don't know this it was dreadful commute, last night, and this morning in new york city. we have producers who took four hours to go couple miles to new jersey. lizzie, thanks. liz: anytime. $10 coming. stuart: i promise. my time is up, neil cavuto. neil: that is so weird. we called liz and she said i can't get in. liz: [laughter] neil: i am going to have a talk with her. thank you very much, lizzie, you're wicked! the day after the wicked snowstorm, wicked, confusing day for stocks. they're trying to claw their way to respectability. we're looking at first down week in three here. unless something miraculously changes and soon. get a read on all of this deirdre bolton from the nyc. >> you have seen what the markets are doing most of the day. just along the flat line, up and down, up and down.

the dow ever so slightly higher. .0.4%. for the week all three major industries on the track to finish down. this is the week in three we see losses. looking at pocket the of weakness, chip stocks weighing on the markets. two key reasons, nvidia and applied materials. both of these either reporting weaker-than-expected than forecast sales or nvidia, and applied materials, it was earnings targets. not only saying they missed expectations for the current quarter, rather last quarter, last night, they're saying it will be the same thing coming up for the next quarter. that is really weighing on sentiment for these stocks. if you look at another pocket of red you will see retailers pretty much down across the board. it is the same reason. a lot of upscale retailers, nordstrom being one of them,

williams-sonoma another one disappointing investors on earnings or sales targets. seeps as if the foot traffic in its stores really slowing down. so not boding too well for the u.s. consumer. the company says it will miss sales targets for the year, williams-sonoma also just saying listen things are not going so well well for us. earlier this week we heard a similar pattern from dillard's, jcpenney. we heard something different from macy's and walmart. the market seemed to focus on misses than retailers that are outperforming. the broader look, the american consumer or at least these three specific ones to spend money. if it is not happening now that is a worry. these three main reasons, unemployment close to record well with pretty cheap gasoline prices at the pump. third reason, wage growth, we got the data three weeks ago,

3.1%. we haven't seen wage growth in something like a decade. there are worries from analyst community and traders, people are not spending now, what will it take? we're coming up on the holiday season when most retailers get the bulk of their sales for the year. for some it is actually more than a third. all of those down. apple, if you like, one of the biggest fallers for the week, not right now. that is a mix i would say of tech and retail but that stock very much lower for the week. back to you, neil. neil: what an amazing story there. thank you, deirdre, very, very much. let's go on to another issue that could decide the market fortunes going forward here, only a few days away this g20 summit. here is what got tongues wagging about the potential. president of the united states and along with china's xi xinping will meet each other. there was a story at that reverse ad 200 point decline with the whole "brexit" worries, the blueprint cobbling together some sort of a trade deal or at

least the structure of one might be in the making. we might have been getting ahead of ourselves. blake burman did not. when we went to him at the white house positing it is a factor but no is dotted, certainly ts, crossed. that was the deal then. what is it not? blake, what are you hearing? reporter: this list was given by the chinese trade negotiators to the u.s. trade negotiators earlier this week what china might move on when it comes to trade reforms. what i can tell you today that list is broken down into three different categories. first what china is willing to negotiate on? secondly, what china is not willing to negotiate on, then third, no particular order here, what the two sides are discussing. as far as the discussions bo, one south close to the negotiations said to me today, look it is a good thing both side are talking. these are two major world superpowers. there are hundreds of billions of dollars in play here. so the discussions are good. however, it also has been

characterized to me not like there was any sort of breakthrough, here, a, the chinese gave the list and b, separated it the way they did as one source said, it is something china has been been talking about for years. one. only things changed with all of this, it was put down on paper. so you've to the this meeting in two weeks between president trump and president xi of china at the g20. with will come of the meeting we'll see of course, but as it relates today heading into it, there is no spiking the football, no ah-ha moment or real break through with trade and this list as of this moment, neil. neil: thank you, my friend. blake at the white house. what does all this mean potentially for a deal that could certainly move the markets that i like to reyou? nothing at least to my memory in the whole bull run through the presidency of donald trump has moved markets like the prospect of trade.

if it looks like deal to be had, and look they jump. if it looks like they're falling awry and tumble, you can almost time it. rich karlgaard signaled me on the promising for the china and united states and gary kaltbaum. a lot of people gloss over, they want this resolved, this impasse between the world's two biggest economies, the longer it drags on the worst for both of them, right? >> market popped 2 or 300 points as soon as the news came out. neil: absolutely. >> anytime it is not so the market dropping a few hundred. i actually think something will get done sooner rather than later. i say that for a couple reasons. number one i haven't sina roar row on the tv last week or two. neil: peter navarro their trade rep so to speak.

>> their hardcore guy, number one. number two, they're all seeing japan, germany, the engine of europe both had contracting quarters. our industrial production much less than expected. earnings guidance starting to head down not only for technology but we're seeing it in retail. china numbers, i don't even know what numbers they are. so i think everybody knows something better get done. when i speak to companies -- by the way we're seeing capital spending heading down with some companies because of tariffs also. so i think all the parties know at this point the longer this goes on the worst it can get. i'm pretty sure we're seeing the telegraphing of something getting done. i don't know if it will be big but just anything or something to move the needle and calm the waters a little bit. neil: rich, my view, to what gary was just saying is that trade has been dictating the course or at least the short-term, you know, ebbs and flows in the market. the devil is always in the

details of these trade matters. for example, we heard from bill pascrell from new jersey who will have a key role within house subcommittee of ways and means doesn't like what the presidentorg straighted with the mexicans and canadians, just because of talks doesn't mean you have a deal. leaving that aside, how important is it to you that the president come back from something in argentina from the g20 summit even if it isn't to write home about but it is something? >> i think it is hugely important. i think gary hit it right, perfect bullseye, peter navarro has been the bad actor. why this failed politician, mayoral candidate, socialist professor from university of california campus got to where he was to have president trump's ear i will never know but the fact that he went off the rails and caught, talked about the stench of gold mans saks. it is about time this clown has been sidelined.

neil: you guys hate italians in power. seems to me you both hate italians in power. seems like a very unfair but i digress. let me get your attention, guys what is happening on the treasury yield front. i just had this darn thing up here, so if you will indulge me. we've been watching the treasury closely because what goes out of stocks presumably goes into treasurys. gary, we're at 3.08%, which is a two-week low and i'm wondering what's going on with that and what you as an investor are to make and do with that. >> it is indicative money coming out of markets finding a place to park itself riskless. when have them in the threes when it used to be in the twos, it is easier to go buy these things. that is definitely what is going on. but i tell you, neil, the one area of the market i'm looking at when we talk about the income market, is general electric.

