we haven't gotten at the stage. liz: it's a process. stuart: when you move the markets talking about a few billion dollars or sideways whatever. that is what we did. i'm very proud of that. i will hand it over to neil. what will you do for the market, neil? neil: i thought his comments were idiotic. here is why. i'm watching official response to this all fronts. minimizing tariffs two different products have broken to more than 1100. everything is contained, everything is fine. i don't care whether you're own the right or left, trying to step back saying this is all fine, i don't know. this seems to me. you were very good pursuing this. the fact of the matter is, and i saw his counterpart on that other station with the consonants in it, just as

incoherent. trying to argue. stuart: wait a minute. neil: trying to argue there is nothing wrong with sort of tempting the other side with tariffs and then piling on more tariffs and then saying it is only this% of gdp of this% of our deficits all the way down. where do we go? is it a week from now, 1000 more items? is it two weeks from now, 10,000 more items? i don't know. i think that -- stuart: we have to remember these are tariff proposals. they will not be imposed at least -- neil: how do you know, stuart? how do you know that, stuart? stuart: because they have not been imposed. neil: you can threaten all you want you can keep pursuing this, minimize it all you want get your cake and eat it too because you never have to follow through with this. what i find so disingenuous, democrats, republicans alike play this game, the media also plays this game, not you, my friend, but this notion that well, everything will be fine.

it just might well be. this might just get everyone to the table but this idea that this is no big deal when you started out with two areas targeted, aluminum and steel, and you have now advanced over 1000 items, including delineating between bone pork chops and deboned pork chaps, you have a problem, you have a big problem. again, that is just me. stuart: i think my time's up. neil: just saying you know the world is a strange place. but you are not, my friend. you are not. stuart: watch out. neil: thank you very. not casting political aspersions, i'm finding this idea, these tariffs once raised and threatened will never be enacted be careful, be careful with that. again i'm not citing administration officials for trying to play games. i'm just trying to say administration officials are playing games! you can not minimize a potential

trade war even with the hope this is going to be enough of a threat to get everyone to come to the table. i'm telling you with every other trade battle we had in this country and 89 others in the past century, every time we have done this, tried to minimize it and say it will just slough away, guess what? it doesn't slough away. there are burning wounds exist way after the fact. again everyone, welcomes a comeback from the dow. off the worst levels. i'm not smart enough to not know how this will end. i'm smart enough to say it doesn't end if you keep piling on. someone will come up with a bright idea to pile on to the existing tariffs we already have. that is what the trump administration did yesterday. a lot of people said it was wise. whatever the case they were not expected. even though the commerce secretary was saying on that other channel this was well-telegraphed. no, it wasn't. no one telegraphed additional moves on the part of the administration.

no one telegraphed how quickly china responded to the degree it has. we've gone from steel and aluminum to pork products, beef products, corn, engines, plastic parts. next thing i know, like, mr. potato head is going to get caught up in this. which brings me to one of my closest friends on the planet charlie gasparino. i don't mean that. i love you like a brother. >> at least you didn't call me a meatball. neil: no i did not. "wall street journal" editorial editor james freeman. deirdre bolton incredible reporter. >> how many pumpkin spice lattes have you had? neil: i hope i don't come across as a jerk. well, you know. when you make light of trade salvos, whether they're enacted now or later, you're playing with fire. >> especially china we have a

lot to lose with them. they play nasty. by our stuff, finance our deficit. capital flows from china to here for a reason. it's a good place to invest. that helps our economy. you know all this, you can throw in the amazon stuff as well, some of trump's comments about amazon which are bizarre and wrong and you know, i can't, i can't understand, i can't get my hand if he is really this dumb when it comes to economics or he is just lying. i just don't understand it. neil: that is a whole separate issue. >> that affects markets. neil: you did raise a very good issue but, james, my whole take we're relieved to hear this is prommably all kabuki theater and so-called tariffs don't take effect for 180 days or ever, i find that pretty dangerous, you're assuming cooler head will

prevail in the last 48 hours at least it has gotten more heated. you can minimize it, i think the commerce secretary was on with joe kernen of cnbc, minimizing, it is a, not a big issue. fine. smoot-hawley was small percent of everything. one thing led to another. i don't want to sound like an alarmist, but i'm alarmed! >> it is threat to emerging what is a wonderful growth story and coming out deregulation and tax cuts, getting so much good news out of the economy and jobs and manufacturing sector of the economy. you're hoping that the president still looks at the stock market as a barometer of his performance. every day giving him clear signals. trade wars, bad for growth. neil: not that should be barometer, if it is not liking

what you're doing since, maybe you're divorced yourself from that, maybe you will not talk about, this is unraveling very things you did to get the stocks moving. >> i think the big concerns are he has been remarkably faithful pursuing the agenda he campaigned on. unfortunately that is part of the agenda. to your question this is one issue where he has been consistent personally for a very long time. so i think -- neil: you mean on trade? you're right about that. deirdre, on that he is right, because the, i talked to him going back decades he always argued, this is the president the chinese need us a lot more than we need them. we kowtow to them. afraid what they will do about the debt, we don't say boo. they got to the position of advantage. >> they are our biggest creditor. neil: where is this growing. >> i'm in a blend all of you are saying. meaning i don't pretend to understand the president's or anyone else's rationale but i

think maybe he saw the situation with china similar to south korea we were able to kind of bully them a little bit and go back a little bit, kind of get what we want in the middle. to your point, our relationship with china is not at all our relationship with south korea. so i think we have to look at that. no, i'm actually with you. i'm a little concerned. i think soybeans, autos, chemicals, aircraft, these are bigger measures and stronger forms and with more money than what any investors have -- neil: let me give you an example of that. this all started with steel and aluminum related probs. i will get smattering of other things that have been caught up. pork, nuts, aluminum piping, plastic piping, soybeans, corn, cotton, frozen boneless beef and beef chops. that one really blew me away. cigars. variety of passenger cars, suvs. in that category alone, 80

items, 80 vehicles. >> how about wine? neil: wine. plastic products. i could see how this is accelerating. again these ones were offered last night were just on top of ones that were already -- >> you have to ask yourself two questions here from a policy standpoint. does the trade deficit matter that much? there is a huge debate whether it matters that much. much of the deficit is related to the fact we're a prosperous country and we buy a lot of stuff. much of the deficit is related to the fact that we run, you know, people buy our debt and it is a good place to invest. it all comes out in the wash. so that's one thing. the second thing i think from a policy standpoint is, will the jobs that he wants to bring back yield significant employment gains? i am telling you, you talk to anybody that run as manufacturing plant, they will tell you among the most automated industries in the world are steel and aluminum production.

