november. watch the votes for steny hoyer and jim clyburn, do they get more votes than nancy pelosi and scratch tear head, should she be at the top. melissa: chad, that will be fun to watch. connell: chad knows capitol hill. i love to hear him. that does it for us today. melissa: "bulls & bears" starts right now. ♪ david: everybody, thanks for joining us. this is "bulls & bears." joining me on the panel, kristina partsinevelos, gary b. smith, heather zumarriaga. facebook under fire. ceo mark zuckerberg holding a conference call this afternoon, slamming and denying a real blockbuster "new york times" report, that the social media giant ignored signs of russia meddling. take a listen. >> i've said many times before that we were too slow to spot

russian interference, too slow -- to slow to get on top of it. we certainly stumbled along the way but to suggest that we weren't interested in knowing the truth or that we wanted to hide what we knew or that we tried to prevent investigations was simply untrue. >> there you have it. that was off of the top of the conference call. i listened throughout the day reported on this. a lot had to do with "new york times" article that facebook knew about russian meddling in spring 2016. they waited an entire year to tell the public, facebook, even the board members issued a statement as a board we indeed pushed them to move faster, mark zuckerberg and sandberg. they think it is unfair "new york times" is going after them saying they didn't want to investigate. that is major part of "the new york times" piece. the second part that facebook hired a pr firm, a republican-backed pr firm to put out

>> they kept putting out data you recall over that year after the news came out saying look, compared to the actual amount of traffic on our website -- on our network, compared to the amount of real spending by hilary clinton, these were not large events. and so, you know, the idea that facebook sinned by committing the act of lobbying which we're all free to do under the 1st amendment i think is a little overblown. >> christina, i'm wondering what really -- what happens next. i mean obviously zuckerberg addressed the -- i think it was a great new york times article really calling them out. how do they prove it or disprove it? what happens next from here?

what do you think? >> what i think is that what we heard on the conference call today they said they will be creating an independent body, another board that's going to evaluate which -- let's say hate posts, terrorist posts, anything that needs to be taken down, you can appeal to this independent body, but is the body going to be independent because it's being created by facebook itself? so that's the major issue there. but facebook announced on the call too that they took down a ridiculous amount of posts 12.4 million pieces of terrorist propaganda over 6 million posts just on sexual exploitation and child pornography. clearly it is an issue. but he says hey i joined 2 billion people around the globe. there's going to be good. there's going to be bad news. it's hard to regulate. >> christine, as far as kind of crisis management, i guess we could call this, do you think that zuckerberg is the right person? does he have in effect ceo chops or do you think he's guilty as

many say, myself included that he's a creative guy, a smart guy, he's charismatic but maybe over his head as far as running a company this large now? >> i don't think you could say he's over his head. he's built this company, 2 billion people interacting every single day, billions of posts each day. this is a leader that did that, that took that idea. of course he has many people that are more experienced around him, many people have been in the industry longer. but we cannot discount the fact he was there from the beginning and he's gone through all these waves. however they are a first mover in that account, when it comes to regulation, when it comes to having to deal with the posts. i don't think anybody else could do a better -- who could do a better job than that because nobody has gone through that experience. >> i guess my point is that growing a company from a wonderful idea that he had at harvard is very different than

managing what i would call quite honestly a mature tech company. you know ibm had different leaders all along its years and it required different leaders at different times. you know they moved on from tom watson not very far into its life cycle. i'm just wondering and apparently you feel differently that zuckerberg is still the right guy. i think they are transitioning and they might need a different type of management. >> with this political environment, i don't know that anybody could do the job. at least one house judiciary member, democrat congressman says facebook can't be trusted to regulate itself. is he right? let's bring in congressman andy biggs a member of the house judiciary committee. congressman, this isn't just about facebook by the way. this is about whether the internet itself has grown so much that we're heading towards a time when it's going to be labelled as a public utility of sorts that needs a whole new slew of regulations, isn't that where we're going? >> that's where my friend like

david would like to take us, i don't think that's wise. i think one of the reasons that the internet has been so successful is that it's been so -- approach by government. the alternative is to take a look at someplace like china or some other oppressive regimes and you will the intent to stifle speech through the use of the internet and i'm afraid that's where some of my friends want to go. >> there's a fine line i guess in government stepping in here and regulating the tech sector as a whole. do you think that needs to be done? and if so, how? >> well, i don't think that's government's best option here. i think we need to keep putting pressure on -- which we've been doing. let's face it, the first thing is you have to shine the light on it. that's what we're seeing with government coming in. i don't think government's going to be best served or the people are going to be best served if government comes in even tries to do a light handed regulation. i think the market will ultimately clear this up. we're in kind of a transition phase i think is the way to look at it.

