this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. today on the show, russia's meddling in american elections rears its ugly head again. the coronavirus contagion continues in china and elsewhere. in afghanistan the united states could be close to a peace deal with the taliban. >> they want to make a deal very badly. also, the las vegas debate featuring a discussion about which septuagenarian had the worst heart troubles. >> hey, follow me around the campaign three, four, five events a day, see how you're

doing compared to me. >> so is it time for a younger generation of leaders? "time" magazine's charlotte walter, a millennial, says yes. who is waiting in the wings? she will tell us. and is your cell phone ringing up too high a bill? are plane ticket prices sky high? if you are american your answer is most surely yes and you are paying a lot more than europeans. a french economist explains why. but first, here's my take. president trump's most consistent case for his own re-election is simple. it's the economy, stupid. he points to an american economy that is in reasonably good shape, though of course nowhere near the best ever that he claims. growth has averaged about 2.5%, a bit higher than under presidents obama and bush and a good bit lower than under presidents clinton and reagan. trump had promised 4% growth,

which never materialized, but that hasn't stopped the salesman from repeated the refrain promises made, promises kept. actually, the one area where trump has most clearly failed to keep his promise is central to his ideology and appeal. the trade deficit. >> we run -- >> trump campaigned relentless on the notion that america's economy was being ruined by large trade deficits. he promised on the campaign trail in june 2016 -- >> you will see a drop like you have never seen before. >> in reality, the trade deficit has risen substantially under trump. it was 503 billion in 2016 and grew to 628 billion in 2018, a 25% spike. it fell slightly in 2019 to 617 billion. now, watch this clip from my interview with jared kushner earlier this month. >> if deficits don't matter, why is it that every country i deal with doesn't want to have one? >> the trade deficit has gone up under president trump. it hasn't gone down. >> the economy is growing -- >> you contradicted yourself.

then it's a good thing. >> no. >> it's true when the u.s. economy grows well, the trade deficit tends to rise. if you want to achieve a sharp decline in the trade deficit, it's actually easy. just trigger a recession. and the greatest drop in america's trade deficit took place in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis. trade policy can get very wonky. so let me try to make this very simple building on a thought experiment in "the harvard review." imagine a country that has less than 5% of the world's population but still generates more than 20% of global gdp. it buys more goods than it sells, but it leads the world in the industries of the future. services and technology. it also has excellent laws protecting private investment and a strong, stable currency. if you were living in another country, wouldn't you want to invest your money there? this imaginary country, of course, is america. people may not buy as many

american goods, but they buy lots of american services and they invest their money in america. in fact, while the u.s. has a deficit in manufactured goods with the rest of the world, it runs a huge surplus in services. banking, insurance, consulting. and remember that 80% of american jobs today are in the service sector. jobs in manufacturing as a percentage of overall jobs has been declining for 70 years, and at about the same pace for that period. the u.s. is also the world's favorite destination to invest capital. by a large margin. as martin point's out, when you look at this entire picture, the trade deficit should be something to brag about rather than denounce. donald trump's trade policy has been an enormously costly exercise forcing americans to pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes on imported goods, then using additional tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to compensate farmers for lost income because of

retaliatory tariffs and ensuring that the global trading system will be weakened with lots of new tariffs and barriers. all this to solve a problem that isn't really a problem. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. and let's get started. ♪ is one of america's forever wars about to come to an end? the answer is maybe. a seven-day reduction in violence began on saturday in afghanistan. the first major action to come out of negotiations between the united states and the taliban. the next step would be even bigger, peace deal to be signed between those two parties next saturday if all goes well. this war which began in october of 2001 is now more than 6,700 days old.

joining me to discuss this, the former u.s. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, now the asia program director for the international crisis group. richard haus was the state department's director of policy planning, now the president for the council on foreign relations. he has a book coming out shortly called "the world, a brief introduction." ian bremmer is the founder and president of the eurasia group. laura, let me ask you, so we have this reduction in violence. the next step is the peace deal. hasn't the big stumbling block always been the taliban don't want just one, an end to the war. they want to be in some way running afghanistan in part or in full? >> they surely want to be in power to some degree in afghanistan. what is unclear is precisely what is their political vision, what is their expectation of what the outcome of a peace process would be. they are quite cagey about that.