if that blows up, if they start going into junk bondland, that could roil the credit market and that could affect the stock markets also. we'll be watching that very closely over the next few because we're finding out what kind of leverage this company put themselves into over the years. it will be very important. leave no doubt, treasury yields coming down, tells you there is a slowdown at hand and tell its you people are getting away to buy the riskless and that is probably a good move now. neil: rich, a lot of people think ge, i used to work at cnbc and nbc i feel come pawed dryship because i can't believe what happened to this company. people look at all the investors fleeing and stock frittering away, but a lot of institutions are exposed to fe and fe debt and to say -- ge debt and how it

propped up a number of financial institution, without getting into the weeds, ge falling apart is kind of like a third world country falling apart. i don't think people appreciate the magnitude of that, do they? >> ge, i think we we look at tenure jack welch, doesn't look so good and he handed jeff a pretty impossible situation. don't forget in the early 90s's we said the same thing about ibm. there was talk about breaking up the ibm. the thing that matters is underlying economic growth. everything gets worse if this company falls back to 2% growth. if we stay 3% growth -- neil: ibm never bottom this bad, my friend and ibm never got this forlorn. doesn't mean there isn't other similarities. ge seem to be in

a much maligned camp. >> if you talk to lou gerstner, they were pretty close to bankruptcy for a while and it was pretty dire for ibm in the early '90s. neil: i always remember some of the other american staples that could never fall even in the face of new technologies, eastman kodak comes to mind. we're reminded there is no right that a company has to grandeur. i'm wondering what is playing out here is beyond a fix? or you know, other factors come in and save it? >> you know what the biggest worry is, neil? this is all happening in a low interest rate environment and a soaring economy. one ask as question, if we get out after soaring economy, have a real slowdown, then what happens? we talk about this word, i hate using it, but contagion. there is a lot of counterparty

risk in these things. a ton of paper owned by banks and lenders, all that. so you never know what the outcome will be. by the way we're not talking about a billion dollars here. we're talking about tens of billions of dollars. i want to bring it up when you brought up the income front. it is something that has to be looked at front and center. the good news the new ceo has come in. he is moving swiftly. he is trying to off some things. take down leverage and hope there will be much smaller going forward but hopefully intact. neil: we'll watch it closely, gary, thank you very much. rich, always good chatting with you. i liked the lou gerstner analogy. a lot of ge watchers are hoping that is the kind of comparison prevails. as both these gentlemen were talking, ge falls to the lowest close since 2009. more after this.

so, let's talk about conference calls. there's always a certain amount of fumbling. a lot of times it doesn't work. we have problems. comcast business goes beyond fast. by letting you make and receive calls from any device using your business line. and conference calls you can join without any dial-ins or pins. (phone) there are currently 3 members in this conference. i like that. i like that too. i would use that in a heartbeat. get started with innovative voice and tv solutions for a low price when you get fast, reliable internet. comcast business. beyond fast. comcast business. what if numbers tell onat t. rowe pricey? our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like e-commerce spurring cardboard demand. the pursuit of allergy-free peanuts. and mobile payment reaching new markets. this is strategic investing. because your investments

deserve the full story. t.rowe price. invest with confidence.

neil: there is a lot of counting of ballots in that. they want it resolved by next week, on the 20th. more to the point, ron desantis coming ahead in florida recount. that doesn't seem to be in doubt. what is the close battle is in the senate.

there they go back and forth within so-called margin of picking ballots by hand-era. go to fox business network's connell mcshane with latest. reporter: neil, one down, one to go on races we're following in national level at least in florida. to your point ron desantis declared victory. even though andrew gillum has not conceded it appears at this point desantis is poised to become the governor of the state. after they wrapped up the machine recount he had a lead of 34,000 votes. that is outside of the .25% that prompt as manuel recount. that should be that. the senate race is within that margin. it is not decided. the machine recount helped the republican scott, a very little bit. he added a grand total of 41 votes to his lead. that lead stands just over 12,600 votes. there are a couple of counties, broward and palm beach missed a deadline yesterday.

their totals reverted back to what they submitted on saturday. anyway we're moving into the manuel recount now. they're in the midst of it. the deadline is sunday. election officials are reviewing thousands of overvotes and undervotes. they're looking at ballots that maybe have too many selections or too few in the senate race. then they have to try to determine the intent of the voter which is where things can get interesting. if there is any silver lining this time around we do not have hanging chads to deal with. much markings on ballot, was the circle fill in for scott or nelson or filled in for both, you have to throw the ballot up. the state certifies the results of tuesday, next week, neil. just in time for thanksgiving we should be able to stop talking about florida unless a court steps in for some reason. we're on track to have the senate race decided by next week. neil: it is interesting the 700

or so ballots that narrowed differential between scott and the senator had to be dismissed because they came in two minutes late. so reverted back to the old lead. >> that was something. neil: that is bizarre. >> a lot of it is bizarre. broward county they were like two minutes late getting them n they said from the beginning, if you don't make the deadlines whether broward or palm beach with overheating machines, you remember that, if you don't make the deadlines we go back to where you were. they went back to saturday. it wouldn't have changed the lead in any way. we really know where we stand until all the undervotes and overvotes get counted. nelson is trying to get everything counted, not just under and overvotes. that could throw in a monkey wretch. we're on track to have it certified one way or the other by next week. neil: one more question. i was confused on this. 4,000 or so ballots, that were dismissed because signatures didn't match or something like that, even if nelson would get

all of those, right it wouldn't close the gap, right. >> he wouldn't get them all unless some kind of miracle. there would be a split percentagewide. those will be in by saturday. neil: yeah. >> the gap is 12,600. for all the back and forth, scott picked up 40 votes when they did the first recount. this is the process. you're underneath the percentage. you have to go through this. there are mistakes that happened. you go you there the process. there are court filings on both sides and by next tuesday we should have a winner. neil: thank you very, very much. connell mcshane. let's get a read on the house. quietly the democrats are adding more and more to the gain. looking like 36 seats now. could be 38 seats, hard to say. that is a little north what people were anticipating. democrats determined that they have a big ol' blue wave they have. the senate could be kind of like what it was before. go to "usa today" congressional

correspondent eliza collins on how republicans are reacting to that blue wave. it is definitely a blue wave. i mean i guess the matter becomes how big it gets in the house. what are you hearing? >> right. it might not be a blue tsunami, but it's a wave. they needed to flip as you said 23 seats. they will be near 40. that gives them more comfortable margin, tough votes come up. they can vote party lines and lose centrists and real progress serves likely pass legislation on party lines. that is a big deal for democrats. neil: certain committees you normally have to give party in power in someone seat edge, in some two sate edge. that is financial services and housewares and means. that is a big deal. >> those are powerful committees

in the senate it looked like a bad night. they picked up nevada. they lost three incumbents and of course florida, the republican was in the lead. but they did pick up arizona after election day. that is a huge deal because arizona is a red state. democrat has not held that since the '90s. his last election was in the0's. first woman. democrats are feeling a lot more confident coming out of election day than they were even with the wins on election night. neil: i didn't mean to throw something out of the blue for you. you seem to handle these questions flawlessly. let me ask you this. i was noticing the polls this year, not all of them, the trend they saw them a lot more accurate than 2016. i don't know whether they got their methodologies right, algorithms, whatever that stuff means that you follow better than i, what could that portend for 2020? if they did get their act together, were able to ledge sister knew autopsies in certain

districts or -- register nuances in certain districts or keep track of late swings in battleground states, i'm talking about states like wisconsin and minnesota and ohio, illinois, that, that could change the electoral math, and have a better gauge of it? >> right. there is no denying that the polls came out looking much better in 2018 than they did in 2016 though we do have to remember in 2016 the polling was correct or at least close to correct on the popular vote. remember hillary clinton did win on popular vote. neil: absolutely. >> just the electoral college where as this election it is easier to poll in a district or a state because you don't have to do the math of the electoral college. so we really don't know going into 2020, though pollsters did, i'm sure learn lots of lessons. they came out better this election. they will probably continue to take the lessons going into 2020. we're back in an electoral map.

just because you get the popular vote doesn't necessarily mean you win the presidency. neil: i'm so glad. even in 2016 we were focusing on polls, it looked at the national vote, they ended up to your point being quite accurate about that. that they got right for hillary clinton. what they failed to get is these phenomenon, swings that were happening in so many of those battleground states like pennsylvania and florida and certainly in ohio. they now seems to have much more of republican red tint. that was something they missed. they got the big, big, picture right, crucially about the election all about electoral votes, that they botched. >> right. in this election, there were some polls especially at the state level, some red state democrats lost their seats, lost pretty soundly. polling showed it really neck-and-neck. so polling did miss sort of some of the margins that these democrats ended up losing by but they were competitive. things change obviously. news moves people's decisions

and all of that, but certainly pollsters came out better this year than they did in 2016. neil: yeah. that was such a low bar. >> right. neil: just start out not failing right off the bat. thank you very, very much. good talking to you again. >> thanks, you too. neil: a lot of you wondered why is neil spending so much time going to a live theresa may press conference in britain. that might not have been riveting for but it has enormous implications for us. i will try to put those together right after this.

