprisingly competitive. >> that's right. the states in 2016 were four points better for donald trump than the country as a whole. in 2018 midterm election there were five points better for republicans. joe biden is up two. i think it would be easy to go from our numbers to say biden up seven nationally and yet still the president would be in a really tight race for

re-election despite that national deficit. >> what do you think that's fundamentally about? >> these are states where white working class voters represent an above average section of the electorate. the president's strength and in our survey, we find the president is winning most of the white working class voters who backed him last time or even those who went onto back democrats in the congressional election. these are states that are favorable for him. we think he's taking advantage of that demographic opportunity as he did last time. >> and i think the other surprising finding is the one about warren. biden does pretty well, though, again, basically it's competitive within the margin of error everywhere, but biden does best, and warren does poorly. why do you think that is? >> i think it's useful to break

warren warren in three groups of people. we think 6% of respondents would support biden but not warren. some say she's too far left. they're well educated. they're a long cal group of people. another group of people don't know who elizabeth warren is yet. i think it's a reasonable thing she could make some gains in that group. there's a third group. they say most of the women who run for president just aren't that likable. they don't like elizabeth warren but they do like bernie sanders and joe biden. they're young and less educated. they're disproportionately nonwhite. >> arizona, i found that interesting. explain what you found in arizona and what conclusion you draw from it. >> i think arizona is interesting. it was the state where joe biden and elizabeth warren did best among registered voters. arizona is a state with a lot of hispanic voters who haven't

typically turned out in american elections. when you narrow it to likely voters, it dissipates. it's interesting to me. that one helps explain the national gap. these are states where on average there are fewer hispanic voters than nationwide. it's interesting to me because one of the big democratic hopes is the state of texas. and in our poll hillary clinton is doing rather joe biden is doing nine points better than hillary clinton among registered voters in arizona than hillary clinton's four point defeat among the actual voters in arizona. how much did hillary clinton lose texas by? nine points. so in the state that we have that's most demographically similar to texas, we see democrats making gains large enough to keep democrats competitive in that state. >> why should anyone listen to you when you got the polls wrong in 2016? new york times was predicting 90% of chance of hillary clinton winning. >> we closed at 85%. it's true that most the polls

got it wrong. i think people are totally justified in being skeptical about the polls today, and they should always be skeptical. polls aren't perfect. i will say in 2016 we were the only live interview poll that had the president leading in battle ground states in the final ten days of the race like in florida and carolinas. maybe we said maybe we should invest in our own surveys rather than look at other polls. the other polls out there are not taking all the steps that i think you need to take in order to properly represent white rural voter who can be hard to reach. >> the thing i wonder about with polls is, i can't remember what the response rate is down to now. it's -- but it's 5%. i mean -- >> low. and even that number is better than it is in reality. they take away broken telephone lines. >> you have to call hundreds before you get one. >> we called hundreds of thousands of people for this survey.

>> to get 5,000? >> yes. >> my question is there must be some implicit bias, self-selection problem which is the kinds of people willing to answer a poll are different from the kinds of people who aren't. i've never been willing to answer a poll. >> me neither. i screen all my unknown calls. i understand the concern. what we -- what studies consistently find is that if you control for partisanship, if you control for demographic characteristics like race and education, the people who respond to telephone surveys aren't that different than the people who don't respond. if we didn't have the power to make sure we had the right number of registered democrats or republicans or didn't have the ability to upweight less educated voters, our polls would have serious issues. but we think that because we can account for those things, that we think our results are pretty good. they're not perfect. no one can make that promise. i think that the -- we can make

sure that our poll in terms of its competition is accurate and right on the sort of characteristics that are likeliest to whether you support the democratic president or his opponents. >> fascinating stuff. come back soon. >> i will. thank you. next on "gps," this weekend marks 30 years since the berlin wall began to fall. we'll look at europe three decades later. what happened to that moment of great promise? introducing in-garage delivery, just in time for the holidays!

♪ beep, beep wwrrrr ♪ ♪ beep, beep ssshhhh ♪ ♪ beep, beep ♪ ♪ errrrr ba-ding ♪ shlrrrp ♪ bark, bark ♪ ♪ beep, beep ♪ ♪ sshhh shrrrp ♪ ♪ ding crrrnch, ♪ ♪ crrrnch beep ♪ ♪ boop errrr ♪ hey! get free in-garage delivery from key by amazon when you connect your myq app or get the universal smart garage hub, now just 29.98. ♪

30 years ago this weekend on november 9, 1989, an east german functionary altered the course of history by accident. the cold war was still chilly and the berlin wall separated the east from the west. east berliners could gaze at the west if there apartments were on high enough floors. for most that was forbidden. but this man announced that night an hour into an otherwise unremarkable press conference, that east germans could leave the country as they wished. this new policy, he said, mistakenly, was effective immediately. that night the berlin wall began to fall. those were heady days. they held much promise for the future, but 30 years later, what does europe have to show for that promise? joining me now is the senior fellow at brookings.