they talk about not wanting to have a monopoly on power. they talk about the need for an inclusive government, but those are generalities. what their specific idea is of what the outcome could be and what compromise might look like is quite unclear. >> richard, you know the argument against this, which is that the united states is essentially going to withdraw forces. the taliban is making commitments over the next few months, few years, that it can easily renege on and the analogy people make is to south vietnam. the united states pulled out of south vietnam and the north promised to honor the sovereignty of the side, and of course two years later south vietnam had fallen into a north vietnamese invasion. are we watching history repeat itself? >> quite possibly, which is why, like a lot of other people, i am uneasy about this. it doesn't change taliban capabilities. it temporarily changes their

behavior, this reduction in violence. it doesn't affect in ways that reassure me their intentions. they still have a sanctuary in pakistan. we are going to reduce as part of this first phase of the accord essentially by a third, going from 12, 13,000, to 85, 8600 forces. ironically enough, that's the level when mr. trump became president. the real question to me is, how anxious are we to get out and whether the taliban are sincere. i would just be extraordinarily skeptical about that. again, they are not being asked to give up capabilities. everyone's nightmare is we get out, their capabilities are there and then they go, never mind, or we changed our mind, and then suddenly the afghan government is extraordinarily vulnerable. >> what do you think? >> the americans aren't going back in. right? that's exactly richard's point, it's so salient here. trump has been wanting to reduce american presence in the region

for a long time. as obama did, he's had a hard time with it, but he would love in this election run to be able to say, here's one more thing i got done, bringing troops back home, longest standing war in american history and i'm on path to actually finish it completely. remember, in syria when he is asked to do something about the russians versus the turks with the russians on assad's side, remember, he said, what do you want me to do? you want me to tell them to cut it out? i think he would love to be in the same position in afghanistan. by the way, the guy in the lead on the democratic side, bernie sanders, has a similar view on what american footprint should not be in this part of the world. >> so imagine the unease is founded, that the taliban retains capabilities. they decide, you know, the americans are not coming back. we can violate parts of the pakistan -- you were just in pakistan. the pakistanis have long wanted to maintain a strong degree of influence in afghanistan and

their chosen vehicle has been the taliban, at least historically. they're still around. is it possible what we are going to watch in a few years is the taliban in kabul ruling afghanistan? >> well, look, they're not being asked to eliminate any of their capabilities yet because they haven't lost the war. this is not a surrender of the taliban. they're not going to be simply folded into the existing system. if there is ultimately a peace agreement, it's going to look more like a merger of the existing political and security forces on the ground. it's not going to be an acquisition of the taliban and giving them just some kind of minority share of power and governance in afghanistan. so the point of having a peace process is to test the proposition that there might be some kind of compromise that can be agreed among all the afghan parties and stakeholders here. whether that turns out to be true or not, i don't think we can say. but, you know, you are always going to be skeptical with the

willingness of parties that have been in conflict for a long time to be willing to enter into those compromises. that's not unique to afghanistan. but the point of a peace process, as i said, is to test the proposition that you might be able to find some kind of accommodation. >> a quick thought. richard, you interviewed the afghan president in munich recently. is he on board with this? because he will have to share that power. he will have to let the taliban in. >> he is on board phase one to get it going. laurel said you have to test it, which is why we ought to be thinking about a residual u.s. force presence, long-term military and economic help for the afghan government. we never again want to see afghanistan become a launching pad for global terrorism, and we've got to be careful, like we did in syria, we don't want this once again to look like we are so anxious to get out that we betray those who have been our partners. >> when we come back we are going to talk about intelligence. members of congress were briefed last week that the intelligence community is confident that

russia is looking to interfere in the 2020 election. we'll talk about that issue, the briefing, and president trump's reaction to it all. 5g will change business in america. t-mobile has the first and only, nationwide 5g network. and with it, you can shape the future. we've invested 30 billion dollars and built our new 5g network for businesses like yours. while some 5g signals only go a few blocks, t-mobile 5g goes for miles. no other 5g signal goes farther or is more reliable in business. tomorrow is in your hands. partner with t-mobile for business today. ♪ tomorrow is in your hands.

♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

the top election security official in american intelligence told members of congress last week that russia is already trying to interfere in the 2020 election. and that moscow would like to see donald trump remain in the oval office. cnn has learned that president trump became irate that the director of national intelligence allowed that briefing to occur. on wednesday, trump named a new acting director of intelligence, richard grenell, a former spokesman turned fox news talking head turned ambassador

with very little, actually no intelligence experience. let's bring in panel to talk about it all. laurel miller, richard haus, and ian bremmer. richard, this guy, richard grenell, just to start with this, has no experience of this. he will be the head of national intelligence, 17 intelligence agencies, a budget of over $60 billion. what do you think of this? >> well, he is unencumbered by qualifications or experience. that's what i think about it. the good news is it's acting and temporary. but let's be serious. it's got to be demoralizing for an intelligence community that has been treated as almost hostile territory for three years now. it makes it harder for us to collaborate with partner intelligence agencies around the world. and it says dangerous things about this president and his reaction to independent institutions. it's not the president's intelligence community. let's be clear about that.

it's the u.s. government's. they support congress. they support the executive branch. they are meant to speak publicly to the american people. several weeks ago, you'll remember, the leaders of the intelligence community held back from giving their normal public presentation of the threat. why? because they are worried the white house wouldn't react well, it's inconvenient. this is part of a larger pattern we are seeing in u.s. government of the personalization of the presidency. >> it does seem, laurel, that he wants somebody who is politically loyal to him. and aren't people going to worry -- i mean, you've dealt with foreign governments -- you have dealt with foreign governments that the intelligence they are getting is not the united states' best intelligence but the united states' best intelligence has filtered through what donald trump's political prerogatives are. >> absolutely. i mean, i think this decision shows utter disregard for the important role of the u.s. intelligence agencies in protecting u.s. national security. it's not unusual or untoward for a president to choose someone for an office like this because

of their party affiliation or because they are someone who the president trusts. what is unusual is choosing someone precisely because of their extreme partisanship and despite having no qualifications. i think it's more important in terms of what this means for u.s. national security than it is for interaction with foreign governments. there are other parts of the intelligence community that will continue to have exchanges with foreign governments. but what this means in terms of actual objective information, getting to u.s. policymakers, that's extremely concerning. >> they said -- and trump seems to be doing this in a post-impeachment act of bravado, of a defines of a defiance to say i can do

whatever i want. a leader once appointed a horse to the senate as a way of showing he had power. >> look, i know rick grenell reasonably well and he has no qualifications to have this job in intel, but he is certainly not stupid. and, in fact, he is reasonably articulate on a lot of these views. but he is a bomb thrower and he is a unilateralist. he won't be there long. frankly, the impact is not going to be that great, but there is a real issue right now that ric has been directly involved in, and that is specifically around 5g. and whether or not the europeans are going to cooperate with the united states or with china. now, he has delivered a very direct message to the europeans saying if you work with the chinese, there will be consequences for u.s. intelligence cooperation with you. the germans, the brits, and a number of others have already said we are uninterested in working with the u.s. closely on this issue. meanwhile, the americans and not just the trump administration, but the democrats, nancy pelosi, have come out publicly and said this is the biggest national security threat we need to worry about.

so, ric for the next few weeks is going to be in the middle of a national security issue that matters a lot and we should watch what he has to say about that. >> all right. we have to switch because i really want to talk about the coronavirus. where do we stand as far as you can tell? is this dying out? is it escalating? >> a little bit difficult to know because it's hard to have any confidence in the statistics. every time you hear that it's dying out, it turns out not to be. it seems to me contagion is significant. numbers are probably far larger than the chinese have admitted. lethality seems to be not that bad and clearly contingent on the public system where it happens, whether people get hydration, whether people get masks, how medical personnel interact with patients. that's where we are. i think the economically, we can talk about clearly it's going to have a major hit temporarily on china's economy and the regional economies.