neil: we're hearing steve barclay is the new "brexit" secretary. how to go about formally separating from the rest of

europe. it has taken a long time, we're 2 1/2 years into this since the big vote that shocked the world. what is happening with that? go to gerard breaker, "wall street journal" at large. jerry baker soon to come to the network. >> pleasure to be here. neil: why did it take so long, jerry? >> there is formal legal process kicked off after britain's vote, there is a legal process which you have to fire the starting gun for leaving the eu that is a two-year process. they had two years since they started the firing gun. that will expire in march. britain has been, britain's economy and increasingly its government and its people have been locked into the european union 45 years. european union top court is the top court of the uk. all of the uk economic relationships it is all like,

the united kingdom is like a state of the united states. neil: never signed on the euro. >> that's true. neil: would i have thought this would spread this process up. >> i don't think the british government handled the negotiation very well. they could have taken a few lessons from donald trump to be honest with you. they went into the negotiation we want to do a deal, whatever happens we want to do a deal. we don't want to leave without a deal, because the depart sure date is march next year. that is fixed if there isn't agreement between the economic relationship between uk and eu before that date, britain will fall out of the eu, there will be tariffs. there will be no economic integration. it will be a very, messy messy

departure. neil: it would be messy for europe too so wouldn't they want to avoid that. >> europe needs the britain more than the uk. uk is important for europe but by no means the important one. there is asymmetry there. the problem, neil, the government went into this, saying whatever happens we got to do a deal. if you go into any negotiation, if i negotiate to buy the house, i start off at beginning i will buy your house at the end of this, that puts you in a strong position. neil: right. >> i'm telling you i won't walk away from any negotiation if i don't like the terms. that is what the british government did with the europeans. we'll get a deal come what may, forgive the pun, and that's where we are. unsurprisingly the europeans offered them very unfavorable deal and they will have to take it. neil: isn't it unseemly for the brits to take marching orders from european ministers who say, no, no?

>> yeah. the problem the british always had -- neil: down to fishing rights, england is surrounded by water. >> the problem the uk has had with the european union from the start, it is not dissimilar what a lot of people in this country feel about globalism, we should call it that. neil: right. >> britain, in 1973, britain joined as it was then the european economic community. it was basically a lose trading relationship which the british people voted to join in a referendum, affirmed the decision to join in a referendum because they thought it would be beneficial. they didn't sign up to have their borders essentially eliminated so that, be free immigration within the european union, whoever wanted to come to live in the uk. they didn't sign up to a single market where all of the uk rules on everything from services to products would all have to be in line and basically dictated by what the rest of the european union wanted. they didn't sign up for membership of a political union which is, the european union, as

we saw just this week with macron and merkel saying we should have a european army, the european union, for all of macron's denunciation of nationalism, what macron wants a european nation. he wants european nationism but he doesn't want british nationalism or american nationalism. neil: even trees -- theresa may was asked about is there another vote a do-over. is this falling apart? are there dots to connect here? >> i don't think it will affect many americans directly in terms of what may happen to their investments. neil: i guess what i meant, given the tough road that donald trump and republicans had in the midterms, is populism losing its luster? >> no, i don't think it is. if anything i think the opposite is the case. the problem that theresa may is running up against she tried to do a deal, as i said to you on the basis of going into these negotiations that i will do a

deal, whatever happens. so she is kind of given in to what most of the european union wants. that is leading to a backlash. there is a real probability, neil, that she won't get this deal through parliament. right now, significant number of her own conservative back benchers opposed it. the official labour party -- neil: none wants to rise up to say, all right, what about me? >> that is true nobody wants right now. if you know anyone wants to be prime minister of united kingdom time to put their name forward. nobody wants this job. they have to finish off the negotiation. it is unpopular. the plan has been for some time -- neil: she can survive until necessary march. >> march is the day that the uk leaves the european union. they look to the future relationship. this is just bad, a negotiation for britain to leave the eu on the terms britain will leave the eu once that is done in march, there will be a whole new set of negotiations what the long-term economic relationship will be with the european union. that is something like a fresh

start. everybody can say we're through. the uk is out. we can now have a fresh start in that relationship. and that will probably need a fresh political leader a fresh prime minister. neil: any preview to november 30th? >> very kind to ask me about it. a weekly show every friday evening. i will interview someone in the news. someone from business, ceos. policymakers. try to use the opportunity to dig a little deeper behind -- we will have a full half an hour or so to interview. we'll dig a little bit more deeply behind the issues of news of the day, the big trends changing, populism, nationalism, what is happening with technology, how technology is changing, how cult you are is changing. what is happening to jobs, the environment, our businesses. i again want an opportunity to sit down with some very thoughtful people, business leaderss political leaders from here, mostly in the united states, also around the world, get a sense how our world is

changing and how it affects ordinary americans. neil: look forward to it. one thing i learned about gerry baker, folks, maria and i did a debate with him, he does his homework. hard to keep up, so exacting, the question had to be worded just right to avoid wig bill room. i learned a lot. maria learned a lot. he is a pain in the neck in that sense. you the viewer will appreciate it. he gets way beyond the headlines. he is connected with everyone. they all respect him for good reason. he does his homework. >> do i have to pay you now for that or later? neil: now is preferrable. there is a guy named vinnie behind you to make sure you do. >> i'm not sure how much cash i got. neil: charge cards. don't forget that on november 30th. keeping track of a couple other developments. interest rates are getting lower in the middle of all of this even with the market up. why is that and what is the market betting on as we surge here? they might pull out a good gain for today, that is the stock

market. man, this is one of the worst weeks we've seen in at least three. we'll have more after this. you're watching fox business. ♪

neil: anytime there is positive news regarding china and united states on a potential trade deal to be had or at least the construct of one, it just happened again. the president saying, we'll get a pool spray very soon, he wants to make a deal on trade, but one is not acceptable yet. goes on to say the u.s. may not have to impose further tariffs on china. signaling, my view on that, there might not be a need to. the president hopes the u.s. will make a deal with china but has to have reciprocal trade. none in of themselves changes overall thinking that we're at impasse at g20 summit. both leaders meet in argentina for that. the president is going to be

sitting down with xi xinping of china but it is yet another reminder, if we need it here, that anytime you have some promising developments, it reverses what is otherwise a listless market. look at that from the point that was announced and then boom, there you go. we're following that. boom is a technical term by the way for those that don't know. we reversed as gary kaltbaum of up 170 points. president what he will do about the california wildfires, he is visiting the region this weekend. there are reports that the electric giant pg&e faces $15 billion in damages. a the who have people want to know what it knew and when it knew it about potential problems it might have caused. there is no proof of any of that. of course pg&e is focus of those investigations. from the information institute, michael barry. good to have you back. >> good to be here, neil. neil: this is costly beyond all the tragedy but i'm told it

could be the costliest for insurance companies. is that true? >> it is possible because we're talking -- first of off the loss of life is just extraordinary. we're talking about a grim record that held in 85 years in california. now the camp fire, the latest death toll of this morning from that event was 63 lives. still hundreds of people unaccounted for. death toll three down in the woolsey fire. when you talk about now the insurance implications, we're talking billions of dollars. we're talking about homeowners insurance, auto claims, businesses that were destroyed or are not going to be able to operate for a long time. yes, it is in the billions of dollars, both events combined. neil: a lot of people look for culprits in this. there were reports that pg&e was aware of sparks of some of its equipment. i don't know what's what. it is hard to reconstruct a lot of this especially now when the focus should be on people.

