ballots as required by florida law. so just in case you thought it wasn't dicey enough -- connell: and just a quick point, tomorrow they actually have to turn in the first unofficial results, so that could trigger the recount. melissa: that does it for us. here's "bulls and bears." ♪ ♪ david: hi, everybody. happy friday. this is "bulls and bears," i'm david asman. joining me today, jerry baker, liz peek and john layfield. well, remember the taxpayer bailouts of the banks back this 2009? could we be headed down that path again in the federal reserve now making it easier to pass annual tests. so, folks, is this sowing the seeds of another financial crisis? >> david, i don't think so. i think what we're getting is a rebalancing, a redressing of the balance that we've seen of regulation in the last ten years. the regulatory pendulum has swung very, very hard since the

financial crisis. to be very tough on bankings. and something like this is an easing of some of those rules. not crucially on the capital rules, by the way, which is very important. that's the amount of capital equity, essentially, that the bank has to hold which is the sort of protection that supports all of its as sets. but it's -- assets. but it's things like liquidity, these are things -- david: we don't want the get too much in the weeds, but the fed wants to eliminate sort of the public shaming of banks by that failed grade that some of them got when they didn't pass the stress test. go ahead. >> it has an enormous impact on these banks. if you get a bad grade, it can impact your stock and everything. the things that were wrong with the stress test, number one, it treated small banks the same as big banks, and it's very expensive. big banks are spending millions of dollars. for small banks it's hess, but still it's a burden. the bigger thing that is that the scenarios that fed has come up with, for example, that the

dow goes down 60%. how do you react. you know, thicks -- knock on wood, aren't going to happen. at least we're pretty much counting on that. laugh. >> no, that's right. finish. david: jonas, go ahead. >> they weren't counting on home prices going down 20, 30, 60% in markets which kind of -- look, it's not a restaurant that has rodents in the kitchen. they need better than a letter grade to make people confident. i never understand what is the next bailout strategy -- david: that's a good point. >> how is that going to go down? they got a pretty gravy ride last time. and they cooked this whole plan up this hours during the crisis. what's the next plan when they fail, that's more important than this stress test because i think the problem with the stress test -- which, again, they made larder last year, now they're making it easer the -- doesn't take things in context. the last crisis wasn't based on unemployment going up to double digits or interest rates going

up. neither of those happened, and yet home prices fell 50% in some markets. so i don't think they've really addressed the issue. what is the risk if assets decline? personally, i think it's in the bond market now, not on the bank's balance sheet, but i'm not a fedextive. my problem is i don't think the fed know what is the next crisis is. >> that is true. >> but, jonas, also this didn't address what happened in the financial crisis. i agree with you it's not addressed at all. the financial crisis was caused a lot in part by the government, the cra act. you took home ownership, there's a reason it's around 64% average in america to 70%, and falsely inflating that rate by lowering standards, by keeping interest rates artificially low helped these bankers turn these banks into a casino. if we'd told them you have to keep the loan you originate, you have to have a certain capital requirement, this would have never happened. but the politicians that were this charge, they're the ones that tried to fix it, and they didn't do anything to fix it.

so i think gerard is right. they're not talking about stringencies being taken off this, they're just talking about taking some of the red tape out of it so banks can get along better without spending so much money. dave david well and, i don't know, you get to the heart of what got under the skin of most taxpayers in america, the fact that they were bailing out a lot of institutions maybe some which should have been broken up, and the market itself would have probably broken up some of these banks. >> yeah. but it's more natural, david, to have a bailout than not to have a bailout. i agree with you, david, look, they let lehman fall, they didn't want -- it's just a problem, opposite, let lehman fall, wouldn't let bear. they were worried about these bailouts for taxpayers and people getting reelected. but a bailout has nearly always happened. look at chrysler -- david: or the s and l -- >> the government tends to bail

somebody out almost every 20 years, and usually it's because -- david: that's true. doesn't make it right though. >> two things to say. one is we know for certain there will be another crisis. we've had a financial crisis of some sort pretty well on the target every ten years or so. we don't know where it will come from. so all you can do in those circumstances is make sure that your financial institutions are healthy, are sound, are well-capitalized, and no one can argue that the banking system in this country -- by the way, unlike other countries, look at europe. europe's banking system is in a much, much worse system. the american banking system, you may not like it, you may not like the way banks behave, it's in a much, much sounder state on a much firmer footing than it was this -- >> that's exactly right. one of europe's big problems right now, one of the reasons they can't grow faster is their banks are laden with enormous amounts of bad debts. at least our banks have purged. and i think you made the most important comment early on, it's about capital, it's about