and we're finding out there's a lot of bad stuff. i think the bad stuff is going to have have to get cleaned up by facebook or there's going to be other folks that come in and fill that void. >> congressman, i'm glad to hear your hands off stance. it sounds hands off to me. but my question is politicians just by their nature, they always want to get involved. are you going to be able to hold back the tide of people wanting to bring facebook in before a senate committee and being grilled and stuff like that? >> look, i mean it is a different bringing them in and having them answer whether their algorithms are prejudice -- my position would be they're prejudiced against conservatives. that one thing for them to explain why their algorithms are doing that. it is something different all together to start regulating, placing statutes in place where there's punitive sanctions. i think that we can do it in an

approach where we bring them in and say look we're concerned about this. this is a public concern. but i think some of my friends across the aisle would rather see us -- did you say scorpions? that like to sting like scorpions and i'm concerned about that. [laughter] >> not just people on the other side of the aisle, but on your side as well, i wonder if you can give us a sense that how big a threat is that we'll get some kind of washington deal with big government big tech creating a federal internet regulator? >> you are talking kind of like a fascist type issue? >> well, maybe created in the name of privacy, protection and stopping russian bots and what have you. is this a real risk or do you think it is unlikely at this point? >> i think it is a real risk because it isn't just folks on the other side. you are correct there are people in my own conference who would like to see something done. i think we're all concerned about what's happening with facebook and how powerful it's become as a communicator, but i

think there's still enough of us who really believe that the marketplace will ultimately be the arbiter here and that facebook will have to clean it up its act and do it sooner rather than later because there's pressure on them right now. i don't think facebook wants to necessarily be regulated unless it is going to help them and this is where we get into the fascist point. this is the part that always concerns me. if they are going to make it truly anticompetitive with the regulations that they would seek. >> christina speaking right now. congressman i'm a little bit confus confused because i don't know what that threshold should be until you have government regulate. look at myanmar, resulting in a lot of deaths, resulting in a migration of people. we can't discount that. does that mean it's already gone too far? i understand, i don't necessarily agree with regulations but look at what's happening and the meddling as well in the election. >> i think you are exactly right to be concerned. but let me explain it this way. the argument is going to be on

free speech and access. but we regulate speech in certain ways now. you can't commit fraud through speech. you can't commit libel or slander, there are ways to remedy that. you can't threaten or intimidate. these are prohibited actions that can be litigated and in some instances even prosecuted. maybe that's where you go because we don't want to stifle free speech or the marketplace. but where we have already places that are sanctionable whether it's through civil sanctions or through criminal prosecution, i think those are already out there. >> congressman, to james' point earlier, it is not only democrats, there are some republicans, some would even say the president himself at times has sort of spoken in language that would seem to indicate he wants to regulate the internet somehow. if you lose, if your libertarian views lose, and there is some kind of major new creation of government bureaucracy to regulate the internet, what happens to the internet?

what happens to all the companies that get their money from the internet? >> well, some of them are going to make a whole lot more money, and a lot of them are going to make a whole lot less money. that's what would happen because all of this would actually stifle entrepreneurship, stifle creativity, which has made the internet such a phenomenon. >> congressman -- >> congressman, again, your words are like bringing a glow to me, your libertarian view, but i'm going to ask you for odds and percentages because you know as i mentioned earlier, this is nots works. what are the odds of companies like facebook being regulated in some way shape or form, do you think? >> i think unfortunately if they don't start taking care of these issue themselves, i think the odds are actually fairly high that at some point, i don't think next year or the year after, but you would see a move to regulate them because the

seeds are already being planted. the foundation's already being laid. >> sad day, wouldn't it be, don't you think? >> well, i think so. i really do think so. >> bottom line is, that may be one of the reasons the air is coming out of nasdaq. congressman andy biggs, thank you very much for coming on. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> california congresswoman waters looking to take control of the powerful house committee. the big move that she's threatening to do once she gets there that should have investors concerned. that's coming next. if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting.

upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today.