what do you make of that? what did they piece together after the fact, even insurers say, if a company might, might, be a culprit or among them? >> this is getting worked out often times in the courts. this was a big top i can of discussion for a big reason, california state legislature. utilities wanted to see liabilities they had financial wherewithal to pay if they were in fact found to be liable. what do insurers look at? they see themselves economic first-responders. look at butte county and ventura and los angeles counties, in california if you're under a mandatory evacuation and even if you incurred no damage you're entitled to additional living expenses. a lot of talk about butte county, mobile catastrophe vans a lot of insurers have there.

on the spot they're getting debit cards with thousands of dollars with additional living expenses. this has people helping with additional housing. this will enable them to rent cars. right now from insurers perspective, i don't think they're focusing what caused it. they're focusing on responding to consumers needs. there are a lot of them right now. neil: michael barry, thank you very much. catching up on the insurance side. market up session highs of up 184 points. on renewed talk, talk is looking promising on a deal with china. nowhere near one but a hint is enough to send buyers out. nah. not gonna happen.

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. 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. neil: all right. we're going to be getting so-called pool spray out of the

white house where the president commented on not only mueller investigation, but important to a lot of financial viewers commenting about trade. that was enough to propel the dow up 200 points here. he is not threatening additional tariffs on china. that in of itself is remarkable development. he was getting rather impatient with the chinese, that he is holding off here we're told, could be a sign they're making progress on a broad construct of a deal maybe at the g20 summit that happens in china next week. the president seems to be signaling there are promising signs. let's go. reporter: mr. president, make comment on the cnn ruling? >> no. peeve have to behave. we're writings up rules and regulations. i think you were treated very unfairly. i think both of you were treated unfairly because you have

somebody interrupting you. if they don't listen to the rules and regulations we'll end up back in court and we'll win. but more importantly, we'll just leave. and then you won't be very happy. we do get good ratings. >> you are talking about rules and regulations, what do you mean? >> decorum and you can't take three questions, four questions, not sit down. tough practice decorum. you were there, you understood and understand, we want total freedom of the press. more important to me than anybody would believe but you have to act with respect. you're in the white house. and when i see the way some of my people get treat treated at press conferences it is terrible. we're setting up certain standard which is what the court is asking. always freedom of press, always first amendment, but that is the way it is. we always have the option of just leaving you know. we feel that, things are aren't

being treated properly, that people are not being treated properly, we always have the right to leave. i think the other media, the other press in the room will not be very happy if that happens, but i have instructedded my people, when they're not treated properly, you have the right to just leave anytime you want. [inaudible] reporter: china gave response to trade request. have you seen that response. are you pleased with it? >> did you say china? >> tell me what their response was? >> response of 142 items. >> china wants to make a deal. as you know, jeff, china wants to make a deal. they sent a list of things that they're willing to do, which was a large list. and, just not acceptable to me yet but at some point, i think we are doing extremely well with respect to china. i have a great respect for president xi. i have a great respect for china. china is taking advantage of the

united states for many, many years. ron johnson knows that, maybe better than anybody, because ron is a big believer in what i'm doing and i think that, they're going to come in and we're going to either open up china, make it fair. it is not fair right now. they do very little business with them and which do a lot of business -- just can't be. plus they have tremendous barriers. they have tremendous tariffs on us that we didn't have on them but that's all changed now. we put on tariffs of $250 billion worth of goods. we have another worth of 267 billion to go if we want to. we may not have to do that. china would like to make a deal. our country has done very well. china as you know has not done very well. they have been down 30, 32%. they have been down very substantially. we have helped create china as we know it today. by allowing money to be sucked out of our country by the billions.

$500 billion a year in many cases over a long period of time and we can't allow that to happen. i think we will have a great relationship with china. hopefully we'll make a deal. if we don't, we're doing very well just the way it is right now. we have tariffs coming in on $250 billion worth of goods and these are, we're talking about billions and billions of dollars a month will flow into our country. there is already started flowing into our country, that comes from china. so china has never been put in this position. i don't want to put them in a bad position. i want to put them in a great position. but it is called reciprocal. we have to have reciprocal. we can't have trade meant for stupid people and that is the way they took advantage of our country. we don't have that anymore. and think understand that. i think a deal will be made. we'll find out very soon. [shouting questions] reporter: the list that they submitted do you think it goes

far enough or are you happy with the list? >> it's a pretty complete list. there are a lot of things which asked for. four or five big things left off i think we'll probably get them too. as you know it's a complete list. it is 142 items. that is a lot of items. okay? thank you very much, everybody. >> thanks. thank you. reporter: one more, mr. president you on twitter yesterday seemed a bit agitated when you might be receiving mueller investigation? >> i'm not agitated. the whole thing was hoax. there was no collusion. reporter: did anything trigger the tweet? >> no, i'm very happy with the white house. i'm extremely happy with our white house. we're doing better with the occur money. it may be the best economy we ever had. it may be the best employment numbers than we ever had. more people working in the united states at this moment have ever worked in the united states by far, by far. i'm extremely happy. i'm very happy.

with, almost all of my cabinet. and, you know, changes are made because they're always made especially after midterms. it is all fake news. it is, i'm thrilled with the way the country is going. on foreign we're doing very well. we're making trade deals. we made a deal with mexico. we made a deal with canada. we made a deal with south korea that are phenominal deals. they were horrible deals before. reporter: you seemed unhappy with the mueller investigation particularly yesterday? >> it is continuation. you could go -- there should have never been any mueller investigation because there was never anything done wrong. there was no collusion. there never has been. you would have known about it a long time ago if there was. there was nothing -- they enough never had it. they wasted millions and millions of dollars. should never been a so-called investigation. which in theory it is not an investigation of me. but it is, as far as i'm concerned, i like to take everything personally because you do better that way. the, the witch-hunt as i call it should never have taken place it

continues to go on. i imagine it is ending now but from what i hear it is ending and, i'm sure it will be just fine. you know why it is going to be just fine? because there was no collusion. the fact i was a much better candidate than hillary clinton. i went to the right states. she went to the wrong states. she was not a good campaigner. obviously i campaigned very well and i easily won the election and electoral college. 306 to 223. that is a big difference. reporter: did you provide answers, sir? >> about what? reporter: special counsel. >> my lawyers are working on it. i write the answers. my lawyers don't write answers. i write answers. i was asked a series of questions. i answered them very easily. very easily. i'm sure they are tricked up. they like to trick people was the weather sunny or rainy. he said it may have been a good day. it was raining, therefore he

told a lie, therefore perjured himself. you have to always be careful to answer questions from people that probably have bad intentions. no it is, the questions were very routinely answered by me. by me. okay? reporter: special counsel? >> to the special counsel? reporter: you submitted answers? >> i haven't submitted them. we just finished them. as you know i've been a little busy. we were in europe. working on various deals. we finish the usmca, look at that deal, one of the great trade deals. you'll sigh. you can see how happy our farmers are. we've done a lot of work in last period of time. we've been very busy. it was hard find time. they were my answers. i don't need lawyers to do them. you need lawyers to go over some of the answers. they were not very difficult questions. thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> thank you for having us. [inaudible]. neil: always stick on this. , always a possibility something comes up. we told you something spurred markets so-called promising development. a long way from so-called formal structural development with the on going china talks. the president said in that regard he wants to make a deal on trade. one is not but to telegraph his intentions, he is saying the u.s. may not have to impose further tariffs on china. there had been talk earlier in the week the president was ready to up the ante. i don't know how much further you can up the ante since it now involves virtually all goods china brings into this country. anyway, he's not anticipating that, which could be a sign from some in the administration they will hold their fire in that the chinese offer something in return or at least the construct