equity, what they have in response. and i would say we all hated the bailouts. i mean, that was obviously something that was -- david: well, the banks didn't hate the bailouts. [laughter] >> well, kind of. but on the other hand, it put in, it ladled onto them enormous red tape which they took years to get out from under. one of the reasons they did it, one of the banks that was in bad shape, half the country had mortgages with that bank. the panic that was going to ensue had that bank failed, it would have had unbelievable repercussions, and we would maybe not still be out of the recession, so it's complicated. >> i'm very glad my old "bulls and bears" buddy john layfield's on this show. because he has inside information on this topic. if his wife worked at the federal reserve, i'd be more confident in their ability to predict the next collapse. i will say i'm concerned -- david: referring to meredith whitney, john's wife, who really foresaw this coming. >> who now is jonas' biggest

fan. [laughter] >> she's a smart lady. i'm concerned about the false sense of security here where we think everything's okay. the fed just stamped the balance sheets look great, and then invest thers get overitconfiden, and that's where the problem started, overconfidence in investments, in asset prices. and is i worry they have the potential to do more for harm than good if they don't focus on just what the bailout requirements are. david: i'm worried there's overconfidence in the fed. jerry used to work at "the wall street journal," my old boss, he said we really don't need the fed unless we have an institution of lender of last resort. maybe you need that. other than that, the fed is doing too much. >> i do still at the wall the wl street jointer, at least e did -- journal, at least i did before i walked into this studio. i'll check. >> the fed has consistently been wrong and they have foreseen the problem. i've not the tell you -- to tell you, before the crisis everybody knew that people were making bad loans. that was not a secret. so how it didn't translate into

greater oversight then, i don't know. >> look at the -- >> liz, that's a great point. [inaudible conversations] >> look at the leverage before the crisis, banks were leveraged 30, 40, 50, 60 times, and now, you know, on average those major banks maybe 10, 15, 20 times leverage, essentially the amount of debt they have. >> that's a great point about bad loans -- [inaudible conversations] >> liz, that's such a great point about bad loans. if you talked to bankers during that time, they were forced be i the government with the cra act to go out and find loans to people they knew could not pay them back, and that's what created the securitization market. if you want to get this loan and sell it to somebody else so you offload risk, that's what created the casino. and then you add the fed to that, some would say exacerbated the crisis with artificial rates, i think you've got a problem with government intervention. i think at some point the government has to just tell banks be well capitalized and keep the loans you originate. david: well said, john.

why the president says a federal judge just cost america 48,000 new jobs. the infuriating details you don't want to miss coming next. ♪ (toni vo) 'twas the night before christma,

and all thro' the house. not a creature was stirring, but everywhere else... there are performers, dancers, designers the dads and the drivers. there are doers of good and bringers of glee. this time of the year is so much more than a bow and a tree. (morgan vo) those who give their best, deserve the best. get up to a $1,000 credit on select models now during the season of audi sales event.

♪ ♪ our new, hot, fresh breakfast will get you the readiest. (buzzer sound) holiday inn express. be the readiest. [ready forngs ] christmas? no, it's way too early to be annoyed by christmas. you just need some holiday spirit!

that's it! this feud just went mobile. with xfinity xfi you get the best wifi experience at home. and with xfinity mobile, you get the best wireless coverage for your phone. ...you're about to find out! you don't even know where i live... hello! see the grinch in theaters by saying "get grinch tickets" into your xfinity x1 voice remote. a guy just dropped this off. he-he-he-he.