and that, if he thinks he will bring back plentiful jobs there -- >> 2002 with george w. bush, the president had 200,000 jobs taken from the u.s. economy, by some estimates. neil: here is the idiocy of the administration's position on this those that advocate this strategy, and i am not bashing larry kudlow or wilbur ross -- i am bashing those guys. james, you don't have to worry about this the past we're upping ante, it stays off, why the hell are you doing it? is the threat so big to you that you can risk our economic security to make a point that goes way beyond the industry you originally targeted? >> even peter navarro, who is basically the intellectual driver of this junk economics doesn't seem to believe it. he kind of implicitly acknowledge this is hurts economy, he says, the economy is pretty strong, it can take it.

why -- neil: he couches it but it is unlikely to happen. >> the jobs are here across the industrial midwest there are more job openings than there are people to fill them. more than looking for work. neil: i don't doubt that chinese don't play fair. they doesn't. president is quite right about that. they do steal stuff from us. they do hijack our tires, internet. >> they try. neil: so they are cheaters. my worry, do you think is the way to deal with it? >> i worry because you're dealing with, you're trying to do "the art of the deal" with a old-fashioned communist thug running china who isn't interested in win-win. but i -- >> it is not like trump "the art of the deal" -- let's be clear what trump did with the "art of the deal." he told banks he owed money to, screw yourself, i'm not paying you. >> when you owe the bank a million dollars. it is your problem. when you owe a billion it is the bank's problem. >> guess what the banks did for

him. they plaque balled him forever. traded his business model from failed investor to brand. this guy is not the financial miracle maker you think. >> get back to something james said, he is pursuing the path, the president is pursuing path on campaign trail. normally with any decisionmaker or politician or top office in the land, you want to make decisions when you get new information. you may be have to change your position, right you? can't take 20-year-old idea and just enforce it no matter what. >> whatever. neil: the markets seem to like, they're always in the moment. i don't want to jump to conclusions based on a trading day that hasn't come close to ending. if markets are seizing on this, oh, this is is all kabuki theater or this is all professional wrestling, by the way that is a lie. >> let's look on the bright side just for a moment. neil: sure. >> we don't think, we know trade wars are not good for growth but he does seem to be focused on to

an extent chinese intellectual property theft. neil: right. >> vibe we're getting out of washington subject to change is we don't want to fight with mexico and canada, our friends. we don't want to fight with the whole world. we want to focus on china. that part is good. neil: the markets see progress on and coming back from the worst levels because these things you're worried about and imposing a trade war aren't going to materialize because larry kudlow us stuart varney that. believe me, i'm not, i don't buy this. >> i've seen this time and time again particularly during the financial crisis, something marginally positive would send the market straight up because the trend was done because things were getting bad. this is what i think scares some investors about trump, sort of economic illiteracy of the whole debate. peter navarro, i like peter but he gets on the phone and he tells me about how working class, people in the work, the bottom third of the income

levels, they're seeing their wages go up finally and that's great news. and then i turn around and i say, if that's the case, why are you doing this? they don't need help. neil: clearly comeback in the markets suggest, this is what people are honing in on, this is what larry kudlow is trying to assure stuart about and wilbur ross on cnbc, that look, in the scheme of things this isn't a big deal, it will all work out, what have you. i always come back, why the hell are you doing it? why are you doing it? >> you brought up a good point. do we need trade war or trade tensions. there are other ways to clamp down an i.t. theft. >> right. >> blocking chinese investment in the u.s. to the president's credit. neil: that could be happening behind the scenes. kudlow seemed to intimate that. >> i think what is really scary -- neil: i don't think it is strategized people giving it. >> you might be right. >> they're still talking about the trade deficit which is not where they should be focused.

you run deficits like our government does on the fiscal side you will have trade deficits. in some ways it's a measure of willing to invest in the u.s. we had good periods of economic growth with deficits. so they got to get off that. but if they focus just on intellectual property theft i think you could say this could have a positive market outcome. that is what kudlow is pushing that way. >> what scares me about kudlow, larry is a dear friend of mine, he made comments about amazon as well, i keep harping about amazon, which he had to have known these comments were wrong. talking about amazon -- >> which ones are wrong? >> a lot of them are wrong. >> what is right? >> the justice department spent the palm administration using the antitrust division to protect amazon from competition from apple. that is bed. let's get them out of business. >> competition pro apple? not competition from the mall.

>> i don't think it is clear, we're having an accounting debate now about the post office. i don't think it is really clear what the facts are here but i think they lean toward trump's interpretation. >> how about this? >> if the argument look the post office has big fixed costs and all amazon business is gravy in terms of revenue, then why do we still see post office costs rising faster than revenues. >> read your own editorial page. >> i did. >> they pointed out all those rules. >> hang on. hang on. >> i'm just telling -- >> we do have that fact about the revenues and cost. >> post office is only entity i know has to pay in the a vans for the medical care and pension of workers. >> look at post office as p&l post-amazon. neil: you're geniuses. we are also are going to get what is man, another subject. i want to thank everyone.

i don't want to get so keyed about something that seems so esoteric. there is nothing esoteric about what is going on, how it upped the ante of sheer volume of new products added to this just as i was speaking here we've got confirmation again, what we thought with be the case from steel to robotics to communications technology pieces. there are dozens of companies and categories within that category. as i said, soybeans, corn, cotton, all tights of various frozen beef, boned and unboned, pork chops, boned and unboned, i didn't know, i guess you can get a pork fillet, got line governments will not pay the tariffs, my friends, you are. you might be very patriotic to say this is what we should and can do to really stick it to the chinese. and they will go back at you with similar tariffs of their own on their people, back and forth. it is not the governments in

either case that hurt in that war. it's you. the democrats and republicans among you, the conservatives and liberals among you, i.e., all of you. we'll have more after this.