of a deal. the president says hopefully the u.s. will make a deal with china, but the u.s. has to have reciprocal trade. this is one of these issues that every time there's progress, stocks move up, we reverse what had been sort of a flat type of performance in the dow by 170, 180 points, now about 156 points up on the dow. some of the big multinationals that would really see their fortune hinge to a deal with china saw an uptick in stock prices. we are following all that, getting a read from all this with key folks. the dow jones news wires chief editor glenn hall, economist heidi lerner and last but not least, charlie gasparino. glenn, if i can begin with you, you need a deal before you can celebrate a deal, but wall street looks to celebrate even hints of one. it is remarkable how this china thing is dominating trading. >> but not that surprising

because the impact can be severe as well. trading down when there's the threat that it's not going to happen so it makes sense they will trade up when there's opportunity to see optimism. the president made it sound like they're getting closer, made it sound like china has given up a few things but not enough things, and he expects them to continue until he's happy. that's how he presented that to the market. neil: right. heidi, i'm reminded, even deals that he has scored with the mexicans and canadians are not done deals, especially when someone like new jersey congressman bill pascrell, who will have a key role in the house ways and means, says this doesn't pass muster with me. i'm simplifying but what do you make of that and the resistance on any of these deals the president could face in congress? >> i think he will face an uphill battle and i think the jury is still out. he gave a little bit of hint of what we could see, but i think there still is some risk if we don't see more progress at seeing the 25% tariffs come january 1.

neil: you know, has peter navarro been sidelined on all of this? did someone put him in the trunk of a car? >> i get the feeling, i haven't spoken with peter in awhile, but i get the feeling he's on the way out. just the noise i'm hearing out of washington, and he as you know -- neil: larry kudlow. >> right. he's the trade hawk of the administration. he's the guy that put china, the menace of china, on the map. i think he did a great service with that. i didn't realize how pernicious china could be on trade and stealing intellectual property until i started interacting with peter. i don't agree with all peter's sort of philosophies and i think that's the problem that he's got. it's clear that the economy on trade war is going to sell off and the markets are going to sell off. it's clear that that is a political problem, particularly going to 2020, for the president and if the markets really sell off. and i guess, you know, thread the needle is the best way to

put it between taking a very tough stance with china and not going full bore protectionist against everybody else is something that peter navarro has a hard time doing. he's a blunt instrument. i think that's why he's probably going -- listen, i know the president apparently likes him a lot, and he's a very likeable guy. he fights for turf in there like everybody else. but you know, i can't see him surviving because this trade thing, unless you get it just right, it's going to screw up the economy. i'm not saying don't go after china. we get that. intellectual property, should focus on intellectual property. but the sort of notion we should go into a tariff war with china is clearly not good for the markets. neil: any hints of promising developments changes the market sentiment. i noticed that even with brexit, yesterday morning of course the markets were panicking, tlhere' going to be a european bludgeoning. what do you make of that? >> the brexit chance is starting

to soften this morning. it didn't look like theresa may was going to lose all the support within her cabinet. that was a tempering moment for the markets. it looked like it was going to be worse. that's what we have been seeing with trade talks as well. a hint we are getting closer to a deal which is what the president provided, provides a little bit of stability. you are also seeing generally that there is a tilt towards a slowdown. you are seeing people getting out of tech stocks and moving into more slowdown resistant areas like consumer staples. we are seeing signs. >> that is a scary thing that even with this trade stuff that's already baked in, the economy could be slowing down. like we had the sugar high from the corporate tax cuts, and i always worried about that because, you know, they do stock buy-backs, they don't do the economic sort of fiscal stimulus stuff in large part. >> it's a one-time thing. >> so if the deficit balloons out because we don't get 3.5% consistent growth, you are going

to get higher interest rates and then plus you get this trade stuff, and that's why i think peter -- neil: that could be a one-two whammy. already, larry summers has said he thinks the odds are building for a 2020 recession. i would think by then maybe we are two for one, who knows. what are your thoughts? >> i think you are starting to see, as you suggested a natural slowing in the economy and this new wave of trade protectionism could really accelerate what already seems to be a cresting. neil: what if the president succeeds on all fronts trying to get some barriers broken down? would the effect be immediate? we would really have to get under the hood and -- >> it would be almost immediate. you are already seeing inventories beginning to stockpi stockpile, at ports, for example, and people are trying to calculate the potential impact and i think everyone loses. certainly consumers lose. neil: if the president wins on this, it's a different world, right? >> he wins, but what does he

win? i think it will be a pyrrhic victory. >> my guess is larry kudlow is making the point you are making right now to the president, saying listen, the economy shows it's growing but showing some signs of slowing, and you look at inventories and all the microthings, but if you engage in a full-fledged trade war with china, that could be it for 2020. i just know larry. he's got to be saying that. watch what happens with peter navarro. neil: i'm told they were shocked that they didn't get more bang for the buck in the midterms and mitigate the house losses. >> that also plays into the trade war issue. all these treaties once negotiated have to work their way through congress. neil: i guess what i'm saying, they were surprised, the good economy didn't help them more. >> i think they focused too little on the robustness of the economy. we have the 3.7% unemployment

rate, we now have average hourly earnings growth of 3.1%. there's a lot to celebrate there. neil: what does that say about republicans, though? you know, this economy and its strength, inarguable they get more bang for the buck. >> i think they focus too much on other issues, whether it be immigration or -- >> i think the economy is not good enough to overshadow some of the negatives that came -- neil: what do you think -- >> with suburban women -- neil: we will make you the expert. >> just from what i'm hearing, you can feel free to jump in here -- neil: suburban angry italian men. >> suburban women i speak to who are naturally right of center, that means nominally republican, are repulsed by a lot of trump's antics. even with the economy growing the way it's growing, they may

like that but it wasn't enough to overshadow the other stuff. >> it's necessary but not sufficient. i think if they had focused solely on -- neil: very well worded. >> thank you. neil: i'm going to steal that one. >> if they focused on the economic message they might have had more success. neil: if i'm donald trump, i'm worried going into 2020 that my biggest theme isn't generating more response. i know it's different in the midterm versus presidential election, but in those battleground states where it's very, very close, he could be in trouble in pennsylvania. not so much in ohio, but he could be in trouble in wisconsin and give back the very electoral votes that made him president. >> it raises a real possibility that he tries to work out a deal with whoever ends up being speaker of the house on a big infrastructure stimulus. neil: there, he has more in common with democrats. >> republicans will block that. i'm telling you, i know inside

the republican party there's a lot of nervousness about this issue of right-leaning women, suburban women who bolted from the party. i was speaking with people, they were doing an autopsy after they lost the governorship of connecticut, and he lost by a 1% margin to a guy, democratic state, but democratic party has screwed up the state. if there was ever a time where a republican could win, it was that, and white suburban women did not vote in enough numbers for him. neil: look at this. this is interesting. pennsylvania, 20 electoral votes. michigan, 16. wisconsin, 10. the president polls badly in all three states right now. i'm adding up the electoral votes there. that's 36, 46, that would close the deal for democrats. >> that's it. >> it's too soon to go there. neil: absolutely. i only hasten to add that it's wins in these states, they were fairly close.