♪ ♪ david: president trump slamming a federal judge's decision today to halt construction again on the $8 billion keystone oil pipeline. take a listen. >> political decision made by a judge. i think it's a disgrace. it's 48,000 jobs. i approved it. it's ready to start. ask they went, and i guess it'll end up going to the ninth circuit, as usual. david: well, the 1,184-mile pipeline expansion that could car ray rz -- carry as much as 840,000 barrels of oil a day from alberta to alaska, what does this mean going forward? >> well, it's just another sort of speed bump for this project which has been underway for over a decade. and by the way, the judge questioned the environmental outcome of all. we did an environmental study. the obama administration did under his presidency, and it was approved because, in fact, it looked okay. it wasn't going to have any dehe to have yous effect.

we all know transporting this kind of oil by train is more dangerous to the environment. this is just -- by the way, this really tells you why mcconnell has been, mitch mcdonnell has been prioritizing putting judges on the benches. this is the kind of thing that just drives everybody nuts. >> yeah. by the time this keystone pipeline is done, we'll have found system other energy source -- [laughter] >> batteries. >> it seems like the judge, from what i've seen of the case, objected to the procedural, you know, the way in which the government went about the procedure and said that it didn't give enough attention to critics and to people who were going to be displaced and all of that kind of stuff. but it is just another lengthy delay, will go, obviously, through the judicial system now, and we'll have to wait and see whether or not we actually ever get this oil. >> it's extraordinary. i mean -- >> yeah. i think the legal system -- i agree with the president here, the legal system has run amok. they're drawing a line in the sand for, i don't think, a very good reason. it is so much safer to ship by

pipeline than truck or by train, and somebody was talking about the ogallala aquifer, there's 20,000 miles of pipeline right now across that aquifer that carry hazardous materials. this is an extra 900 miles. -- 300 miles. it is simply a matter of this judge making a stand for environmentalists because that's what he chooses to do. there's no real reason behind this, scientific or otherwise. >> by the way, it's not just another pipeline. the problem is this is a pipeline that is supposed to carry oil from the tar sands, and if the environmentalists hate oil development generally, they're apoplectic about tar sands. so that is another reason why this thing just will not go away as an issue. >> it's the only logical reason to have it, it leads to them having to turn the tar sands into crude oil because the whole idea of a pipeline is so much better, as was mentioned, than trains, than boats, than ships.

this is the best way to move the fuel. i question, jerry, we were kind of joking, but it's true. this has been, like, ten years now. have we already hit peak crude oil demand in america? [laughter] it seems like this is yesterday's technology, and we're spending a lot of time, and we're not going to be able to charge all the teslas in five years because we don't have the electrical grid. is this a waste of time, i wonder? and maybe john could answer because you know more about oil, why tonight they refine their own oil up there? [laughter] i don't understand why canada needs to do this so bad, could we leverage it and make them take our milk in our negotiations with them if we had this done? [laughter] which it's not done yet. >> i don't know about the leverage with the milk, but if we don't take the oil, the oil's going to go to asia because they're building a court just north of vancouver. it's largest infrastructure projects in canadian history, backed, by the way, with chinese money. so those tar sands are going to be developed no matter what. the difference is either we get the oil or asia gets the oil through a port on the west coast

of canada. >> meanwhile, by the way, it's worth noting that the decline in the oil price that we've seen continues in the, over the last two weeks now. oil, you know, just hit what people call a bear market, down 20% from its peak. we're really starting to see some realties stress there. by the way, the interesting phenomenon for the u.s. is in the past, distant pass, low oil prices were good for the economy because we are a consumer, more than a producer. now it tends to make people worried. it has a broader effect on commodities and on demand. so what's going on in the oil market right now should be a source of some concern. david: but the other side of that is we have had enormous success over the past year and a half of the trump at managers in rebuilding our war bonn energy -- carbon energy program, and it makes us less dependent on those crazy oil sheikhs and everything they're doing overseas. we are much bigger in exports, we can control somewhat russia's flow of oil and gas into europe.

so there are all kinds of advantages of us having the oil, us refining the oil, no. >> absolutely. and by the way, one of the reasons why canada doesn't want to undertake this, they don't want pipelines either. we're not the only country that's sort of swallowed up by an environmental activism program. but also someone referenced earlier the great grid of pipelines we have. we have an easier way to get that particular kind of oil to the kind of refineries that can refine it. so it does make sense from every perspective to do this project except unless you hate oil. [laughter] a lot of people do. david: we've got to talk about another kind of activism that's in the news today. breaking new developments in the florida recount saga. fox news' phil keating joining us now from miami with the very latest. phil? >> reporter: david, two big court victories this afternoon for republican governor rick scott who is the senate candidate in a race that is