so, where were you when the berlin wall fell? >> well, i was on the wrong side of the atlantic for the action. i was a 27-year-old graduate student at harvard, and i was sitting in my bedroom at my desk, working on a chapter of my doctoral thesis when a friend called and said turn on the tv. the wall is down. i thought she was pulling my leg. i said you're an idiot. leave me alone. i'm working. she said turn on the tv. i on auto pilot went into the next room and turned on the tv. saw the people on the wall laughing and cheering and waving sledge hammers and bottles and i started crying. i burst into tears. it was incredible. >> when you get there, what did you realize about germany that you had not really understood? >> so many things. i sometimes think that in retrospect, particularly for my generation which literally grew

up with the wall, our feelings about so many things had been in a refrigerator. and we had -- if you didn't have family on the other side of the wall, that you were sending packages to with jeans or coffee and stuff like that, if you didn't have the possibility of traveling, which i didn't because my father was in the foreign service, and i would have been an intelligence target as a student, then that was -- could have been the other side of the moon. and so suddenly -- >> you in the west knew nothing about the east? >> i knew certainly much less than anybody who had family there or had been able to travel, which was possible to a limited degree for some westerners. but for me, this was a revelation that a country which to me had been emotionally alien, was full of people who essentially wanted many of the same things that we did. and who very clearly family, and this sort of reinforced in me a

profound desire to both reconsider my own assumptions and revisit them physically. it's one of the reasons i became a journalist. >> you put it very well, that people who seemed alien turned out to want the same things we did. and that i think was the great realization, i put it in quotes, of '89. all these people just wanted to drink coca-cola, listen to rock and roll, live in democracies, whatever. 30 years later do you think that was wrong? was that assumption we made wrong? >> the first one i want to make that all these three things you've decided are equally legitimate. some people sneered at the easterners for wanting rock and roll and coca-cola. i think that's a legitimate desire. and it is intimately related to the desire for freedom and democracy. and so they shouldn't have been sneered at by anybody. and i also want to emphasize that the following months and years saw an extraordinary

spread of those freedoms and democracy, and prosperity throughout not just reunified germany but through eastern europe. the standard of living, the political freedoms of many of these countries are incomparable to where they used to be 30 years ago, and yet we're seeing a populous resurgence through the west including in this country, and a distrust of representative democracy in ways i find profoundly concerning because it seems to negate the achievement of the heady years. >> but the rise of populism in east europe as a whole does feel as though it is the ability to -- for one thing, it's authoritarianism disguised. it doesn't come overtly. it comes through democracy. after elections. it seems like it appeals to people's fears rather than hopes

about immigrants and things. what does that tell you when you go on the ground and you talk to these people because you've done so much good reporting, what conclusions do you draw? >> well, part of this, i think, is, of course, a holdover from the period before 1989 that -- and as we west germans should know, if you have grown up in a dictatorship, you are likely to have had to -- have made compromises with yourself. and with authority that you and that you secretly feel guilty about, and that will pursue you all your lives. west germans took 40 years to deal with our complicity in world war ii and the holocaust. not all of us were nazis, not all the generations, my grandparents weren't nazis, but a lot of people were in some way complicit. and i think there are similar discussions to be had in not just east germany but in all the

other eastern european countries that lived under communism and those discussions in our west german experience take a generation. >> a pleasure. fascinating conversation. >> thank you. this was a lot of fun. thank you for having me. and we will be right back. for every time they said it,dr you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless.

when insurance is affordable, thbecause with nband after thleague pass on xfinityr.

you can watch the out of market games you want- all season long. and with the all-new xfinity sports zone, you get everything nba all in one place- even notifications about your favorite teams. watch the dropped dimes, monster blocks, and showstopping dunks. plus get instant access to your teams with the power of your voice. that's simple, easy, awesome. say nba league pass into your voice remote to upgrade for a great low price - or go online today.

does more time in the office equal more productivity? it's a question that's getting a lot of attention these days and it brings me to my question this week. what did microsoft japan do that massively boosted productivity this past august? implement midday siestas, mandate 3-day weekends, ban overtime, or introduce unlimited time off. stick with us and we'll give you the answer. my book of the week is "don't be evil." this is about how they betrayed their ideals on democracy. it will make you think hard about things that we think is normal, the way technology dominates our lives and societies. the answer to my question

this week is b. microsoft japan decided to close its offices every friday this past august in a bid to improve work-life balance and boost office morale. they did a lot more than that, it turns out. productivity jumped some 40% compared to august 2018. on top of that, employees printed about 60% fewer pages and consumed 23% less electricity compared to august 2016. and data shows that working less could actually make us all better workers. take france, for example. most full-time employees enjoy a 35-hour week and five weeks of paid leave a year, and yet last week french workers got more done with each hour than anybody else in the g-7, according to the alcd. proof to your bosses you're a team player, always look out for the boom line and show them this clip. the real key to working smarter might just be working less. we'll put a link on our website,

cnn.com/fareed. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i'll see you next week. signal. 's 600mhz no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. and it's built 5g ready. anyoonly marco's can deliver america's most loved pizza. hot and fresh, and right to your door. dough made from scratch, every day. sauce from our original recipe. and authentic toppings like crispy, old world pepperoni™. because the italian way is worth celebrating. every day at marco's, get two medium, one-topping pizzas for just $6.99 each. hello to america's most loved pizza.

hello marco's. performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪

the roomba i7+ with cleanng base automatic dirt disposal and allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens, so they don't escape back into the air. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™ motor? nope.

not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. tthe bad news? our so will this recital.day. new depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®. hello, everyone, and thank you for joining me this sunday. i'm fredricka whitfield. for the first time we'll hear public testimony in the impeachment inquiry. that testimony scheduled to begin on wednesday in the house. it will feature three officials who have already share