i can't see the states he lost, he suddenly wins. that might happen. but i'm just saying, if you are a democrat, you are looking at these midterms and looking at what happened despite sort of these other developments, they have got to reframe some things. maybe trade is one of them. >> again, at the margins we have to look at who this really helps. if you look at the retailers in the performance this week, for example, they are already seeing some pressure in the margins, and you have to think -- neil: even raising prices. >> but they're not going to be able to pass through -- neil: i have a feeling it's going to be a boffo holiday shopping season. >> maybe it is, but it's often good when times aren't that great. one more thing. i just wonder, listen, i think donald trump has to hope for 3.5% growth consistently to overshadow -- neil: that's not going to happen. >> -- the toxicity he's built into his -- by the way -- neil: it's a natural slowdown.

so i don't know if we will see -- >> listen, i know donald personally. neil: just looking at the math. >> it's a little different. when you know him personally, you know he's really not like this in person. never was with me. i always found him to be kind of a warm guy in different ways. but the image he built on the campaign trail, you know, you just take a couple snippets, the thing with the epileptic reporter, making fun of people's wives, applauding the senator who beat up the reporter, that sort of stuff lingers and creates an image. congressman. it will be hard to overcome that. i'm telling you. neil: i don't want to -- i guess i'm just more looking at these dynamics from the trade thing. is it your sense resolving this to charlie's point about peter

navarro, getting him sidelined because he got in the way of that, resolving all these trade disputes, all these countries, we are down to china now, it's the biggest, is in his own interest? >> definitely in his own interest if he wants to see the success of his party and certainly if he wants to see another nomination. neil: what if it's a namby-pamby deal? >> if he's changed the dynamic in any way, he's going to be able to claim victory for the american people. he will be able to point to some level of job creation. neil: are you saying the president of the united states would overbloat the deal to make it look better than it was? >> i'm saying that's just good politics. >> wouldn't the markets applaud that? >> they probably would. >> you know, they were back to doing business with china, markets go up on that, right? >> they would. you look at the usmca as an example. it isn't that fundamentally different from nafta. neil: do you like that name or would you stick with nafta? >> i would have stuck with

nafta. >> my dad was a marine. >> when i heard mca -- >> yeah. i knew you were going to go there. neil: thank you all very much. we are up about 100 points and obviously glenn touched on it. if you have any doubt that trades and its fortunes will dictate at least the near-term movement of these markets, it's proved today. keep an eye on this. markets are waiting for some sort of deal. at least the construct of one will be scored next week in argentina, even if the two leaders don't necessarily sign off on one. just the talk alone, they're well on their way. these markets could soar. the question then is for how long? then you got to get under the hood.

sometimes, they just drop in. obvious. cme group can help you navigate risks and capture opportunities. we enable you to reach global markets and drive forward with broader possibilities. cme group - how the world advances. ♪

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions 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.

neil: i don't like to brag but we have some of the best financial players and followers on the planet here at fox business. that's why i would say very early on, if you don't get fox business, you should demand fox business. one of the reasons is charlie brady. he does a lot of things but no one knows the financial

mechanics of the market better so when you want to get a sense of what these trade rumors are doing, it's one thing to say all right, stocks are up. but charlie goes one bit further. he starts taking apart not only dow and other big related issues and some of the major indices, but the real players who could directly benefit and this is a fascinating sort of portrayal of some of them. these are all stocks whose fortunes would dramatically improve barring congressional approval a deal with china. they include tyson foods and the food arena, nike, you have intel, of course, in chips. we are rifling through some of these. hormel, apple, caterpillar. as we continue going through these, it's a good reminder not only to see how smart charlie is, but how far and wide this spreads, beyond just financial companies or someone like boeing that builds a lot of planes and has china ordering a lot of those planes. it spreads to food, you know, to

chips, to even consumer companies, procter & gamble and as i said, hormel foods. you realize this cuts across a variety of industries. just among those stocks, i think i mentioned seven of the 11 s&p sectors we follow. so that's a very good reminder to you how crucial this is to some of these stocks, many of whom have gotten bad. intel a good reminder there. they could see that just reverse knowing its prospects with china are looking more favorable. let's get a read from -- on this and from all this to franceska chambers. people are hoping. what do you think? reporter: people are excited. you are absolutely right. it sent the dow surging even though the president didn't really say anything we didn't already know which is he plans to meet at the g-20 with xi jinping, that he really wants a deal, that china also really wants a deal and he hopes one

can work out. that's basically where we have been for the past month. neil: let me switch to politics, if you will indulge me. i skip around like a crazy professor. the manual recount continues to go on in the florida senate race. it looks like it would be tough for senator nelson to reverse that 14,000 or so ballot disadvantage he's at right now. i'm not aware of the newest lawsuits and all, but is it your sense and is it the administration's sense at least that battle looks close to resolved, as does the governor's battle? reporter: well, the white house has been saying that it does feel good about this and you will recall that last week, president trump declared victory at his news conference and he said that he's one of the only presidents who has been able m come in after a midterm election and improve his position. it would require him to -- for the gop to win a senate race to be improved. we know kyrsten sinema has won the seat in arizona so the

president saying he could expand his majority in the senate but would need this senate seat in order to be able to do that. neil: is there sort of a reality that's hitting the white house now that they survived the midterms, i don't know what the definition of a blue wave is, but at close to 36, 38 seats, whatever it is now, and it could go higher, that's a pretty substantial gain, and if it comes to a draw in some of these contests, including the one in arizona, you mentioned, that could leave the senate kind of like it is now, net-net, what are they saying about that? reporter: their position is that this wasn't a quote, shellacking after barack obama said after his first midterm because they kept the senate and originally thought they were going to expand their majority. but you have to remember that after barack obama's first midterm election, it's true that his party lost a lot more seats in the house. but they did lose the house, just like president trump. it was after that that his party went on to lose the united

states senate. so we just don't know yet whether in the next election, how this would play out for the gop and whether he would end up in roughly a similar position as president obama did. neil: we will watch closely. i would be remiss, this jim acosta thing that was resolved by the judge, doesn't look like the president will fight that. he wants good behavior. how do you think it will all go in the next press session? reporter: it hasn't been entirely resolved because this was just over the injunction to get jim acosta's press pass restored. this wasn't a ruling on the underlying case. that's important to point out. however, it could be that the white house or cnn decides this is good enough and decides not to continue fighting this battle in court. we just don't know the answer to that either yet. neil: i don't want you to give away colleagues' secrets but how do they feel about this? they obviously, it wasn't as if all cnn reporters were targeted, he was for his unruly behavior. that's the president's claim. it doesn't go away. is there concern that everyone's got to be on best behavior or

that, you know, he's got to be, you know, behaving a little better? reporter: i can't speak on behalf of other reporters, but what i can point you to are the statements that have been put out by the white house correspondents association, but also among other news organizations, including fox, that stood in solidarity with jim acosta because reporters and their news organizations drew a red line at taking away press passes. neil: all right. well said. diplomatically pointed out. the state department beckons with those very, very clear, cautious responses. thank you very, very much. reporter: thank you. neil: all right, looking at the markets right now, talk of making progress on trade with china is very, very different than having a deal with china. we shall see. nce that won't replace the full value of your new car? you'd be better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement,

we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

neil: all right. well, two different deals, two

different possible outcomes, because neither are deals for the time being. we are talking about one with china that could happen, and one on brexit that hasn't yet happened. brooking global economy and development senior fellow douglas redesker, good to have you. what is your sense on the china whisperings we are getting and how important they are? >> look, i think this is all noise. i don't think much of it is is signal. we all know president trump and president xi are going to meet. we know there's going to be some sort of positive outcome of that meeting and we also all know it's probably going to be a lot more theater than it is substance. that's the good case. so the good case is that agree there will be some sort of high level working group. they agree there's some sort of framework. that's the best case you can expect. these things are very complicated. there is no staff work that's been done to actually assume there's going to be anything more than that. i would take it one step further.