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.

>> california congresswoman maxine waters throwing down the gauntlet as she looks to head up the powerful house financial services committee next year. take a listen. >> make no mistake, come january, weakening regulations and putting our economy once again at risk of another financial crisis will come to an end. >> so folks should banks and investors be concerned by her threats to bring back those financial regulations that have been trumped? >> oh my gosh, david, i can't even believe that maxine waters is head of the financial service committee or potential head. i mean this would be an issue if

the g.o.p. didn't control the senate and if president trump didn't have veto power, but he does. so i highly doubt that she can roll back a lot of what has been done in terms of to reform dodd frank. in march of this year, i believe the small banks that were under this heavy burden of regulation and capital requirements under 250 billion, they actually had that removed, the so called systemic failure, too big to fail because they are not. they are small banks. so we want to keep the small banks separate from the big banks, under different regulatory requirements. so i don't think she stands a good chance of getting anything done. it won't pass through the senate. and the president can always veto it. >> yeah, i guess i would sort of echo what heather was saying, but maybe even be a little more optimistic, if you will, in terms of the limited down side here because really there was not much real deregulatory

effort in the financial sector when the republicans had the house, and in the trump administration, there's some easing of the rules, but generally, this system of giant banks, many of them obviously located in this city city, with the government backstop is not really changing any time soon. i wrote a book on it called "borrowed time" about citigroup and that history. it is true of the big banks. i think this would may be a criticism of the trump deregulation is that easing rules but leaving the taxpayer backing a large institution is a very bad lethal combination that's basically the system that brought us 2008 and hasn't really been changed. >> brought us the serial bailout. >> yes. >> however -- >> i have -- >> just a few comments, though, to what was talked about, the fact that yes there should be something, a separate regulation for the smaller versus the larger banks. because right now focuses on one solution for all which is not

the case. if we look at the regulations like you just brought up, have they affected the banks thus far? look at the surging profits and dividend payouts and the buybacks and the salaries they are getting -- >> but they are showing slowing loan growth i think recently a lot of them because of some of the capital requirements as well as the requirements of the lender from you and i to get a mortgage, i mean, the requirements are off the charts for anyone to get a loan or small business, compared pre-crisis. >> to that point, yes, but what about reducing the liquidity coverage ratio where you don't need as much liquid assets to convert to cash right away. shouldn't that be something banks have on hand in case there's a massive financial crisis again? >> of course, but i guess the question is has the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, post crisis? if you read james book, i'm sure you will have some anecdotal evidence how it was a wild wild west before to your point christina and we were lending too much. that's not a good thing either.

>> no, no. >> heather made a really good point there. >> i want to get back to maxine, the thesis that maxine waters has. this scares me. it kind of reminds me of the previous segment is that politicians like to get involved and regulate things. as congress swings more and more blue, i really do fear that they are going to turn banks into utilities, and that brings me to a question that james you alluded to, about the fact that we went, you know, halfway kind of on the deregulation, but taxpayers are still, you know, on the hook. >> yeah. >> that leads to my question is, do you think, a, that banks during the financial crisis should have been allowed to fail? and could that still work now? make it a free market. you want to take all the risk, great, but if you extend yourself too far, and you don't have these cash reserves, you're going to go belly up and no one is going to bail you out.