and i think the most interesting question is how this plays out and what, if any, long-term implications it has for china's leadership. >> what do you think? i have heard it argued both ways. if it dies down, xi can say, look, we mobilized and beat this down. on the other hand, there are people who think it will represent a kind of blow to xi in power. >> i think his response has been consolidation of power and i don't see significant internal challenges to xi on the back of this, even if it gets much worse. but i think the economic implications are meaningful. and his willingness to take an iron hand over however many chinese might potentially be vulnerable to this coronavirus does mean that you're going to see longer disruption to supply chain, to tourism and the rest, which in a very politicized environment of the u.s. versus china could play out in ways that people don't want to see in this election. >> you are in looking at coronavirus that we should look

somewhat differently about china, chinese power and xi? . >> almost everything thing said and written about china assumes china's rise continues. what i think this should tell us is maybe not. china is a brittle society than many outsiders understand. second of all, by the time you consolidated power to the degree xi jinping has done, it's very hard to blame others. you are the man. and the fact that the chinese are beginning to recast the narrative. publishing different accounts of events suggests to me there is some questioning going on in china. too soon to know how it's going to play out, but if nothing else over the last few years we've got for be really careful in assuming the future is going to look exactly like the past. >> on that note, thank you all. next on "gps," bernie sanders is an independent in the senate. now he is a democrat running for president. michael bloomberg was a republican. now he too is running as a democrat. donald trump was a democrat. he is now the republican president. what in the world is happening to traditional political parties and not just in america? that story when we come back.

>> don't forget, if you miss a show, go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my itunes podcast. rving are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure. as a mom, i knew it had to work. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. i envisioned what it's like for babies to have diapers around them. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. at the end of the day, we are people helping people. even those who don't have a voice. (woman) no matter what business you are in, digital transformation never stops. verizon keeps business ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business... (second man) virtualize their operations... (third man) and could even build ai into their customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. (woman) where machines could talk to each other and expertise could go anywhere. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation,

verizon keeps business ready. ♪ tit's great actually, i've been listening to audible. it's audiobooks, news, meditations... gotta go! ♪

♪ hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right.

shouldn't you pay less when ynow you can.data? because xfinity mobile gives you more flexible data. you can choose to share data between lines, mix with unlimited, or switch it up at any time. all on the most reliable wireless network. which means you can save money without compromising on coverage. get more flexible data, the most reliable network, and more savings. plus, get $300 off when you buy a new samsung galaxy s20 ultra. that's simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

now for our "what in the world" segment. at the democratic debate in las vegas this week pete buttigieg pointed out a striking fact about his party's frontrunners. at times both bernie sanders and mike bloomberg have not identified themselves as democrats. don't forget the presumptive republican nominee, president trump, was for many years not a republican. >> well, you'd be shocked if i said that in many cases i probably identify more as a democrat.

>> this isn't just an american phenomenon. everywhere you look established political parties are being taken over by insurgent outsiders. all those mainstream parties are losing their appeal with the public. why? what explains this phenomenon? well, in america, primaries have actually hurt. you see, each party's presidential nominee used to be determined by party elites, meaning elected officeholders at the state and local level. by the 1970s, primaries became the primary method for selecting delegates to the national convention, but the old elites might have been more representative than the primary voters. turnout in primaries is low, mostly diehards on each side tend to vote, so a process that aims to be more democratic actually produces rule by minorities. now look at the uk. both jeremy corbyn and boris johnson are leaders who were insurgents against their party establishments.

but as political scientist francy rosenblum told "gps," they are in charge in farther because of the labour and conservative parties gave the rank and file a greater candidate selection which has undermined the party's brass. as he and ian shapiro write in their book "responsible parties" in 2014 they took leader selection out of the hands of just mps and distributed it among other party members and some other affiliated parties. boris johnson's parties reforms in 1998 allowed them to pick between candidates until there were two standing and then allowed all party members to decide between those two in a runoff. last year, as "the atlantic" reported, those 165,000 members proved to be older, whiter and much more hard line on brexit than the rest of the country or the parliamentary party.

they chose as their representative the unrepresentative boris johnson. there is a broader shift away from established parties because it's happening in places without primaries, meaning most other democracies. across europe, party membership has been battered. between 1980 and the first decades of the 2000s, the number of party members across 13 long established european democracies fell by nearly half on average. by the early 2000s, less than 5% of the european electorate was a member of a party. as old parties have weakened, populist upstarts on the right and left have emerged. look at mateo salvini's lead in italy or poland's law and justice party and green parties across europe. in some places long dormant political forces have also re-emerged. just this month in an unprecedented development the nationalist phen party won in the irish parliamentary elections.