welcome to holiday inn! thank you! ♪ ♪ wait, i have something for you! every stay is a special stay at holiday inn. save up to 15% when you book early at hollidayinn.com

neil: we're getting or shall i say i'm getting very nasty e-mail and comments from viewers, tweets, otherwise. beth emails, what is the problem with you cavuto? once a never-trumper, always a never-trumper. why don't you have a cannoli and choke on it? there is bradley who says, i understand you have a son named bradley. he seeps, -- seems much more mature than you and open to tariffs. we never discussed tariff thing but will immediately do so the frank emails, the problem with you, cavuto, you refuse to president a break. your globalist, always a globalist. i never heard you say one good word about him, nor one bad word about barack obama. i regret thaw recovered from that heart incident over a year ago, don't you? well, no. kind of glad i did. folks my only point on all of this, i know when i say this, you don't believe me, he has an agenda. i'm about the green, it is not

red or blue. i'm telling you we'll lose a lot of green. you will pay a lot more green for a lot of products that started out being roughly go areas, aluminum and steel-related goods. i know that covers a good deal of goods but we have since now added to this list over 1000 other items that will be affected by a growing trade war. they're slapping tariffs on that. i'm not naive enough they don't play fair. they don't. a lot of countries don't play fair. they don't. we're going back on steroids. they're coming back on us with steroids. a lot of goods come into the united states and leave the united states, they're at a loss. you're at a a loss you're paying more. everyone is telling our anchors here and elsewhere, calm down, we'll get through this, as they keep upping the ante. so i'm always compelled to ask, wait a minute if you are saying this is all going to calm down and this is a likening to professional wrestling, and

everyone is just playing their part, you keep doing this. we're paying for that. that is not a left or right thing. that is a free market thing. our markets are not free. in fact we're rigging them. and the other side is responding to that because initially they were said to be rigging it against us. now we're rigging the game against them going after us. it is a mess. so keep saying these nasty things but the few of you who wrote comments like fat and all that, i will not honor them. they're funny but i'm not going to honor them. republican texas attorney general ken paxton is with us. ken, sorry to drop you in the middle of all of this, my friend, but i do wonder if you worry this kind of thing does spread because it goes against republican party dogma, free capitalist dogma, this president is a different bird when it comes to that stuff, sees things differently, but are you worried this could get out of control?

>> first of all i will not say anything nasty about but obviously texas is a trading state. so we're always concerned about free trade. we have nafta. we trade with countrying all over the world. it is an issue for us. i think there is a balance here. china, they're always difficult trading partner at times, some of the requirements they put on our companies are outrageous so this is a balance here to be had. neil: do we risk getting this out of balance, out of whack? do we risk something that starts with two primary areas, steel, aluminum, and advance on to a host of others that have now grown to include the back and forth of our agricultural goods, everything from potatoes to soybeans to corn, cotton, grown in your state, this could get out of control. are we in at that state. >> i don't know if we're not. i am concerned. i don't want it to get out of control. obviously we've been trading with china for a long time. as i said, there are some issues

i think need to be addressed. sometimes you have to take a hard-line initially to get things done, to have it change. otherwise i don't think china will make any changes. you need to monitor this. i don't think it's a bad idea to take a hard-line at some point to try to negotiate from the hard-line back to something that is reasonable. neil: how do you bring it back? the trade wars in the past, whether smoot-hawley or what have you, someone gives in. you know, someone yields the ground. now, i don't know who that would be or what concessions would be made to satisfy both sides. here, and other deals that are made down the road, wouldn't it make countries that want to enter into trade agreements with us leery of entering into trade agreements with us. >> i'm not sure i know whether that is accurate. this country has certain practice. requires certain things of our companies.

neil: it is not just one country t was japan, south korea, a little while ago, germany, much of europe. i'm not saying they're all saints and that we're not a sinner, but i am saying it is more than one country. >> i'm not necessarily in favor expanding beyond china. there is definitely good reasons to consider china at some point given their trade practices. i'm not for expanding tariffs to other countries at this point unless we can suggest a strong reason for doing so. neil: all right. attorney general, thank you for your understanding. thank you with all the breaking news. we did want to get your views on all of this. we have a lot more to go. the dow is down 44 points. prior to this apparent reversal or at least optimistic talk coming out of the administration, it was down over 500 points. we have certainly come back here. i want to see the reasons why we are. this jekyll and hyde nature what you're looking at here. it has to do wall street hoping

for cooler heads to prevail but that has not come to pass. whether larry kudlow comes on this network or wilbur ross comes on the other network, i'm not the smartest tool in the shed, as one of you pointed out i'm a clueless globalist. i don't know what that means but at first i thought it had to do with my waistline. which i thought was offensive. i've lived long enough to see where this is going and there will have it be a mighty about face to to release tensions here. we're going on a prayer and a promise things will get better. i hope they're right. history says they're not. more after this. well, with your finances that is. we had nothing to do with that tie. voya. helping you to and through retirement.

he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price.

saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

neil: some nasty tweets and emails continue here. earlier on i expressed alarm where the administration is poo-pooing upping the trade tariff back and forth with china. once included two items, now

over a thousand. paul emails, cavuto, why don't you just face it. donald trump is president of the united states and you're not. why don't you just look at reality, look at the fact that he is popular and you're not. and why don't you go back to reading the prompter? so you think -- you think i read a, up guys, a little bit, a prompter? i can't take this personally, can i. but why are you writing such nasty stuff? mark zuckerberg will be testifying before the house energy and commerce city. the billionaire not quite as big of a billionaire, will be getting grilled. attorney general josh hawley is subpoenaing the facebook. attorney general, good to have you here. what do you hear out of zuckerberg, if you had the opportunity to question him himself, what would you like to

hear? >> i would like to know what he is doing with the millions of information he is collecting on facebook. what is seeing on user profile? does he have protections in place, adequate security precautions to keep people's private information safe? and neil, what is he doing with the information? what is fates book doing with it? where is it going and is it safe? niece are being asked in our subpoena of facebook and we're pressing for answers. neil: still legal to sell a list of database of users to anyone? >> not necessarily. what is illegal under missouri law, missouri has very stringent protections for personal data, privacy data of consumers. so our subpoena has issued under these consumer protections laws to find out has facebook disclosed information that users didn't know about? is facebook collecting information that users don't know they're collecting? do facebook users have the chance to opt out of that data

collection? have facebook users consented to the sale of their data or to the sharing of their data, whether with researchers or election campaigns? that is the kind of information that we want to find out. neil: who's right on this? i think when tim cook of apple came out not too long ago apple never even considered doing something like this even though it could have made a ton of money doing so, what do you think of that? >> well i think the right thing to do is follow the law. it is okay to have a business model that makes, give advertising access to third parties to facebook users, so long as facebook users know what information is being collected. so long as they consent to the collection of that information and consent to its use. those are the parameters of the law and i will make sure those parameters are enforced and followed. neil: do you worry this could be the tip of proverbial financial iceberg here?