the fundamental schism, what the u.s. thinks china's economy should look like and what china thinks china's economy should look like isn't going to be resolved in the next couple of years. neil: we always wonder what the fallout will be if they leave argentina with not even the construct of a return to talks, because the markets jump on just the most remote chance things are improving. >> yeah, i think that's the low probability case. i think president trump in agreeing to meet with president xi, there's got to be an expectation that there's some announcement of success. how you define that success is an enormously flexible concept. i think walking away and saying we couldn't even agree to the framework for future talks, i think that's a low probability outcome. what i'm really looking for is whether bob lighthizer is personally identified by president trump as the guy to lead negotiations forward.

if you see that, then to me, that's meaningful progress. if it's stephen mnuchin or anybody else that's less progress, because i don't think they have been shown to be able to deliver the administration in the past and the chinese know it so the negotiations won't really be all that fruitful. if they pick lighthizer and put him on the spot and identify him by name, that's probably the best progress you can see. neil: what if the appearance of peter navarro, the sort of orchestrator, that he's been sidelined has proven true? >> well, so if navarro is sidelined, first of all, we have seen this story before, where people are sidelined and come back some weeks or months later. i wouldn't rule that as a definitive casting out. but even if that's true, you still end up with a fundamental disconnect between the ask of the u.s. on a number of different issues and what the chinese are willing to give. that's why i said i think lighthizer getting involved is important, because that's where

trade deals are really important. they are all about the detail, they are all about the text that nobody wants to take the time to read. that's what ustr and lighthizer's job is, to get into the details. so again, i think navarro is much more of a bomb thrower. the fact that he's out of the mix at least temporarily is probably a positive sign. but you know, on the same token, until you get into the is and ts dots and crossing, i just don't think we should expect any substance. having said that, i just want to raise something. there's this ambiguity about this january 1, are these new tariffs or tariffs that are built into what's already been announced? i'm not sure we know whether it includes the 25% or whether that's considered already baked in. neil: i'm not sure the administration knows. >> precisely. neil: okay. thank you, my friend, very much. we will follow this very, very

closely and have more on this as soon as we get more details on this. to doug's point, very scant, very few details becoming available. meanwhile, we will give you the latest on the wildfires out of california. pg & e stock, the big utility player that is in the middle of this, some saying it's even a culprit in this, no way to prove that, we do know the stock is up almost 40% as some of the bankruptcy fears that were rampant yesterday have eased considerably. after this.

♪ ♪ put your data to work on the cloud that drives business. the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business.

neil: all right. president trump is scheduled to visit california tomorrow. we will be covering that live on "cavuto live" tomorrow morning. both ahead of his getting there and the impact of his being there. what we know are 63 deaths so far but 600 now considered missing. that was up dramatically. let's go to our correspondent in malibu with the latest.

hey, jeff. reporter: it's sort of in the preliminary rebuilding phases here in southern california for the woolsey fire, but the damages are far and wide, as we take a look over here. you can kind of see what was once a patio table, not really recognizable anymore. the chairs pretty much burned out. a lot of the people are starting to be returned home and when they pull into the driveway they find that they have lost everything. take a look at this house over here. all the walls burned to the ground, nothing really recognizable except for some of the items back here in the patio as we walk a little more over here. you can just see what the heat did from this fire, melting the patio chairs. as we mentioned, more and more people are starting to return home and when they come home, they start to find scenes like this. that's part of the reason why firefighters are limiting the number of people that they are allowing back into some of these damaged areas. we spoke with one firefighter about that frustration. take a listen to his message to some of those residents. >> we understand the

frustration. we have a lot of empathy. we know that they're not going to be able to, you know, see their homes and when they do come, it's not going to be, for a lot of people, it can be a very sad sight. reporter: further notes from where we are, the camp fire continues to cause havoc. more than 600 people right now considered unaccounted for and the death toll which stands at 63, likely to rise as they begin to identify more of the remains. they brought in some dna mobile labs to help out with that and in some cases, are using prosthetic legs and arms and dental records to just try to identify some of the remains to give families closure. the other side of this story up there, 52,000 people right now without homes, 10,000 structures destroyed up there at the camp fire. so the devastation up there, far and wide. it will take a long time to get these people back on to their feet. neil: jeff paul, thank you very much. pg & e, very big utility player

out there, is rebounding after just sinking like a rock on concerns that it was going to be targeted. targeted as a culprit behind the flames. it might be too soon to judge either way. nevertheless, the stock rebounding today for a variety of reasons. to stanford university law professor, here to help us with it. professor, very good to have you. i think the fear was among those utility shareholders is that the company would be targeted as being the primary culprit for the fire. there's no way of knowing that one way or the other. but what is your sense of where it stands right now? it just seems too early to point fingers one way or the other, but your thoughts. >> i think there is circumstantial evidence that the company's assets may have been experiencing problems at the time and place that the fire started, and that's where the impacts on the share price really have been, what they have been driven by.

at the same time, yesterday we saw a rebound in shares after market when the cpuc, public utility commission in california, stepped forward to say that they were focused on the issue, that they didn't want to see the utility go bankrupt and they were prepared to take at least some steps, the steps within their power, to try to prevent that eventuality and limit impacts on shareholders. neil: you know, maybe you can help me with this, but there were reports anecdotal maybe, maybe more than anecdotal, you would know better than i, that the company was getting complaints and calls about equipment that was sending up sparks and that sort of thing. do we know the legitimacy of any of those stories? >> well, there was a transmission line, there are multiple transmission lines in the area where the fire started. one of them was experiencing problems prior to the fire, and the company had contacted some of the land owners over which the line passed to let them know that they would be working on the line. apparently, the line in question

that was faulting prior to the fire had already been deenergized according to pg & e. however, pg & e also filed effectively an official report with the public utility commission indicating that another transmission line, one of the other lines that exists near the site of the fire, did experience some sort of a fault or short really 15 minutes before the fire was first detected. so that's an indicator that there was a hot wire that may have had a problem at the time. we won't know, though, for some time whether that was the cause of the fire or that was actually caused by the fire. that remains to be seen. neil: it does seem like a big step-back moment to look at our grid, though, whether they had anything to do with it or not and that's always come up around the country as something, you talk about infrastructure spending, that is due, it's to address our grid. >> i think that's right. particularly for california,

where we have a very kind of tinder-dry state for a variety of reasons. multi-year droughts over the last decade, the impact of climate change. i think it's a time to really evaluate what resilience means and how we can invest in the infrastructure to make it stronger and safer for the communities that it serves. and this is definitely a wake-up call for investors, right, this is simply not a big enough business to absorb these kinds of losses year on year, if they are in fact attributed to the company, and so it's going to be definitely a time for the state and hopefully for the country to be thinking about how to better invest in a system to make it -- to harden it but also to make it safer for customers. neil: i think you echoed something that goes way, way beyond politics and rightfully so. professor, thank you very much. very good having you. >> my pleasure.

thanks for having me on. neil: jamie dimon, jpmorgan, saying 2019 could be a really good year. how is the fastest global growth on record year sound? after this. [ phone rings ] what?!

ready for 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.