almost indefinitely going to a recount, perhaps as early as this weekend. judges in both broward and palm beach county ruling in scott's favor and also ruling for transparency, meaning governor scott's campaign for senate will get what it wants, better and closer access to how the votes are being counted in broward and palm beach counties as well as the discussions amongst the county workers as to what voter intent may or may not be. and at the temperature of the hour, 7:00 actually, he will also have access to broward's voter records. all of which could absolutely come in handy during a recount, and that's what looks like this race is destined to become. vote counting continued friday by canvassing boards around the state looking at provisional ballots and ruling some votes will count and others will not. all to be wrapped up today. the countying of -- counting of the final 200 provisional ballots in broward commenced this afternoon calmly.

however, that was not the case outside. shades of recount 2000 came to mind as more than a hundred people protest the republicans and democrats, both sides each accusing the other of trying to steal the election. in florida's u.s. senate race between republican governor rick scott and democrat incumbent bill nelson, well, the difference right now is 15,000 votes, .18 of 1% and definitely destined to be a recount because it's got to be under half a percent of a margin to qualify. the latest numbers in the governor's race show republican ron detan dis' lead over tallahassee mayor andrew gallup now down to 36,000 votes, that is .44%, also in recounter the story. the as i explained, anything under a half a percent automatically gets a machine recount. if it's under .25 or a quarter of a percent if, then it goes to a hand recount. the senate race is close enough on these unofficial results that it could end up down the road next week going to a hand

recount. but first thing's first, the secretary of state is expected to order this mandatory machine recount sometime tomorrow afternoon from tallahassee. david? david: hanging chads and all that, you know? [laughter] and you still wonder where all those votes suddenly came from. there are a lot of questions here. phil, thank you very much. jerry -- >> just one question -- >> reporter: david, the good news is those pimpled and dimpled ballots no longer are used. >> maybe phil can answer this, it's not a rhetorical question, how does it take them so long -- we're now 72 hours almost from the close of polls. many of these votes were also early votes and absentee votes. how on earth does it take so long? this is florida, this isn't sub-saharan africa. no disrespect, they're not bringing in ballots from 8,000 miles away. most of it's done by machine. how can they not have a final count? >> well, in fact -- >> let alone the recount. >> the woman this charge of the broward county finish. >> keeps finding -- >> she is refusing, she's breaking the law, apparently, by

refusing to answer the question how many votes are out there, why it has taken so long, etc., and it has been pointed out that miami-dade county was fine. so it's not a question of the size of the vote. it's a question of how it was imagininged. and i think she has a lot of answering to do. david: that's got to be the last word. coming up next, the american dream just got a little more expensive. find out how much your home is going to be worth next year from one of the smartest real estate experts in the entire world. i kid you not. she's coming next. ♪ ♪ alexa, play weekend mix. the new lincoln mkc. connecting the world inside, with the world outside. so you can move through both a little easier. introducing the well-connected 2019 lincoln mkc.

should happen everydred five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

♪ ♪ david: the mortgage rates, as you probably know, soaring to their highest level in almost eight years this week, hitting 4.9%, a full percentage point higher than where we were a year ago. so far this year we've averaged about 4.5 percent. so higher mortgage rates, higher home prices, right? what's that all mean for the home buyer and the housing

market and your house? here with us to discuss is ceo and founder of dolly lens real estate, dolly lens herself who is not only the smartest woman in real estate, but also a great person to have with us here. is that why home prices are sagging a bit, because of these high interest rates? >> well, it's the major reason. it's a perfect storm, right? there's a low supply. nobody wants to give up their current mortgage, so they have a 3.5, a 3.75 mortgage. perfect storms are never good. >> do you think -- again, you've got rising interest rates, you've got, you know, particularly in places like new york for presumably a significant supply, the outlook for interest rates looks like thea just going to keep going up. you know, how much pain can we expect to see? >> we'll see a little pain, but then everyone adjusts, right? just like we adjusted to everything. everyone will adjust. they'll say, okay, it's going to cost me a little more. i'll pay a little less for the

house, i'll pay a bedroom less. it's be fine in the long run. in the short run, there's always that shock and pape. but home buyers right now are so stretched. >> i guess it's good news for these first-time buyers who really have been priced out of the market. >> yeah. and good news for savers. savers have been waiting to earn a little bit of interest on their money. >> i'm kind of surprised no one's trying to jump ahead and get their mortgage now, kind of book it in, you know? if i were a young person, i'd be thinking, oh, wow, this is worse. it's only 60 basis points higher than last year, but it could be more town the road, but i guess there's no -- >> historically, it's quite low. it's up over a year ago, but historical average finish. >> rent versus buy too, right? so the young people, all people are saying to themselves, i can buy this for x. i can rent it for y. which is better for me, and is it a short-term or long-term play? >> dolly, you're talking -- [inaudible conversations]