whatever happened at facebook, and we have had reminders of people's credit information getting leaked out, et cetera, in other venues here but this is bigger than facebook? >> well, i do worry that it is bigger than facebook. you know that we also have an investigation of google underway, over similar concerns and similar practices. look, there has never been more personal, private data available to online giants, than the tech giants than there is now. facebook and google collect more information on us than any corporations in the history of the world, than any entities of the history of the world. i want to make sure as a law enforcement officer that information is being protected and used in accordance with the law. neil: thank you very much. attorney general, thank you for taking the time. >> thank you. neil: the dow down about 18 points here. we're well off the worst levels of the day but you are not off letting me have it right now on my views of this trade war that could be escalating.

flora, emails, cavuto are you just angry because we're slapping 50% tariffs on ring dings? wait a minute? no, i'm just angry this is out of control and we're okay with it getting out of control because we're making a statement, and a statement that will eventually bring the chinese back to the table and others back to the table. it just might but you're playing with fire because you've enraged the fire, so who is worse, the country we're targeting for being unfair or now trade policy that puts that on steroids? by the way, some steroids are going to have some tariffs on them. but i digress. we'll have more after this. as a control enthusiast,

i'm all-business when i travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders.

kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call to save $500 off bath walls with your walk-in bath, or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home, with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy.

do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro.

>> there is no trade war here. what you have got is early stages of a process that will include tariffs, comments on the

tariffs, then ultimate decisions and negotiations. there is already back channel talks going on. so look, i understand the stock market's anxiety, i get that but on the other hand don't overreact. we'll see how this works out. my view is still look, you know i'm a growth guy, i'm a reagan supply side growth guy. i think that at the end of this whole process, the end of the rainbow, there is a pot of gold. [laughter] neil: all right. and i love larry kudlow, brilliant guy. i don't think he believes in this stuff. he is top economic spokesman for president of the united states. man, oh, man, there is a trade war going on. it might be verbally. threats back and forth stat out couple items, now at a thousand items. i could go on not safe with pork chops of any sort, boned or deboned but they're all caught up in this. that is really bugs me. jeff flock live from the cme with fallout about all of this.

much ado about nothing is essentially what he is saying, jeff. >> a pot of gold or a cliff potentially. he understands the market. well, does he understand the soybean market which you're looking at here. this is obviously one of the things, look at the intraday chart, neil, it fell out of bed overnight. i have chris robinson. i have to put the question to you, neil has been debating all morning, all afternoon, we have two guys who don't like to back down ramped up a potential trade war, your reaction is concern or, no big deal? >> if i'm a producer, making my living raising soybeans i'm concerned. >> they lost 60 cents a bushels. >> on 100,000 bushels, is lot of money. >> what a guy gross. >> some guys grow less, some guys grow more, some produce millions of bush chyles.

when they break a dollar -- >> we hardly ever come over here. this is the soybean meal. lori, on the right-hand side, that is the soybean meal, what you feed the pigs. this is why china buys so much. on left is soybean oil. this is the options pit. >> right. >> china has to buy -- sheer is the other part of that argument. china will get hurt in this than we are, is that true? >> if you look where the rubber meets the road, prices drop here and they buy our products they're buying them on sale. >> they bought them this morning when it hit their low. >> absolutely. we had a big bounce off the low, and you will see that. end-users who have to come in, they will buy it on the dip. you have a billion people to feed. you have about 400 million hogs to feed. so they're always searching for protein. we're a big supplier for them. between us and brazil. >> they have to buy our beans in some ways? >> absolutely. >> neil, i listened to you all morning.

neil: i listened to stuart all morning. i don't know where this goes, among traders down here there is genuine concern. as you point out when you start ramping up stuff like this there is no guarranty it gets ramped back. neil: what i love about your report as well, whether the tariffs are delayed or not, the real effect on futures market. >> already. neil: establishes what people pay at the store. those price run-ups are very, very real. that is happening right now. >> yes, that is absolutely true. so hopefully, fingers crossed, there is nothing to see here hopefully. neil: if you look at one viewer said about tariffs on ring dings, that would change everything. i don't know if there is trading pit for that but if there is -- >> if they think you're fired up now. ring dings futures go up. neil: you can weather this storm. not me, pal. thank you very, very much. thank your fine guest. spotify shares are down

after seeing a strong view yesterday. to kristina partsinevelos whether market uncertainty could rattle investors. it is off the highest levels, right? >> the highest level yesterday was 169. it opened at literally around 165.90. that was the opening price. you're seeing it in positive territory. why is that? you have a reference price. this is what the new york stock exchange pretty much decided would be the reference price based on private trading in the past. so they believed 132, which is why you're seeing in positive territory but it opened at 165. this is because of a direct listing. they process all the orders in the morning. took self hours. only opened around 12:45. literally 24 hours. they processed the orders and determine the price like a dutch auction. that was the situation we saw yesterday. there was no road show. there is no, they're not getting a big bank to deal with all the fees. even at the exchange yesterday, ceo was not present.

no balloons, no swag. none of that. no ringing of the bell. all the traders on one side. neil: is this future how they did it, bumpiness notwithstanding way things will go? >> that is why spotify everybody looking at it if it would work out because this could be a big hit to banks because they get so much money for the ipos. they charge fees. if anything i don't think it is possible you would see any type of change in the scene. you would need tons of companies to start going through the direct listing route before you see that hurting any banks. if anything, it might lower the fees for a lot of these investment banks. that is something we could potentially see in the near future. but the ceo, talking to just about him, he is 35 years old. he has a huge chunk of the company still. so he is valued at roughly about $2 billion. and, there was, even within the company, i spoke to somebody who works at spotify in new york and they said there was no celebrations, no big emails. maybe they had a party at night. neil: maybe they got together at

denny's. >> they didn't go through with all of that. you were curious how does spotify, should you get in, should you buy right now especially with all the tech stocks? honest, if you're looking at company, look at the float. so yesterday morning i was surprised, 5.6 million, that is what the starting float was, the volume. there are over 170 million shares. that is a really, really tiny float. very tiny float. that is 3.6%. compare that to facebook went public, their float was 20% of all shares, much larger. neil: that was a disaster. >> exactly, exactly. some people are saying it is a great day but way too soon to actually call that. this is a company, been around for 12 years. hasn't turned a profit like pandora its competitor. neil: right. >> it is burning through cash, really burning through cash. the question what will happen in the future? how will they change that? neil: very interesting. welcome aboard again. great having you, kristina.