wrestling long-dominated seats from the current party. you might think that the solution to all of this is just to say good riddance to party power. after all, parties are responsible for their own demise. the public distrusts them. why should they have more clout than they do? because historically political parties have moderated politics. helping different groups to compromise and work together. and one consequence of their continuing weakness is plain to see. the rise of polarization and bitterness in politics everywhere. next on "gps," looking for -- wondering who is the barack obama of the 2020s? "time" magazine's charlotte alter has been meeting the political scene's next generation, and she will tell us all that we need to know. geico is the easy choice. we could even help you with homeowners... oh! not again! oh, thanks! you know automated lights are just the beginning.

pretty soon they're gonna have eyes... everywhere. well goodnight. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

my grandfather had an but ancestry showed me geico. so much more than i could have imagined. my grandfather was born in a shack in pennsylvania, his father was a miner, they were immigrants from italy and somewhere along the way that man changed his name and transformed himself into a successful mid-century american man. he had a whole life that i didn't know anything about. he was just my beloved grandpa. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

donald trump is 73 years old. joe biden is 77. bernie sanders and michael bloomberg are both 78. elizabeth warren is young at 70. that's a big majority of the

current contenders for the 2020 presidential race. they are all 70 or older. so where is the new blood? well, my next guest says get ready for the next generation of american politicians because they are going to reshape america. charlotte alter is a national correspondent for "time" magazine and the author of a new book on this subject called "the ones we've been waiting for." so you talk about millennials in politics. if one were to think about them, and as i recall, they are born between? >> between roughly 1980 and 1996. >> so if you were to pick one characteristic, if somebody were to say to you define millennials, i know this is, you know, it's obviously overly reductionist, but what would define millennials? >> i think, and this is what i trace in the book, that millennials are defined by a sense of precariousness. a sense that the attitudes and realities, the guardrails of american life that existed

throughout the 20th century have crumbled or have been otherwise eroded and that a lot of the financial and political and social structures that enabled their parents and grandparents to live the lives that they did are no longer available to them. >> part of the reason you say is that every generation is shaped a lot by the early experiences of millennials, of them. so what were the early experience of millennials? >> yeah, exactly. so social scientists have found that events experienced between the ages of roughly 18 to 28, like kind of when people are coming into their political consciousness, those shape your politics for years to come. so if you look at millennials, many of them were children when the berlin wall fell. so they don't really have that sense of cold war global politics. instead, my book starts at 9/11, which was a pivotal moment for millennials. it traces them through the wars in iraq and afghanistan, through

the financial crisis, the rise of barack obama, who was a transformative politician for this generation, and the rise of donald trump. it also covers a lot of social movements that flourished during the obama area like occupy and black lives matter, which really shaped millennials' social identity. >> a threat of terrorism, wars that go badly and go awry, financial system that collapses, deep recession. obama is sort of the blip, right? how do they make sense of obama? >> so, obama had an interesting kind of positive and also maybe less positive impact on this generation because he was elected because of his popularity with young people. young voters helped him win iowa and the nomination and then the presidency. and for a lot of these voters, for whom obama was their first presidential vote, a lot of them thought to themselves, okay, well, we just elected the first black president. he'll take care of it.

and then, you know, when obama was unable to single-handedly fix so many of the social problems that his supporters had expected him to be able to fix that, you know, structural racism didn't evaporate just because obama was president, that led many of these young people to think to themselves maybe these systemic problems actually need stemmystemic solutions. that led to the rise of networked non-hierarchal movements where there was no one singular fallible leader. it was thousands of leaders acting in cohort with one another. >> but now they seem to have found a leader in bernie sanders. >> yes. >> so young people are -- disproportionately supporting sanders and young people are disproportionately comfortable with the idea of being called democratic socialists. why? >> yeah, so it's important to note that it's not as if this entire generation are card carrying members of the democratic socialists of america. in fact, even though the democratic -- the dsa has had