>> you deal with a lot of high-end properties. our dollar's also gone up because our interest rate has gone up. has that driven the foreign buyer out of the market because it's expensive now or more because they want to get out of their currency before it falls more? >> we're finding the foreign buyer really looks at it as a long-term store of value. so they're not looking at it as a little bit higher interest. money don't even take mortgages, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. there issue is more political in nature, so is there country permitting them to remove money from the country to buy here. slight capital, all kinds of other considerations that don't relate to mortgage rates specifically. so new york is in good fortune that way, los angeles, you know, coastal cities. >> and the last gdp numbers, dolly, housing was one of the few weak spots that was there. is this a cyclical thing that's happening or is it directly this response to the high interest rates? >> i think it's the shock of, actually, interest rates went up, you know? [laughter]

everybody threatened for a while, but now it's actually, you're feeling it. it's a point and a half higher than it had been a year and a half ago. that is significant. >> i'm wondering about millennials. we have this incredible situation where both google and amazon are about to come into manhattan or the new york area with 50,000 new employees. these are millennials who are suddenly going to be making, like, $200,000 a year, that's what google pays. are they going to be buying places, do you think? >> i mean, i think they'll start by renting and feeling their way through. and then they end up buying. and, yes, they're going to buy our first-time homes, right? which are, of course, much more expensive than the rest of the country. >> but -- sorry. but following up on david's question, millennials, we keep hearing they don't like to buy cars, they don't like to buy things, they like to rent or share or whatever. is that part of a home-building issue now? >> no. they want to buy. >> thank heavens. >> i do not know a single millennial who does not want to own.

>> the pain last time in the housing crisis which led to the financial crisis was heavily, of course, around adjustable rate mortgages, when people took out, you know, very, very wonderfully low interest rates back in the early 2000s and then were shocked, shocked. >> to get the bill. >> discovered those adjustable rate mortgages adjusted, and their rates went up. [laughter] is there any sign of any kind of disstress there, do you think? >> not yes, sir, because even the adjustables adjust, let's say, seven-year period. so we're still early in that. >> on jerry's point, that's all these billion dollar office towers behind me, they were all propped up by ever lower, and still mostly using short-term loans. is that like, all of a sudden, their payment's higher than the rents even though rents are doing relatively well? is that going to lead to a problem on the commercial side that we don't see coming right now? >> i think we do see it coming. i think it's already starting. e think commercial is starting to ease up in terms of pricing. they're putting things on the

market, it's lasting much longer than it had been. so i think -- >> [inaudible] as far as interest rates, what is the equilibrium point that you see housing starts to drop off a cliff. what, in your view, is that number that you're scared that we might get to? >> well, if we're at almost 5% right now, i mean, look, if we get to 8%, i'd say that really is an issue. i still say 6, 6.5, i think city we're okay. and historically low. and either prices will adjust or people will adjust what they're looking for. something will ajust. david: i'm wondering about real estate for restaurants and some of these retail businesses that just can't afford the real estate in suburban or in places, city places like manhattan, san francisco, l.a. some of those are being priced out of the market, and i see these stores that are just empty, they're not filling them. when are the people who own these buildings going to lower the rents so more businesses can come in? >> i think when they start fibbing to their investors.