>> thank you. neil: worldly, canada, oxford, whole thing. i was impressed with my background. amazon getting hit by the president and amazon is about to hit back. this can not end well. i'll explain. ♪ here you go little guy. a cockroach can survive submerged underwater for 30 minutes. wow. yeah. not getting in today. terminix. defenders of home.

retail.

under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

neil: always get a kick out of corporate chieftans who don't want to get necessarily in the president's direct ire shot, sort of assessing what is going on. boeing is saying assessing all the tariffs, tariffs that could boomerang on them. all this is in the discussion stage, like larry kudlow telling our stuart varney, no need to fret right now. that sentiment coming from a company who used to be in the president's sights, a company that was not doing enough, charging too much for making air force one jets and then had to extract a deal and maybe have a little bit of a mea culpa to get along, which is the kind of situation that jeff bezos and amazon find himself in, in the cross-hairs. can he, can the company pull a bowing and maybe get back in the president's good graces or is it too late for that? "wall street journal" associate editor, john bussey one of the finest economic minds i know.

john, what do you think? where is this all going? >> the trade debate? neil: on the back and forth and nastiness on the trade? >> so for the president or for the white house to say that we're not in a trade war, boy this walks like a trade war, you know quacks like a trade war. neil: and run-up in a lot of these prices in the futures markets, that is a trade war. >> hugely disruptive to farmers. boeing to, those who are in sort of the thick of this. the chinese are not going to roll over. you know, they're playing four dimensional chess with this. they see a white house is impulsive, though this may not be one of those instances. this was for warned through the campaign and this his administration he would get tough on china. neil: you and i covered him for decades and he long-held these views. >> he said this frankly the business community on both sides of the political sort of realm are not necessarily opposed to getting tougher with china.

they have seen the forced technology transfer. they have seen the lack of access to markets. they have seen china change its standards that you thought your product would be okay to sell in china, but suddenly isn't. and opposition's product is selling there. they have seen all of that they want some kind of toughness with china. neil: but are you afraid it gets out of control? hard to read markets in a day but the markets seem to be relieved when they hear an administration spokespeople saying, well, this will be happy ending? when it looks like there won't be happy ending and more tariffs tonight proposessed, maybe not? >> the answer to that yes, can it spin out of control. can it hit my product, soybeans and boeing today? but maybe some other thing i have a vested interest in tomorrow. they're worried it gets out of control. or they're thinking to the business community thinking to themselves, look this is the cudgel, wham-o you get attention

of your trading partner with. is the way -- neil: really work? >> is this the way to engage the chinese who do not like this sort of public debate? who would prefer things to happen behind the scenes? maybe not. has the behind the scenes pressure on china worked in the past? not necessarily. the u.s. is still at a disadvantage in that market. and that is why a business community which was the primary proponent of china, all through through the '90s, get rid of wto, most-favored nation, are saying now get tough with china. neil: didn't have time to discuss amazon. >> we didn't. neil: another visit, another time. dow down 39 points. we'll have more after this. tra'e compensated. our philosophy is one of service, not sales...

that's why i'm independent. charles schwab is proud to support more independent financial advisors and their clients than anyone else. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

going on.

the future of agriculture items of soybeans and client are running up and it will hit you at the grocery store. i knew that wasn't real. the dow is at the worst level today. maybe they had a read position a little bit. maybe he's right. maybe it won't come down to that. >> here is a longer-term view. a couple of those comments may have helped a little. we are down 50 instead of 500. certainly you would take that. these tariffs from the chinese or the threat thereof and acting so quickly after what the united states had said, going after high profile targets, these are stocks to watch over the long-term. think about boeing's business in china down by two and half percent. boeing has a very important business in selling some of the

smaller and medium size jets. they are the stock to watch here over a longer. of time much welcome back to in a second. you came back to farmers and agricultural products, john deere, the giant maker of agricultural equipment is taking a hit and down by about 4%. i want to talk for a moment about the automakers and when we say the stock market's comeback, general motors, ford and tesla are all in the green. when the market was down early on they were in the red. there is a larger point has we watch this back and forth with china layout. the big automakers manufacture many of their cars in china, in the country. it might not be as severe as

this. tesla has their own issues which makes the stock volatile. that's the company relying on american-made cars and shipping them in. larger picture perspective on all of this. since trump announce the tariffs, the dow has shed more the 1000 points. an 11% drop over that time. 3m makes a lot of sense. goldman sachs, it won't help their bottom line by any means and the last two on the list as we flip it over, caterpillar and united technologies print those five stock make up more than the 1000-point job on the dow over a

one point, a one month timeframe which is what it's been since all of this talk and threats of a trade war began. >> very good my friend. to larry's comment, we started with two predominant items. it has now grown to include 1400 different chinese goods, services and individual items. the chinese, in response has gone back and targeted a thousand u.s. individual goods, markets, agricultural and otherwise, soybeans, people have alerted me. i heard from a court. he said neil, did you know there are 67 different pork products affected here and i did not. thank you very much for passing it on.

where is this going? >> i think the most important thing that was said overnight was that the chinese are open for negotiations. i believe cooler heads will take over. i don't think were going into a trade war. i would point out there has not been a dow signal that has been circulating around the canyons yesterday and that we did not violate mondays lows. i was actually in their buying stock this morning. >> it's not a problem for you. >> not a problem for me. earnings growth still looks pretty good to us. >> i'm looking at this and wondering how far it goes. to wilbur ross' point, they been saying don't worry about this, but then they keep adding items to a list of things we shouldn't worry about and when people keep

telling me don't worry about it, don't worry about it, i worry about it. >> i did too. the talk gets louder, more sand in the sandbox gets thrown and it's like oh no, no big deal, we were just kidding about that last overture. i agree. the direction is not good. i do appreciate jeff's onions by going in and picking off stocks at these lows. don't forget sports fans, the s&p 500 was about 60 points lower overnight than it is right now. maybe we are holding these lows. we've tested these key levels in the market three or four times in some cases, so that's good. i look at this and i think who's really holding the cards. you have china imports of over a hundred billion dollars so that's kind of a big deal and we look at their situation as to how much they're bringing in of our stuff. they are trading with taiwan and

japan. and i know, you've been right through a lot of these market swings but the chinese will capitulate. whether that's enough to shave enough off our trade gap, i don't know but something like that will be done and there will be new industries that will be roped into the spread of my get to a point of no return. you don't see that. >> i don't see that. i think the markets are going through a growth scare. i continue to think the stock

market is bottomed here. i think the economy will re- accelerate and people are still under invested in u.s. equities. i've never seen greed change to fear. >> i agree with part of that. i think greed is never a highly driven emotion. when the market jumps all over this like it does or jumps all over the map it means the markets not comfortable wherever it is. there is another argument that goes, this is not so much about trade as it is getting the chinese to help us with north korea.