skyrocketed membership since bernie sanders started running for president in 2015, it still, you know, could fit inside fenway park. so it's not necessarily that everybody is a comrade. it's more than socialism has lost its sting. in fact, it's something that people think of when they think of economies in northern europe where people get affordable or free health care or free child care or really affordable education. and you have to remember this generation was only 8 or 9 when the berlin wall fell. the oldest millennials were 8 or 9 when the berlin wall fell. >> they don't remember actual socialism? >> they don't remember totalitarian communism. and it's also important to remember when talking about millennial socialism, the important word here is democratic socialism. i think a lot of boomers and people who grew up during the cold war, when they think of socialism they think of totalitarianism. and for this generation, they want to elect leaders that will

implement policies to strengthen the social safety net. elect is the operative word there because if you elect aoc in new york's 14th district and then you don't like what she's doing or you feel your taxes are going up too much or you don't like the programs she's fighting for, you can vote her right out. >> why do millennials not vote other than for obama? >> a great question. so, actually, millennials did double their turnout in the 2018 midterms. and about 60% say they plan to definitely vote in 2020, but one big impact that the obama election had is that -- i think many millennials think of voting as an act of love. they think of it as something that you only do for somebody that you really believe in, not just whoever happens -- not duty. >> not civic discipline. >> not whoever happens to be on the ballot. that's going to really shape this election in particular when you have so many young people so enamored with bernie sanders, a

really big question that the democrats are going to have to deal with is whether those young people will vote for somebody who isn't their chosen candidate. >> fascinating stuff. charlotte alter, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you so much for having me on. up next, listen up america, your french friends pay much less for their cellphone service than you do. have you ever wondered why? i will give you the answer when i get back. it's a troubled tale about america today. tremfya® helps adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis uncover clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

t-mobile has the first and only, nationwide 5g network. and with it, you can shape the future. we've invested 30 billion dollars and built our new 5g network for businesses like yours. while some 5g signals only go a few blocks, t-mobile 5g goes for miles. no other 5g signal goes farther or is more reliable in business. tomorrow is in your hands. partner with t-mobile for business today.

tomorrvo:for president.ver that's mike bloomberg. a middle class kid who built a global company from scratch. mayor of new york, rebuilding the city after the 9-11 terrorist attack, creating 450,000 jobs. running for president - and on a roll. workable plans to deliver on better health care. affordable college. job creation. common sense plans to beat trump, fix the chaos in washington, and get things done. mike: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

i want to ask some questions to the americans in my audience. do you ever wonder why your cellphone bill is so damn high? have your eyes ever popped at just how much it costs to fly your family to your favorite destination? well, my next guest has written a smart book that explains why these things are so much more expensive in the united states than, say, in europe.

thomas is the author of the great reversal, how america gave up on free markets. so let's start by explaining that proposition. most americans don't know what other things cost in other countries, but you have done the -- crunched the numbers, and in many of these key areas americans pay much higher prices, correct? >> yes. today they are much higher in the u.s. than in europe by a factor of 2 or 2.5 in the case of telecom prices. so literally people are overpaying on average $50, $60 per month for their cellphone and broadband plans. >> and why -- what is the nature of the american industry in those areas that has allowed the companies to charge so much? >> it's very much concentration and lack of competition. what is more striking is it was the opposite 20 years ago. when i came to the u.s. from europe 20 years ago, i noticed that the u.s. was the land of

low prices and free markets. where you had lots of choices and very low prices. be it for flying around, buying a cellphone or getting on the internet. and somehow over the 20 years that i have been here, i have seen the markets become more and more concentrated, controlled by a few players, so that today u.s. households have fewer choices and they pay higher prices. >> this is very important. i also came to america, you know, 30 years ago and i remember thinking this is a consumer's paradise. everything seems geared to get the cheapest price for the consumer. you are saying it's now the reverse. and explain why it is that when you have concentration and lack >> they are high prices for a main reason. the first one is they don't have to fight for your purchase because you take it for granted. if you fly from one airport to another, and there is only one direct flight, either you don't

fly or you take the car, but you don't have that many choices. that's how they can charge higher prices. >> we think of this concentration being true in technology. amazon is dominant, google is dominant, facebook. but you're saying it's actually quite widespread? >> yeah. it's many, many sectors, but what's important is it can happen with google for a reason. sometimes it's just competition, and if the best wins a lot, then it ends up being a payout. that does not mean it's a bad day for consumers. but when you have, for a long time, the same players and they don't face any threat from the outside, they get lazy. you know, you get high prices or lousy service or both. >> why did we go from america 20 years ago being the land of free competition and low prices for consumers to the land of less competition, oligopolies and