[laughter] i think there's a big problem with a lot of these commercially-owned buildings where it's really a fund that owns the space, and they're projecting we're going to get you a return of, and they can't secure that return. so they say, oh, well, it's empty now. we'll get it at some point. and when they stop fibbing, they'll be taken. >> isn't it -- [inaudible conversations] real estate developers, dolly, that's the first i've ever heard of that. >> yeah, right. >> in manhattan at least, i think, this have been some tax abatements and things given to building owners that have empty storefronts and store owners tell me that's a big problem because a fella opportunity have a real incentive to -- david: that's called a perverse incentive. >> exactly. >> yeah. it happened during the recession, and they need to reverse that. tough that sense also, dolly? >> yes. and it also hurts the market in general, right? because all neighborhoods rely on what's downstairs. what's downstairs? the dry cleaner, the restaurant. it makes you happy or not happy to go home. so that's really important, and

this needs to be addressed. david: what makes me happy is that i know dolly lenz, and dolly lens helps us all with real estate. appreciate it. >> thank you. david: pete navarro blasting china and wall street executives just before the president is to meet with china's president. find out how tomorrow's shaking up the talks before -- navarro's shaking up the talks before they even begin. that's next. ♪ ♪

hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. these are affordable, all-in-one plans that help pay for doctor visits, hospital stays and emergency care. but they also include prescription drug coverage. in fact, last year humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $6,900 on average on their prescription costs. call a licensed humana

sales agent or go online to find out if you could save on your prescription drugs. this plan delivers coverage for the three things you may care most about; prescription drug coverage, doctor visits, and hospital stays. plus, potential cost savings on your plan premium. humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call us, or go online to find out if your doctor is part of the humana network. ready to learn more? call the number on your screen for this free, fact-filled decision guide. there's no obligation, just good information. call the toll free number on your screen, now. you'll learn all about a humana medicare advantage plan and how it compares with your plan. with most humana plans, you get coverage for prescription drugs, doctor and hospital visits, and more. all for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. most humana medicare advantage plans even include dental and vision coverage. and,

most humana medicare advantage plans include the silver sneakers fitness program at a local fitness center. so call or go online to find out if your doctor is part of humana's large network of doctors and hospitals. and see if a humana medicare advantage plan is the right plan for you. pick up the phone, and call the number on your screen. the call is free. and licensed humana sales agents are standing by. so call now. and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. so my doctor said... symbicort can help you breathe better. starting within 5 minutes. it doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. doctor: symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. it may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. grandpa: symbicort could mean a day with better breathing.

watch out, piggy! (giggles) get symbicort free at saveonsymbicort.com. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪ ♪ david: timing is everything. just ahead of president trump's meeting with chinese president xi, trade adviser peter navarro is unleashing a broadside against china and what he calls, quote, wall street global is who he says, quote, act like china's unpaid foreign agents. take a listen. >> donald j. trump has done an amazing job of addressing that issue, and he didn't need the help of wall street, he didn't neat the help of goldman sachs

and doesn't need it now. and here's the most important point. when these unpaid foreign agents engage in this kind of diplomacy, so-called diplomacy, all they do is weaken this president and his negotiating position. david: well, the white house says mr. navarro is not speaking on behalf of the president, but i wonder, gang, if is this isn't kind of a planned central. you know, he'll be -- you've got the bad cop, navarro, coming out, and then the president can be the good cop when he make meets with the chinese. >> no, i actually think there's an intense debate going on inside the administration. even as navarro was delivering his speech today, very, very close by other senior administration officials were talking to chinese officials about a possible -- david: that's true. >> there's a real battle going on between navarro on the on the one hand and one or two others who really wants to get tough and, essentially, disengage the u.s. economy from china.

and on the other hand, you've got mnuchin and some of the others there who are concerned about in this -- toughed david larry kudlow. >> and i think what navarro's doing is kind of, is bringing that out into the open, that fight out into the open, basically accusing wall street of siding with those in the administration who are trying to get a softer deal and saying, no, no, this is not the right way to go -- >> although it was very interesting that hank paulson made a speech recently in china that really blasted china. i mean, he has been a tremendous advocate of close ties with china, engaging with china, and he really basically said what i think is totally true. their obstinance on this trade war and their continued theft of intellectual property and all these misdeeds that they've been accused of, he said the world's turning against them, and i think that's totally true. and i think as we go into this very, very important meeting at the end of this month, november 30th at the g20, i think there's going to be constant signals, and this is a signal from navarro -- and it may be right, that was him just sounding off,