what do you think of that? you bounced that around, the strategies work on many levels and that's the way to get the chinese help us more north korea. review that was telegraphed with the north korean leader going to china. what do you think? >> i think with the trumpet ministration has been doing since i got into power is resetting the strategic framework with china. it transcends geopolitical issues, economic trade issues, national security strategy came out and identified china as a long-term strategic competitor to the united states in a potential adversary. no one had ever done that before. what we been doing with china is china participated in the most aggressive economic sanctions in north korea with the united states insistence. number two, china, and public statements during kim jong-un's visit, they both made public statements reporting to the chinese media that they intend to denuclearize the peninsula.

that is a major step. >> didn't they say the same thing. >> they did and we are very much aware that. they can be coming into the meetings with president trump and play him for time and try to get some concessions out of it. surely that can be going on. we force them to this position. we have told china not just about the trade with these tariffs, but also how they been trampling over our allies in the pacific region. there grinding down the sovereignty of our allies and militarizing the pacific region. they want to dominate and control and they want the united states out of it. we are on collision cours cours.

we will work this relationship because it's the most important that we have and we don't want to end up in a conflict, china doesn't want that but we will have confrontation as we are having right here over traits that we are calling them out for cheating and lying, all the stuff you've got into over the years, and they don't like being called on it globally. how do you dial that backwards. do you just not play games like that are they saying my predecessor is republican and democrat, look the other way because they feel beholden to them. >> he has taken the gloves off. he knows the chinese know full well they have been taken advantage of the united states and most recently in the last for five years, geopolitically as well. this president will stop that. he has begun to reset the table dealing with china crossing many issues, despite the fact that we

need china as we pursue d nuclear rising north korea. at the end of the day, china does not want war on the peninsula. that is an impediment to all of the various ambitious they have for themselves. >> no one goes into it willingly risking war. it happens because someone miscalculated. >> no, i think of for breaks out it will be calculated. it will be because the united states believes there is no other alternative but that option may well have to execute execute some type of military option. i'm convinced it's clearly an option. >> general, very good seeing you. thank you very much. >> all right. speaking of all things military or fears, whatever i told you right on the border the president talking about more troops on the border to prepare for something. to prepare for what?

after this.

♪ ♪ wake up early, o. ♪ slap on some cologne ♪ i'm 85 and i wanna go home ♪ ♪ just got a job ♪ as a lifeguard in savannah ♪ ♪ i'm 85 and i wanna go home ♪ ♪ dropping sick beats, they call me dj nana ♪ ♪ 85 and i wanna go don't get mad. get e trade, kiddo. weli can tell you about...re. streaming the most free tv shows and movies on the go. yeah, and... xfinity internet. it's so fast! and you can save by... by getting up to 5 mobile lines included. whoa, you're good. i'm just getting started. ♪

simple. easy. awesome. come see how you could save $400 or more a year with xfinity mobile. plus ask how to keep your current phone. visit your local xfinity store today. remember that caravan coming from honduras?

we don't know the whole skinny but we do know i got the president of the united states concerned and the mexicans broke it up or broke down the size of that child. there were other caravans comi coming, that's a very common theme not only from honduras but other points in latin america. they make their way north and try to get into that country and that's when the president of the united states that we will be ready with troops if it comes to that. john, thank you for taking the time. explain this caravan think that i'm told it's unprecedented, it's uncommon, what is it. >> i think the caravan itself is not a big deal. it's is a high-profile way of drawing attention to some issues. what we've been seeing the last few years is large numbers of migrants in central america heading north through mexico, arriving at our u.s. border and claiming political asylum in the united states. the month of february was alarming the president really is in the caravan but the fact that

we saw 35% increase. often times they move out of the way and let them go through. i don't know how usual or common that is. the mexicans have a poor southern border and not a lot of enforcement. it's a difficult border. it's quite long, difficult terrain, something we spent a lot of time with when i was at dhs. they are not all that motivated to stop them. that would be a good help in keeping these people from getting to our border. >> the president, if he does want to get troops on the border, how would that differ

from the personnel we have there now and couldn't it risk heating up the situation. >> it could. i was involved in this in 2010, we deployed the national guard and president bush deployed it to the border. it could be a very effective force multiplier but what's very strange about the central americans what people need to understand is this is different in 2010 what president bush was dealing with when you had people of mexico trying to evade capture. the central americans in their largely coached by the smugglers are actually surrendering to the u.s. the not trying to evade capture. they walk up and flake down border patrol officers or even just walk up across the port of entrance and surrender and said want political asylum. honestly, i understand the symbolism of the guard but what is not gonna do is fix this problem and it's a complex issue, we never hired enough

judges in the process just takes way too long and that's the crux of the issue that needs to be solved. it's not a problem with catching people. they catch them very well. it's a problem of processing them after they've been caught. the former acting director knows of what he speaks. we've got a lot more coming up. the president is still going after amazon and now reports that amazon is giving in. it is firing back. stay with us. the dow is down 116 points.

>> there are others who will argue the point that amazon deserves the attention it's getting, but that this comment made by the president, first of all it's not his role to do that and it sounds more like a vendetta than anything else. >> the president should be

commenting on companies. he should be meddling in the economy. >> think the president intends is to develop a level playing field between online retailers and lambaste retailers with respect to taxes and other retailers. there was a time when we wanted the united states as a matter of policy, we wanted to protect internet businesses but that time is long gone. >> is that similar to going after the steel industry or barack obama going after investment bakers. this has become politicized. in the case of going after amazon, is he targeting an individual company or the guy

that runs our company. what you make of all of that. does the president, in this amazon situation risk getting out of control. >> i think there's only one amazon out there. this is not going to go beyond amazon. amazon is a unique situation. this early in february they announced they were going to go after ups and fedex. both lost 60 billion in market cap. after they made the merger with whole foods, grocery stocks are down 12 billion. there's another down 30 billion. they are having a major impact on the market with their decisions on portfolios and pensions and jobs. it's a very unique company.