i'm wondering your thoughts. >> right now we let them run with less capital than i think a free market would, and in return, the government puts all of this heavy regulation which does probably slow loan growth among other things. what you want is to end all of the steps that brought us to 2008, where there was the expectation they were going to get bailed out. i think a great way to kind of test how to let them fail would have been march 2008 letting bear stearns go, 17th largest -- >> exactly. >> by the way we shouldn't let this segment go without pointing out that maxine waters family benefitted in part by the bailout because her husband had been seated on the board of a bank that received 12 million dollars. she had to face an ethics committee. they cleared her of any ill will in that regard, but again, sometimes politicians have a personal stake in these bailouts. >> and i think -- >> exactly right. >> sorry. >> no, i'm just wondering why we

haven't allowed banks to fail, large or small. why does government need to get involved at all? why do they need to get involved with this sector? why do they need to get involved with the internet? the free market does a pretty good job of weeding out the winners from the losers. >> it does. >> people actually went there in a crisis instead of fleeing from it. >> remember 2009 came right after a whole new series of regulations, banking regulations were put into effect. so those regulations didn't stop the crisis that led to the bailout >> but to your point, what about the fact that they have grown too large, and that's the reason why the government won't let them fail? think of cars in detroit and just how bad that area was hit. so should we be suppressing and stopping monopolies from taking over? maybe that's the reason? >> but they have grown larger and more concentrated since they came in with the new rules. so the regulations have not been

stopping that concentration of power. just the opposite. >> they sure haven't. i think that's why the fed has actually had stepped in over the past few years actually and sma as well so that hopefully you have a wide diverse group of banks ac which is what we have right now. >> thank you, heather. the "wall street journal" editorial board agreeing with alexandria ocasio cortez, that's a first. why they both say new york politicians are getting taken for a ride. ♪

♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c.

because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. and it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes, or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems.

to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. and i found out that i'ma from the big toe alian. of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com

david: this must be a first, the "wall street journal" editorial board finding something they can agree on with a democrat socialist from new york. in their op-ed today, amazon's golden fleecing, the rich company takes new york politicians for a subsidy ride.

they write, quote, we rarely agree with socialist congresswoman elect ocasio cortez but she is right to call billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for amazon extremely concerning. these handouts to one of the richest companies in the history of the world with an essentially zero cost to capital is crony capitalism at its worst. so is this a bad deal for new york and taxpayers? >> yeah, it absolutely is. and it's kind of an omission by new york politicians that taxes are too high here. they are saying in order to attract new business, we have to waive our existing tax system and give giants like amazon this amazing deal. when you count federal state city you are talking about close to 3 billion dollars. >> cuomo actually did admit to that, james. and i think he said he was going to change his name to amazon cuomo as well. >> he did say that. >> amazon's headquarters will be

there, one of the two. david: it is easy to give away other people's money. >> here -- >> it is -- go ahead. >> i was going to say there's two sides of this. look, it is kind of like our theme for the show, so far politicians like to get out there and do things, and for these governors and mayors of course they're going to say oh my gosh look at all these jobs i created, ie, bought by the way. but the fact is, amazon moving there will create jobs, and the multiplier in studies that i've seen is about 2 1/2 to 1. the multiplier. so there are jobs. here's the down side, i agree with james and maybe others on the panel, it is a bad deal. it is like building these football stadiums, the money is normally comes out of k through 12 education. if it doesn't come from that, it comes from the taxpayers. who benefits? i got news for you, in crystal city, it is not going to be the people that live across the river in downtrodden anacostia.

the housing prices there aren't going to go up. the housing prices are going to go up for people who already own expensive places. it is kind of the rich get richer and the poor or poorer have to pay more in sales tax or however dc and crystal city intends to pay for this. agree with james, this is bad deal. >> exactly. go where the rich are, in these new york city next to capitol hill as well. amazon has received over a billion in tax credits just since 2000 over 129 communities across the united states. i think that amazon literally used the city here to go around and pitch themselves to all these various cities to get the best tax incentives and then come back and say hey i'm going to stay in the city that i'm closest to which is new york and queens and think about it. is that going to be better? yes, we're going to get an average of $150,000 which is actually quite a bit but then think of the cost of living in these cities this they are bringing the employees. it is going to skyrocket. we saw rents climb just yesterday, stories about that. and the fact that the

congestion, the city can't even handle a snowfall in new york. they are going to handle an influx of people. they are laughing right now -- david: we are laughing because there's snowfall outside and they are closing port authority. the question is if tax incentives are good, and frankly i'm happy to hear these democrats like cuomo and mayor de blasio say that, why not have them for all businesses, particularly start up businesses. i mean if they are good for amazon, a trillion dollars company, why aren't they good for a mom and pop company? >> yeah, down in arlington today i live here, it was snowing and the traffic we already have a problem, not just in new york. i agree with you, there's a double-standard. but the point is, we're all agreeing with a socialist, can you believe it? at the end of the day -- david: no we're not. >> -- we can all agree on something. she has a good point -- david: the socialist would not say that all tax incentives are good. she wants to tax everybody to