but i think they're really presenting to xi xi jinping, ok, you know, donald trump may make overtures to you, he clearly wants a deal but don't think it's going to be easy, because i think they're afraid. look, they think they're winning. >> he singled out goldman sachs, you know who used cowork there -- to work there? steve mnuchin. [laughter] david: he -- donald trump -- likes the tension. >> i question the quote unpaid. [laughter] goldman made, i think, $600 million doing that malaysian bond offering. i wish i could be a globalist banker, i'd like to state that for the record. i also think this mercantilism 2.0 isn't as dangerous as the pre-adam smith fear mongering. i originally thought that too, but i don't think it's going in a direction that's going to cause some crazy depression thing. i think it's an excuse to have revenues. it's basically a vat system where we might have it

permanently, but at a low level because it's the only acceptable way to raise revenues anymore for government anywhere. oh, yeah, the other guy, we're going to make mexico pay for the wall. it's very politically popular to raise money from another country. and maybe et doesn't go away as long as it opportunity lead to major disruptions any more than we already have disruptions in global trade where they move cars around and assemble them in other places. if it's no worse than that, it's not going to ruin the global economy. >> i agree this isn't a smoot holly type issue which exacerbated the great depression, but who's paying for this? americans are the ways paying for this through tariffs. i agree ability the problem with chinese theft, with stealing intellectual property, of ownerships of companies in china. i'm not sure tariffs are the ways to do it. liz, when you talk about the honest nance of china, i agree with you on that. their exports have been up from june, july, august and september, their gdp has been up

those months also, so they're not feel feeling the effects of these tariffs yet. they may next year, and there may be some front loading of the stuff being exported before these tariffs go out, but right now china is not feeling the effects of the tariffs. david: for all the talk this ecc freeze, today we get an announcement that american express is going to do a 50/50 deal to start card-clearing services in china. so there's still stuff going on there. >> it's crazy that a all this central planning's worked is well, a they let their own system, now people are trying to pay with their phones. they're already too late to go into with it. now, in america where we had a very established credit card business, it was so established that it actually is still how you pay for stuff. people barely use apple pay compared to amex, visa, all those systems. and even all those new internet systems, they're still routeing through those high-pay systems. china let this other system

build up, and now amex is going to go there and squabble over pennies. david: all right. alexandra ocasio-cortez saying she cannot afford an apartment in d.c. until she get her congressional salary. how one ceo is trying to help her. we'll explain, and he'll explain in person, coming next. ♪ ♪ it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

show me movies a g[ barking ] nu uh, i'm picking the movie tonight. [ whimpers ] be sad, i enjoy it. show me grinchy movies. oh, goody. [ whimpers ] mmm, fine! show me movies max would like. see the grinch in theaters by saying... "get grinch tickets" into your xfinity x1 voice remote. [ laughs ] uh oh. [ laughs ] something in my throat.

♪ ♪ david david well, the new socialist member of congress, 29-year-old alexandra ocasio-cortez, says she won't be able to afford housing in d.c. until her congressional salaryic cans in, but now one ceo is offering a helping hand. the ceo and cofounder of hotelplanner.com joins us now to explain. so, tim, you've offered to front her some money for her first couple of months or so. why? >> well, we want to do our jobs as good corporate citizens, and we heard she needed some help, so of course we're going to help it's what we do. i just flew in from dallas, and we raised a quarter of million dollars for st. jude's and the american cancer associations with our partners in a charity golf tournament, and i'm here to raise more money for st. jude's on money for our big annual awards show. david: i think nobody would

disagree with st. jude's, but this is a congressman what's going to be making $174,000 a year, do you think she needs the cash? >> she's the youngest congresswoman we've ever had, and she's young and poor. we've all been there. [laughter] i can't wait. we'll do a great job, we'll work within her budget, you know? air allocated around $110 a day. we work with extended-stay hotels and under that in other cities, you know, cheaper than d.c., but in d.c. we can get her a nice place. but if she wants something more luxurious, then we can work on that too. >> after this -- [inaudible conversations] do you not expect to hear about 30 other people giving you a call and saying, hey, i need help too? >> we have of a history of this. we've raised over $2-$3 million in the extent to our different charity endeavors over the last decade. so we, we expectif it, and each one we will look at. like i said, it's about being good corporate citizens.