this reminds us that president trump is not your orthodox conservative economist. at some point in the future, the republican or democrat will be forced to say hey, we have to reel them in because they put a lot of business across the spectrum of industries out of business. >> there is a republican administration that reigned in and broke up the justice department and out with microsoft. >> that was a real monopoly. >> my only point is, there is precedent for this. it usually doesn't. >> it has to be a real monopoly. >> in this particular case, how do you think the president is doing. >> i think he is out-of-control. the president has gone after

specific companies in the past. we've seen that. >> all the stuff that charles mentioned is right. >> that's called capitalism. when they built the car, guess what happened. the buggy salesman went out of business. amazon creates a lot of jobs, i'm sure it costs a lot of jobs. walmart and all the malls, they destroyed downtown businesses. we have a decent economy right now. we have strong employment. we, amazon is not a problem for this country. everybody knows, trump is going after him for one reason because he hates the washington post see that that might be the case but the charges against the post

office, as far as i see, you could make the argument that without amazon, the post office would be a lot worse off. >> i think we are conflating topline revenue with bottom-line profits. there's a lot of companies whose stock has suffered for years. there bringing in money but they're not growing. they may be doing a lot of business with them but not profitable i was helping, how is it helping? >> there are mandates. >> it's not amazon's fault, they got an amazing deal, but guess what. if the post office got money from amazon, and by the way not for nothing, but the post office losses have been declining ever since they entered the deal with amazon. i am sure amazon's negotiators are better than the one the post office. i get that.

if you're telling me this is an unprofitable deal, the post office denies that. they specifically said they make money from our deal with amazon. >> theoretically if they make a dollar there making money. >> but they're not profitable, i think the ideas could've been a better deal. are they subsidizing amazon to the point were now they have enough money that can actually go after fedex and ups. at some point they won't need the post office. >> why would they be subsidizing it. >> because of the lousy deal. a cost x amount of money to move packages. >> they are running deficits not because of amazon. it's running deficits because of factors. >> the main problem with the post office. >> i'm not talking about the main problem. all i'm saying is that they could have a much better deal. >> but the post office, let's say they have the same sort of

deal with fedex, to get a package to the home and the post office is the game in town for that. with the president saying just because it has that proprietary business and that it's the only, could they then say look, we are your means of getting right to charles payne's door. >> if they don't do it now, it's very reminiscent of the china thing. the longer they wait, amazon has already made its intentions known. they are going to buy a fleet of airplanes. that's why those two stocks are down $60 billion since march and february. >> with the president be as aggressive? >> i just want to hear, you've gone against the grain on this clearly, you say what about this. this might be partly motivated

but it's revealing very real problem. >> i think the amazon deal with the u.s. postal service was a smart deal and as far as the presidents personal animus towards jeff, we know that must play a role. to what degree, we don't know but obviously. >> how does amazon do that. >> every contractor cuts deals with the government and i'm sure every contractor does a really good job getting those deals. we are singling out amazon, why. let's be real clear. the post office is losing money. it has nothing to do with amaz amazon. they're not on the hook. the post office says it's making money. let's be real clear.

>> there are a lot of americans who do work at the post office and we should look out for them. >> this is the third largest employer. >> this is going to be an issue for amazon. at some point a legitimate antitrust issue as they continue to extend beyond their business. >> it's causing prices to go down. >> with respect to blocking competition, it happened once. >> once is enough. >> and by the way, it did not happen. it stopped. the government stopped at. >> i don't understand. a new admission came in. during the 50s there was a case against amp because they were lowering prices which didn't materialize. by the way, just to be clear, the post office is not funded by the government. it doesn't get any federal subsidies but the only issue you could say is when they allow the post office to write off billions in subsidies they made to their own pension plan

technically you are on the hook for that. >> it is a lot of money but i want to thank you both. you are both very humane to each other. progress. >> now i got to read my twitter feed. i'm getting a lot of nasty comments. [inaudible] you're not a pain, charles payne is and you're ugly too. we will have more right after this.

girl: to most, he's phil mickelson, pro golfer. to me, he's, well, dad. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain and helps stop further damage. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been some place where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever,

bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. girl: since enbrel, dad's back to being... dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 15 years. welcome to holiday inn! thank you! ♪ ♪ wait, i have something for you! every stay is a special stay at holiday inn.

save up to 15% when you book early at hollidayinn.com we are getting some interesting stuff from adam shapiro. conversations have started to presumably make additional cuts to the $1.3 trillion spending bill. of course that has changed ever

since the president said he would sign it but he'll never do it again and don't do this to me. the problem with that is if they start negotiating cuts, it would presumably have to go back and be voted on so it's a lot easier said than done. they want to go ahead and address that not knowing what will be cut and where and how much but that's something that just can't be done at the executive branch. they try to counter with it has to go back to see where it all goes. this much is not. mark zuckerberg will be testifying a week from now on capitol hill and boil bad boy are they loaded for that. >> they will testify at 10:00 a.m. in front of the house, commerce and energy committee. congress wants answers about what they are calling critical consumer data privacy issues and they want facebook founder to explain what happens to personal information that they are collecting and stashing online. josh holly is one of many state ag's that have launched investigations into the data

scandal. he said the problem isn't just about facebook and he has his eye on other tech companies. >> there is never been more personal, private data available to these online giants, these tech giants then there is now. facebook and google collect more information on us in any corporation in the history of the world, then any entities in the history of the world and i will make sure that that information is protected and that it's being used in accordance with the law. >> this is his first time testifying on capitol hill. we are also joining with mark sucker berg himself, he is facing reporter questions. we are expected to hear about changes facebook is making. that will give us a sneak peek into his testimony that's happening next week. >> standing room only for that one. thank you very much. you're right, that did look. >> thank you very much. he catches these things like a

purple elephant. they're adding a great deal intact. whatever they do to zuckerberg and facebook, it will extend to the extended. [inaudible] aaron, what you think of that. is that a justified fear. >> it really is unusual for them to have these open nonpublic hearings. the fact that they're going to this extent does add the need for some sort of regulatory regulations around data privacy, particularly for any of these free social media outlets. >> will this extend beyond facebook? when you look at this and see a lot of these stocks, some will come back others will not, what you see happening? >> i've got a think it will. the tentacles will be everywhere

and there's plenty of other platforms out there that hopefully they don't, but they could do. you use all these platforms and you'd be surprised at how much data they are selling already and the fact that there's not a safeguard in place shouldn't surprise anyone. unfortunately i think the government is going to get to farm vault and over regulate. >> that's what worries me. the old ronald reagan line, i'm from the government, i'm here to help but the pendulum could swing the other way. what you think. >> it certainly very possible especially with the backlash that we've seen. what we start with and what we end up with are often two very different things so it is hard to guess if we are going to end up in the over regulatory area, particularly with the republicans, with the majority vote, but one thing we do say is though facebook is taking a biggest hit because they do have