high prices for consumers? >> in the u.s. and europe, there is a trend. in the uk, we have low-cost flights and more competitors. in the u.s., we have less competitors. that's how competitive these markets are. this was all inspired by how the u.s. used to look. in the u.s., what happens is different forces. people get complacent. they take the free market for granted. they tend to be complacent. with an airline, it's clear, and in some other markets we've seen states putting too many restrictions, too many costs, too small businesses that prevent them from growing and competing with the big guys. if you put all these pieces

together, you get higher prices, which today costs the u.s. a lot of money. >> is a large part of this story the political power of big businesses that found ways to influence the legislatures or local governments or anti-trust authorities to say, you know, don't -- close this market up? give us more power. >> it's very clear that lobbying and campaign finance were an important contributor. you can see the industry that's successful, they get away with higher prices in the future without anything against them. they go against small competitors or foreign competitors. this makes it difficult for u.s. consumers. >> thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you for having me. we will be right back.

(woman) no matter what business you are in, digital transformation never stops. verizon keeps business ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business... (second man) virtualize their operations... (third man) and could even build ai into their customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. (woman) where machines could talk to each other and expertise could go anywhere. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation, verizon keeps business ready. ♪ 1 in 3 deaths is caused by cardiovascular disease. millions of patients are treated with statins-but up to 75% persistent cardiovascular risk still remains. many have turned to fish oil supplements. others, fenofibrates or niacin. but here's a number you should take to heart: zero-the number of fda approvals these products have, when added to statins, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.

ask your doctor about an advancement in prescription therapies with proven protection. visit truetoyourheart.com save up to 65% off top mattress brands. mattress markdowns event now through february 24th. score extra savings on mattresses from tempurpedic, serta, beautyrest and sealy, starting at just $399! kick back and relax while we do all the heavy lifting. because every single mattress ships free! you don't want to snooze on these deals. shop now through february 24th. only at wayfair.com.

we often talk about america's endless wars, the ones in afghanistan and iraq. but u.s. troops in small numbers are actually deployed in over 150 countries, whether to protect against russian influence in the baltics or north korean aggression in south korea. it brings me to my question. which country recently announced the termination of a key security pact with the united states? bahrain, finland, honduras or the philippines. stay tuned and we'll tell you the answer. my book of the week is

"trade is not a four letter word." he writes a funny book about trade. he takes the reader on an entertaining ride. the bonus is he's right about the subject as well. the answer to my gps challenge this week is d. the philippines recently announced it is withdrawing from the visiting forces agreement, a 22-year-old pact that allows u.s. troops to operate there. the agreement is a key piece of a 70-year military relationship that included military exercises and hundreds of millions of dollars in defense aid. they have been threatening to withdraw from the agreement since 2016. he revealed the final straw was the visa cancellation of one of his key allies, the former police chief largely responsible for enforcing his law on drugs. when questioned about the philippines' decision to drop

out, donald trump proclaims he doesn't really mind. but it is a big deal. they are seen as a larger path to china. since taking office, duterte has been distancing himself from the united states and aligning himself with russia and china to the tune of $24 billion. china is now investing $2 billion to build a modern industrial city out of an air base that was once america's largest overseas military outpost. moreover, observers of the region wonder whether duterte pulling out of the pact will further expansion in south china sea. the philippines is just one of the nations in charted waters. since announcing the break from the u.s., even the philippines secretary warned that such an

act would embolden chinese aggression. negotiators have six months to restore the pact, or we will witness a sharp geopolitical shift in asia. thank you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, everyone. thank you so much for joining me. i'm fredricka whitfield. it was a huge night for bernie sanders on the campaign trail. cnn is predicting the vermont senator to win the nevada caucuses, confirmed so far. the win will cement sanders' status as the democratic frontrunner as we reach a political stretch in the primary season. sanders is already looking ahead to super tuesday on march 3rd. campaigning today in texas, his message after the nevada