the hills. >> yeah, not just amazon. >> sure, but amazon is actually also taking advantage of paying zero federal taxes believe last year because they cite loopholes of executive stock options. and that's how they get around paying no federal income tax. so now they get subsidies where their two second headquarters are as well as president trump already calling them a no tax monopoly due to not paying federal tax. maybe this is out of control. >> agreed. why are they picking -- >> i have -- >> wait, from virginia, very close to capitol hill, you can get close to congress and the politicians there. and secondly, what about middle america, why don't we bring these headquarters to kansas city? why don't we bring them to cleveland? to detroit? why do we have to go in the areas where there's already an influx of people -- >> because he lives there. david: it is not we who are

bringing them. it is a private company. why not offer tax incentives to everybody? gary? >> couple final points, i have to applaud bezos, he has to be the ceo of the year. he played the country, all the cities he played them like a fiddle. i'm an amazon shareholder. i applaud him for doing this. when you read about all these cities that really had no shot at winning the business, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars they invested to try to get this business. david: it was a show. >> it is sad. david: coming up next, is this the beginning of the end for uk prime minister teresa may? she says she's going to fight on until she gets her brexit deal through. we will debate her chances for survival and what it means for us here at home. >> protects people livelihood, protects our security, protects the union of the united kingdom. i believe this is a deal which does deliver that, which is in

the national interests, and am i going to see this through? yes.

i wanted more from my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis.

call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com.

each day our planet awakens but with opportunity comes risk. and to manage this risk, the world turns to cme group. we help farmers lock in future prices, banks manage interest rate changes and airlines hedge fuel costs. all so they can manage their risks and move forward. it's simply a matter of following the signs. they all lead here.

cme group - how the world advances. david: a british revolt despite senior ministers resigning in protest and threats from her own party to oust her, embattled uk prime minister theresa may vowing to push her brexit deal through parliament. take a listen. >> i believe with every fiber of my being that the course i have set out is the right one for our country and all our people. i understand fully that there are some who are unhappy with those compromises, but this deal delivers what people voted for, and it is in the national interest. david: so is she in denial about a brexit package that nobody seems to like? >> david, i think she is. i don't think this is what the people voted for. now, granted, it was fairly narrow margin, but people in the u.k. basically voted for a

break, a clean break from the eu. what may has put together, and i guess i don't blame her, she's trying to satisfy all parties, but that's almost impossible is that she kind of wants half foot in, half foot out, yeah, we're going to leave but parts of the u.k. are still going to be involved. we're going to leave but we're still going to be tied to brussels for the next seven or eight years. the problem is when you try to strike a diplomatic deal like that, it ends up in chaos. anyone would say right now chaos is what you have, and it is exactly what the markets, the financial markets, our markets, their markets hate. >> i want to agree to that because in 2016 we did see the markets plummet quite a bit two days after that brexit vote came through. but then it stabilized by the end of the month. you said the margins are close. what was it 52% to 49%? this morning, in my living room, i was having a conversation with two brits -- one was staying over, traveling over, they said

they were voting on false promises, take back control. what does that even mean? you had this referendum that most people don't even agree with at this point because there were all kinds of misleading campaigns and people still don't understand. i think that unfortunately the prime minister of the u.k. is in an unfortunate position because people were tricked and duped into voting for it and now she has no idea where to take it. i don't think it's going to pass at all. david: i don't know if they were tricked into voting for it. it is about 50/50 split by the way according to the poll. the bottom line is whether there's this populous move in britain to get rid of the bureaucrats. a lot of the brits felt the bureaucrats of europe were controlling their economy. they didn't like it. >> yeah, i think so, david. and the point is they want to be their own sovereign country, not tied to other weaker eu member nations such as spain, italy and greece we know they have problems right now. they voted. theyn't whatted out. -- they wanted out. it's taken 2 1/2 years. we still don't have a clean