the most headlines, they've got 42 billion in cash and short-term investments. they are actually in a safe place to be able to handle extra regulatory issues. the bigger concern is really the smaller companies, new companies, this could potentially set up barriers to entry for other platforms. in fact, actually making facebook an even bigger monopoly than they are er. >> what did you mean by other platforms. >> any of these free social media, any new companies or anything that might compete with facebook if they happen to meet these new regulations it creates a barrier to entry. >> if that were the case. [inaudible] >> may be. the lesson we want is for the social media companies have more and more of our exposure. we want to be able to parceled out. you watch how quickly the social media sites change and morph and

you see the demographics change and how they attack, not attack, but how kids flock to them. i have three daughters and hearing about new social media sites almost every week. if there's a barrier to entry and there's stuck with trading with the same ones, i hope they will be regulated. i don't want anything to be overregulated because then it's not as it was intended to be u use. >> i want my teenage sons devices regulated to the point of being turned off. [laughter] the company that could come up with that is going to earn amends. very quickly, the market is going on how bad this trade war could get. larry is telling us don't worry about it, no big deal, markets came back on that, i don't know. i just see the number of items there getting more and the charges getting more pronounced. i don't view this as calmly as

they do. what you think. >> so far, the industries that are being protected are so tiny from an equity market perspective so we really haven't seen big industries being hit from the u.s. cap markets. it seems to be very small industries. process a lot of headline news. they say don't worry, no big deal and they keep piling on these tariffs that this will all resolve quickly. i get worried. >> investors get worried as well but as a traitor you're getting 1% moves and they happen every other day, it's not a bad time to get involved. if you are an active investor or a non- passive investor, you want this environment. we are starting to get them and

this might be a real opportunity for people to get involved. if you think the trade war is overblown like a lot of us do down here and we get these overreactions, it's time to put some money to work. >> and all the history of these things is that they always say cooler heads prevail and nothing happens, but sometimes stuff desperately watch it closely. thank you very much. again, these fears notwithstanding, the markets are a lot calmer than they were about an hour and a half ago. volatility is the norm and that rule that we've been seeing broken again and again. it's now more than double and were only a quarter way through. what does that say. we connect and you decide

retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

we have a guy, charlie brady who is brilliant. he's in charge of all things numbers. just to call him atop editor is insulting him. he is like, i don't know, the wizard of oz. he had an interesting statistic. the dow is never finished positive after a 500-point

intraday drop. we have a lot of those. from that point, in that day it has never been positive after that happened. we are a 500 plus point falloff and if that holds true we will never be positive. then again, if his record is as body as i suspect it might be, we will soar. anyway. fears are estimating and they're calling it a potential slippery slope. dan, it's very good to have you. are you worried when you see all the stuff that things are going your way, tax cut and everything else, more people like him, the president's own approval rating is moving up a little bit and then this. what you think. >> i think the republican party has a lot of momentum with tax cuts and the state of the union speech and economic growth and

the historically low unemployment numbers that are in a good spot. i am worried this tariff, i think were on the cusp of the trade war and it could potentially put a wet blanket on this whole thing and negative negatively impact americans moving forward. >> when you hear them say fear not this isn't going to be a problem and i'm paraphrasing but they're saying don't worry about it, what do you say? >> my standpoint out there in the middle of america is a bit different but i'll tell you, when they propose the steel and aluminum tariffs, the cost my company paid went up overnight or three business days so didn't really wait for tariffs to be enacted. >> that's a very good point you just made. pricing doesn't wait for tariffs to come into effect for the markets decide that rather quickly and it's very real. >> that negatively impacted us within three business days, not over a course of time. i also think and if you look more broadly, really, who win

the tariff war. i think it's the players that aren't on the field who might be the beneficiaries of the u.s. and china having a trade war. >> that's interesting. the administration contends that the chinese will come to their senses, come to their table, make some concessions. the president is eager to trim that 375 million trade gap by at least a hundred million dollars. reports that chinese might be open to buying more semi conductor computer chips, that sort of thing, what do you think of that? do you think if it were to go in that way, then all these other run-up that we've seen in a host of agricultural goods and related items, they just rollback? that doesn't always happen. >> i think the president is right. i think china is absolutely playing fast and loose with rip and i think he's bold and

courageous to stand up to the chinese and that's why people elected him. i'm worried about the tactics. i feel like it's the consumers ultimately lose in the trade war and i think that a trade war, it's like a relationship or a lawsuit or baseball game, were only in control, the trumpet administration is only in control of half of it so we don't know what the chinese are going to do. we don't know their internal politics. we don't know if they can stand down or fast abba stiff upper lip. i think it's very concerning. the media keeps talking about the markets and i think that's important but the other half of this is the supply chain, the capital investment and all those underlying things that keep the economy moving forward and growing and are those things going to take a pause to see how this plays out and what will that look like in midterm elections? i'll make the point that the tariffs went on in 1930. in 1932, wallace holly and

herbert hoover all lost the election. >> you're right about that. that grew from handful products that were going to be targeted to a laundry list that included pretty much every product and company under the sun. that's what happens with these. let me get your sense about the midterm election. you talk about tariffs that you and i pay, would they then, with americans feeling the pinch of that, if they were to come to pass that that would offset the gains that would normally have them in a good mood when they look at their paychecks. >> potentially. i think there's a lot of momentum with the tax cuts, i think it's a clear and stark contrast that no democrats voted for it but the administration needs to be externally concerned about putting a web link it on that and putting that momentum with tariffs that will negatively impact the jobs and

negatively impact the economic growth and negatively impact how much buying power a middle-class family has in a walmart, online or any other various stores is of extreme concern to people families. >> dan, thank you very much. the dow is down about a hundred 11 points. we will be back right after this. how do you win at business? stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com . . termites.

we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home. neil: the white house is saying these trade actions are part of negotiating process, calm down. that is pretty much the gist of

it. that larry kudlow's comments were meant to reassure the markets. new guy heading up the national economic council telling our stuart varney, fear not. this will work out. markets twixt and between. trish regan. trish: larry is optimist. as long as i have known him he is glass half-full. i like that, i need optimism. neil: because it is against everything he stood for before but we'll see. trish: i know. i know. neil: riddle me conundrum. trish: a little bit. global trade dispute reach as new height here as china proposing its own tariffs in retaliation against the united states. china's proposal against key u.s. exports sent the market into a total tailspin but investors may be figuring outthey're kind of oaf reacting. you -- overreacting the tariffs are not in place yet. the