that's why we started the business. >> tim -- >> hey, tim, i applaud you for what you're doing, and i also applaud ms. cortez, the diversity she brings to congress. our congress has needed some diversity, and we're starting to get some, which i think is good. as far as your business is concerned, ms. cortez, i say politic it is aside, she's a very polarizing figure. if you sponsored her opponent if, 50% of the country wouldn't like that. does it worry you, that you're sponsoring somebody that is such a poe hardizing figure? -- polarizing? >> i didn't think of it as sponsoring, i thought of it as helping. we're not a political entity. we're a good corporate citizen. so we -- >> but if she was a conservative republican, say, would you do the same thing? >> absolutely. the youngest, you know, conservative republican elected to congress that needed help, be there in a millisecond. i mean, it doesn't -- i'm not political, so i 100% want to just help. so if we can make this work for

everybody, then that would be great. >> but, or tim, aren't -- i heard you saying something about more luxury. aren't you going to hurt her proletariat chops by a corporation giving her money for luxury housing in d.c., isn't that what adoptions do for lobbyists -- corporations do for lob bis in the sense that her fan base wants her to raise money on gofundme, not a company? didn't you do something like this with the nra where you didn't ban them like all these other corporations, and you're, like, on paper an nra-working hotel booker who's funneling money into the cortez campaign. that seems like that's going to hurt her, if anything, doesn't it? >> wow, that's a lot. [laughter] in all that. david: you can take all the time you need. [laughter] >> i didn't really expect to be labeled that way. if you look at my body of work, the nra thing, if i i could just address that first, was on the basis of helping anybody that

has a contract with us. so i honor contracts. that was it. and i have associations like planned parenthood that work with us, i have all kinds of associations, and i don't get political, so i honor every contract. it's a contract issue on that. and then in this case it's only trying to help the youngest congressperson we've ever had. and i know what it's like to be in a tough position and not be able to afford something -- >> but if you don't get -- [inaudible conversations] why would you to a tv interview about helping the nra when other companies are saying they're not going to work with them? >> because i got attacked aggressively from the think progress, so the only way i could get my message across was live tv because then nobody could alter it. it was a very highly coordinated media attack, and live tv is the best way to say what you feel,

and people then can make their own judgment. >> i think it's very commendable of you to help anybody, but i think this idea that this is a woman in need, in eight weeks' time, she's going to be earning $174,000 a year. she's 29 years old -- david: a lot of perks to being a congressman. >> that would put her probably in the top 5% of 29-year-olds in this country. she's going to be very, very wealthy. by the way, the dem crack woman from the bronx which means she could be there for 900 years, if she wants. [laughter] i don't quite understand why she's deserving. i mean, politics aside, why she is a deserving figure. >> well, i mean, from our perspective we take her at her word and that she's sincere. and it would be a great thing to help her. i agree that, you know, that's not something that's typical of a congressperson to ask publicly for, but at the same time it's not typical to have a congressperson of her age. so let's, you know, see where she goes and what she can

accomplish -- david: well, tim, it's an act of charity, so we're in the going to knock any acts of charity, and we appreciate you coming on here, that's for sure. good to have you here. >> well, thank you. and i appreciate the hard-hitting questions. [laughter] >> and great work with st. jude's. >> thank you. >> no good deed goes unpunished. [laughter] david: st. jude's, wonderful institution. coming up, if you thought our national debt was just $20 trillion, you're way out of date. wait til you hear exactly how big it is right now and what this could mean for the new democrat house, coming next. ♪

..

david: it's only been a year since our national debt hit $20 trillion. but we need to prepare for a $22 trillion debt by next summer. this there pose problems for the democrats and their spending plans. >> i have got to say, it will be something else because interest rates are rising. the burden of servicing our

national debt will be overwhelming in the next five years. >> i completely agree. one of the problems you may see. we are not expecting a lot to get done in this congress. we could do something with the democrats, infrastructure spending. that's one of the things people are looking at. that is i completely agree, this is a problem for republicans. >> we had a trump turbo boost on the economy, large tax cuts and spending increase. next year wield find out if they pay for themselves. david: it worked in the 1980s. >> this time it's different.

>> the did doubled with president bush and president obama. there is no difference between democrats and rum cans. zero. [♪] president trump: the proclamation on asylum. we need democrats votes. they have to falls new immigration laws. we need the wall, we are building the wall. we need democrat votes to change immigration so we'll have no trouble at the border. we want people to come into our country, but they will have to come in legally. we have such a successful country economically that's everybody is flooding into our country. liz: that