brexit deal. hopefully we get something soon. christina, don't you think that the vote clearly was -- i know there was -- it was close, but the vote was that they want to control their own money laws. they want borders that they control to protect their jobs. i mean, isn't it pretty clear what they want? >> i think the contentious issue is when you talk about northern ireland and ireland and the fact that the u.k. still wants to hold on to northern ireland and that's going to create a lot of chaos, i don't think they are going to get the vote the scottish nationalist party, i don't think the labour party will vote in favor of this. yes, this proposition going forward but there's too much of a backlash that i don't think it will go through, and it has been improved. her cabinet likes it but that's not enough. >> not the entire cabinet. the departing cabinet, her brexit minister in fact in his resignation letter h i said part of this deal -- he said part of this deal is that the eu will have a veto over britain leaving the eu.

talk about a threat to sovereignty. i guess this is the hotel california becoming the hotel brussels where you can never check out once you are part of the eu. david: they also have to pay 50 billion dollars in order to get out. >> she did say today it is going to get rewritten in part, of course they had to go through another round after this one, even if the brits are satisfied with the draft. but i don't think she's answered the question for people who said we don't want to be run by politicians in brussels, that we never wanted. >> you know, part of the problem is and i go back to obama's great line -- [laughter] -- i can't believe i just said that, but elections have consequences, and i guess it was heather that just said you know, they voted for a clean break. and the problem is, you know, just like when, you know, obama was president, they rammed obama care down because they won. they had the votes. you know, they took advantage of it. the problem here is, may has

backpedalled a little bit, a lot, in fact, and said well, you know, maybe we can sort of make a clean break, but it's not really a clean break. that's why both sides are not supporting what's on the table right now. it's like spam. it's a hodgepodge of what you have out there, and that's the problem -- david: some people like spam. >> but people still eat spam; right? i don't know if that's going to work. [laughter] >> you get my point, right? >> i get your point, but i don't think it is going to pass through. the question we didn't answer is will it affect u.s. markets here? i think we may just see a downward trend, but then stabilization. david: by the way the market today stabilized and ended up about 200 points because of china, not because of anything dealing with brexit. is it all indicative of kind of the populist that led to trump getting elected and brexit itself or is it separate from

that? >> well, i think if we want to talk about an upside here, there is a problem with the european union overregulated, noncompetitive, if the united kingdom moves out and wants to strike -- maybe join our new nafta, whatever we're calling that or they want to strike deals with others, maybe this could be a liberating force. i think they are obviously very focused on wanting to keep london as a financial center with brexit, you now have competitors in dublin, frankf t frankfort, amsterdam, paris, but none of them is really what i would say banks want. england has natural advantages here as they go forward, largely in or out of eu. david: retail stocks feeling the pressure with black friday one week away. what should we expect from the big retail giants? we will break it down for you, next. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.

but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience.

my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

we're all under one roof now. congratulations. thank you. how many kids? my two. his three. along with two dogs and jake, our new parrot. that is quite the family. quite a lot of colleges to pay for though. a lot of colleges. you get any financial advice? yeah, but i'm pretty sure it's the same plan they sold me before. well your situation's totally changed now. right, right. how 'bout a plan that works for 5 kids, 2 dogs and jake over here? that would be great. that would be great. that okay with you, jake? get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change from td ameritrade investment management. david: some retail stocks especially department stores slammed today after disappointing earnings results from names like dillard's, but the sell off in the group coming a better than expected october

retail sales report. are retail sales about to stall out and slow down the 3.5% growth the administration was counting on? what do you think? >> david, i don't think so. if you look at the labor market right now, it is very robust, wages are going up, meaning that there's more money in people's pockets to spend. and the retail -- the retail sales data looked very good. consumer confidence at two decade highs still. and although retail earnings are a mixed bag, i still think we will have a really good holiday shopping season. >> i agree. >> i -- >> i agree that we will have a good holiday shopping season, given the growth that we're seeing in the consumer confidence and the high level of debt that each individual american has, but the concerning part for me is what the investors are thinking. investors at the new york stock exchange, macy's earnings beat analyst expectations, double digit growth in on-line sales. the stock dropped. why is that? i feel like the threshold is so high now for a lot of these