yeah, i've had some prettyeer. prestigious jobs over the years. news producer, executive transport manager, and a beverage distribution supervisor. now i'm a director at a security software firm. wow, you've been at it a long time. thing is, i like working. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪

the year 2019 still may, and the imf was in both of those, i think, still may be one of the fastest global growth years on record, and america which is a big part of the global economy, is growing at 3% plus, and it's just powering through. people coming back to the work force, wages are going up, companies are spending more on capital expenditures, confidence is very high. neil: all right. that's jamie dimon of jpmorgan. remember that's the same company that warren buffett's berkshire hathaway has a $4 million investment and he added to that. let's get the read from market watcher jim lecamp, a similarly financial astute brain. you're looking at this and hearing jamie dimon, one of the most respected financial ceos on the planet saying i don't know, i heard all this talk about slowdown but i don't see it happening next year. do you agree? >> well, he's clearly not

looking at the same data i'm looking at. i hope he's right and i'm wrong, but i don't think so. because when you look at german growth in the last gdp quarter, you look at italian, japan, all the growth, the gdp price we are getting around the world is already showing deceleration. if you look at any of the growth rates for the g-7 countries, the developed markets, the emerging markets, they are all projecting at a little less rate next year than this year. you will still have growth but you are seeing deceleration everywhere. not to mention the soft data which are all the surveys, purchasing manager surveys, manufacturing surveys and the hard data, both of them are showing deceleration at an increasing rate. so i don't know what he's looking at. we are still expecting growth. i'm still seeing growth not only here but around the world, but we're not accelerating. we are decelerating and there's real concerns if we don't get these trade wars taken care of, that this deceleration will accelerate. neil: i like the way you explain it. deceleration will accelerate. there is some truth to that.

i'm wondering how important it is, then, to score a deal or at least the construct of a deal with china, to you. >> it's really important. what we have seen, particularly with a lot of the technology companies, is that so many imports we have done in this country have been front-loading to avoid the tariffs. what that does is it leaves a void in the future, and if we continue to see these tariffs build up, these talks build up, hopefully they are getting better, i hope they will get solved but there's so much uncertainty we hear from these business owners. jamie dimon talked about core capital expenditures. lot of that was in the oil patch. i don't know if you have seen oil prices lately. it doesn't suggest that they are going to ramp up spending from here. so i think there are a lot of issues that are not really showing up in the data yet but will show up, and the uncertainty around these trade talks will only make things worse. we are already seeing some of it show up in the supply chain. it's not terrible yet, but it will only get worse if we don't

get resolution. neil: you know, real quickly on oil, and the collapse in prices, i was looking at the half full glass, maybe naively, that that frees up more money for consumers, for shoppers particularly this holiday season. that's a net-net good. i quite understand the impact it's going to have on the industry even here in this country, but for most others, saving that money at the pump and oil prices and the rest, that could be the beginning of an economic boom or am i naive? >> no, i think you have it right, neil. look, it's a muddier picture with oil than it used to be because it was a big source of our job creation in this country, particularly on the mining sector, big source of our capital expenditures. on the other hand, net-net, it does put more money in the pockets, it does make input prices cheaper. it's a positive for the economy. so the other thing i want to point out here, i don't want to sound too negative, because we have never gone into a recession with consumption on the increase and consumption is on the

increase in the united states. we have never gone into a recession with leading indicators pointing north. they are not pointing as north as they were, but they are still pointing north. i'm not suggesting we are going into a recession or anything like this. i'm saying the notion, that next year is going to accelerate above and beyond this year, it's not showing up in the data. in fact, quite the opposite. neil: jim, thank you. if i don't talk to you, have a wonderful thanksgiving, my friend. >> you, too, neil. good to see you. neil: very fine financial read of things. adam lishinsky wrote the definitive book on apple. what does that mean? after this. t's going on. i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job.

call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪

neil: it has been a very tough week for apple, down 5.8%. now, it's been in and out of bear market territory. intraday it did get into bear market. it never quite got there, in other words, 20% from its closing high, reached i think in early october. that's how recently it was. let's get the read on all this amid reports apple wants to start making its own movies, join the club. to fortune executive editor and author of "inside apple." great book, the definitive book on apple. adam lashinsky. i do mean that. i learn something, a lot, from it, not the least of which is the dna of apple today and this move into making movies, if it

comes to pass, what do you think the late great steve jobs would think of that? >> wow. i mean, that is the question. so what we can say is that it's completely different from anything that apple did under the late, great steve jobs. so our temptation is to say and therefore, he wouldn't have liked it, but he was willing to change, to do new things. the greatest example of that is he did not envision the app store when they released the iphone and his people said we really should do an app store type thing. he said that's a terrible idea. then once people started cracking into the iphone with their apps, he said i have a great idea, we should do an app store. that was seven months later. so that gives you a window in how he might have thought about this. neil: yeah. he was a genius and pragmatic at that, which is a good combination to have. but what has happened to apple? you obviously talked to a lot of the company insiders even today. do they get nervous when they see what happened? obviously they enjoyed the ride up.

we should point out the stock is still up over what it was a year ago, but it was a fast and fun-filled ride for a lot of them. do they worry that something bigger's at play? do they worry about their jobs? do they worry about anything like that? >> well, i mean, they do worry about the stock market. i'm glad you reminded me a moment ago that was just october that it hit new highs. if you remember then, it wasn't merely because they were doing so well, but because so many other parts of the market weren't and investors needed to put their money into a solid company, which apple absolutely is. i think the corporate mindset at apple is we know what we're doing, you don't, we know what the plan is for five years from now, you don't, and so we're good here. now, i can't tell you if they believe that, but i can tell you that is what they tell themselves. neil: what is your sense of technology these days? i know it's a wide panoply, talking about facebook under

pressure, mark zuckerberg, sheryl sandberg, push-back against a company that it was hiding something, you know the drill. what do you think of where technology as a group and so-called fang stocks, those that led the run-up, are right now? >> well, you know, i published a piece this morning where i thought to myself last night, the skies are literally darkening, and it's like i have been here a long time and we have had a solid week where you can't see the sun in san francisco, because of the smoke drifting in from these fires in northern california. and it's eerie. i mean, it's weird. it looks like beijing and it's a perfect apocolyptic metaphor for what's going on in the tech sector right now. it's for real. facebook has made some serious mistakes on a whole bunch of constituencies are going to be all over them. governments in the united states, europe, elsewhere, are all over google, justifiably. that tone sort of gets set from the top at these great companies and then at the smaller company level, they've got problems, too, because for the first time

in my two decades in silicon valley, they are seeing real competition from . neil: i hate to veer in politics, if you indulge me, my friend, we'll have 300 democrats running for president, 250 of them come from california. i exaggerate. only slightly i think. how is technology embracing for that? do they have any horses in the race they want to see make it there? for the most part a left-of-center crowd but how would you characterize their thinking? >> they're a hard crowd to characterize, many as you say left-of-center, liberal, progressive in their social outlook. i would call them craven to libertarian when it comes to making money. their religion is technology, and that technology is means towards becoming really, really rich. would i say in all seriousness,

what they are mostly about politics right now is confused. there are employees at google are crying out we want this, we want that. facebook is being accused, by the way, neil cozying up to liberals and cozying up to conservatives. they went after george soros according to "the new york times." they are saying can we sit this out? we would not like to be involved in this if we could, please. neil: it is weird. they can't win for love of money, is there a sense that you have that democrats in the house now are very much inclined to go after all these guys or is that overwritten? >> no, i don't think it is. i think it is one of the three areas i could think of quickly where nancy pelosi house will work with donald trump administration, going after big tech.

drug prices are another and infrastructure fund something a third. left-wing dom kratz is populist in the nature that trump republicans are. they get scared of big concentration of tech companies. neil: well-said. adam, great catching up with you. be well. >> thank you, neil. neil: charles payne is up the next hour. charles: neil, appreciate it. i'm charles payne. this is "making money." dow jones industrial average making gains early, trying to on another volatile day but the gyrations are in a tighter range. we do know all three major averages are on pace for a down week. analysis where you should be buying. some saying go with boring. it is better than sexy. president trump upbeat on china saying bejing wants to make a deal and further tariffs may not be needed. reported violence erupting as the first wave of migrant caravans