traders that you may have these stronger earnings reports coming out but is it enough anymore? >> i want to go back to -- i think there's a key element here in that we can't -- you know, when people talk about retail, they are talking about it like it was in the 70s. it was dominated by sears, dillard's and jc penney. that's not retail anymore. it's like talking about technology. so many different sectors. when people ask, is retail going to do well? yeah i guess home depot is going to do well. tj maxx is going to do well. wal-mart is going to do well. the old line department stores, i think that's a thing of the past. >> obviously the consumer generally very confident, happy, you mentioned, heather, all the -- >> happy -- >> near record levels of consumer confidence. you also look at the job market, the rate going up, people are comfortable that they can leave a job to find another one are probably pretty comfortable

spending money around the holidays. so i think you would expect pretty good season. david: is it enough -- is it going to fit the administration's 3.5% growth goal? i don't know. >> yeah, that is a big growth goal on top of it. sorry, go ahead. >> no, no, i was saying growth goal of retail sales or gdp growth? david: no the overall economic growth that they are shooting for. >> for gdp, yeah. >> well, mii mean, if you can believe them, the national retail federation says retail sales will grow about 4%. that's probably accurate. and that would normally that kind of number would plug right into the 3 1/2% gdp growth. david: okay. >> i do think there was one lagging issue, it was restaurants, but clothing on the other hand picked up for that and autos. new car sales were up. so surprisingly enough, trucks, people are buying trucks. david: we see a lot of shoppers around here in new york too. we think it is going to be a

good season. now we all know social security is flawed. but now the government is -- now the government is adding insult to injury. wait till you hear this story, coming next. ..

david: a title of a piece i wrote on the fox business website.

i felt compelled to mail it after i got a letter from the social security administration two weeks after my mother passed away. it starts out nicely. then it goes on to inform me she received $1,772 too much in payments because we cannot pay benefits for the month of death. even though she died at the end of october. we have to write social security a check for the month of october. there are a lot of families out there who get a letter similar to this who can't pay this. >> you might even say there are bigger ones, and this is obviously top of mind as we think about federal debt held by the public, more than tripling in the last decade. it's a genuine concern and it

should be for people like worn' as they head top retirement with these entitlement program that either party seems eager, willing and able to address. >> who is going to step up to the plate and address it. in january 2019, the cost of living adjustment. it goes up to how much will go towards social security. $132,000 900. maybe we got to make changes in terms of the age and amount that's taken out. but who is going to take that first unpopular step to get there? >> the problem is, no one is going to do that. politicians like to get re-elected. one thing that's not going to get re-elected, i'm going to

make a change in social security. you are 20, you are not getting any. the bigger problem is, maybe this is the great unsolvable. why is government in the social security business. we want to spend our money on beer and wine and stuff like that and not have anything when we are 65? that's our choice. why is it the government's role to make sure we are secure in our older years? david: why don't we have the option. why don't we have the choice to put it where the we want it. the social security administration gives back 1.5%. you can more with t-bills than with what they give you. >> according to the heritage foundation, even inflation arusted returns for social security were actually negative. that's really bad. >> for poor people they are.

>> i'm canadian. and we having pension plans and old age security. it seems to be working effectively, the fact that they have that two-tier system. i don't think any politician will come forward and change that system in the united states. short-sightedness will be an issue in almost every topic we talk about. david: your money is suppose to be in a lock box when in fact politicians have been reaching into the lock box, taking out the money and flowing ious which are government debt. anybody who has balanced a checkbook knows you can't keep doing that for too long. >> you bring up i guess we are talking the same exact point. why can't people -- let's just

say the government mandates that you have to give them so much money out of your check to no ride for your own retirement. why don't they have an index fund i can invest in? david: the more letters like this people receive, the easier it will be for some politicians to come up with the right answers. that does it for bulls and bears. >> it's a complex negotiation. but i think what most of people want to know is what we can deliver will be in their interest. >> the government is in chaos. >> i will do my job of getting the best deal for britain. i will do my job getting a deal that's in the national interest. >> the agreement represents a huge and damaging failure. >> leadership is about making the right decisions, not taking the easy decisions.

>> no deal is not a real option. and the government has