you have power lines coming down with the ice. they had to bring out warming trucks and keep rotating people through. the bad news, as i tell you it's getting warmer, we expect the snow to start here any minute. not out of the woods yet. connell: something else. david: breaking news right now. president trump just wrapping up a high level trade talk, trump saying he wants to make a comprehensive deal as president xi calls relations between u.s. and china critical. let's go straight to the white house now, where blake burman is standing by with the very latest. including this beautiful letter that he got from president xi. tell us about it. reporter: well, yeah, the white house had been saying leading up to this they believed progress was being made and today, i think we saw just that. after two days of negotiations between top trade negotiators with the united states and china, it culminated in the oval office between a meeting with president trump and the vice premier of china, liu he.

the president was given a letter or read a letter out loud by president xi jinping of china in which the chinese president said at one point quote, i hope our two sides will continue to work with mutual respect. china had said it would buy a significant amount of soybeans starting today and going forward as well. the president stressing throughout the day that he doesn't want a small deal here, saying rather that he wants a comprehensive deal, a much bigger deal, as the u.s. side has been pushing not just for soybean purchases or purchases in general, but for systemic changes within china like addressing ip theft and the forced transfer of technology. the top trade representative robert lighthizer saying those issues were addressed and both sides said there needs to be enforcement. here was president trump talking about ip theft. >> we want to make a deal that we can look at and be proud of for many years, not where we have to go back and renegotiate and we let things out.

so whether it's intellectual property or any of the other things that we discuss all the time, we want to try and have everything included. we want to have it very comprehensive. reporter: a lot of good feelings inside the oval office as that meeting was taking place, but the white house also put out a statement simultaneously in which they noted a deal needs to be wrapped up here in four weeks or else the tariff levels are going up. here's how that statement ends. it says quote, while progress has been made, much work remains to be done. president donald j. trump has reiterated that the 90-day process agreed to in buenos aries represents a hard deadline and that the united states tariffs will increase unless the united states and china reach a satisfactory outcome by march 1st, 2019. now, earlier today, in the oval office, a separate event, the president said he wasn't sure if a bigger, much more comprehensive deal could be reached, at least put on to paper, by march 1st. david? david: blake, stick around. we want to bring in our panel.

deirdre bolton, liz peek, gary b. smith, jonathan hoenig. gang, will this lead the market tomorrow? very often good news on china does. what do you think? >> i think we had a lot of this already factored in. that's one of the reasons the market was so strong yesterday. that and of course, jay powell, fed chair's comments about patience and so forth. but i think we have gotten a sense over the last week gradually that these talks are meaningful, particularly after the first day it sounded like things really went well. they all went out to dinner afterwards. i guess one question, blake, to you, has there been any discussion of the bill the chinese apparently are trying to pass in china that does tackle intellectual property protections? >> we saw some movement from china today, liz, in which they addressed that very issue. they had talked about ip theft publicly a few weeks ago, talking about maybe what some of the punishments would be. one of their top spokespersons in that country even went a little bit further today.

this is at the very top of the list for the trump team, for the u.s. negotiators. we heard the president talk about it today and that's really going to be the big question going forward, right. once you set the soybean purchases aside or the purchases of whatever it may be, what's going to happen with ip theft, what's going to happen with forced technology transfer, and just as importantly, what are the enforcement mechanisms going to look like. >> great reporting. it's jonathan. terrific reporting. the tariffs set to increase once again. is there any urgency amongst the president's circle because they seem to be having an impact on american companies. two days ago, harley davidson, tariffs wiped out their entire profit. this is having an impact on bottom line. is there urgency among the president's circle on the impact this is having on the u.s. economy? >> at the end of the day, the president is a quote, tariff man, right? that's kind of his -- that's where he leans. it is what it is at this point. but i would say this to that.

remember going into the g-20, buenos aries dinner, the president and the u.s. team had said come january 1st, the 10% tariff levels will go to 25%. they held off on that for this 90-day negotiating window. today, at this very moment as we stand here, they are saying four weeks from now, it's going back up to 25%. will it be that way in four weeks? i don't know. there's going to be at least a meeting potentially, maybe even two between president trump and president xi by then. that will be the determining factor. >> quick question for your sourcing. it's deirdre. have you heard that u.s. trade represent robert lighthizer, he is nervous that maybe president trump is going to give too much away? we know he is there as the hawk in the room. we heard president trump's tone is very optimistic, saying this deal is going to be good for both sides, but i have heard that he has very much been angling behind the scenes to basically make sure that we don't just say like okay, we

ordered soybeans, we're all set. what are you hearing? >> welcome to washington, right? there could be leaks saying some people might not be happy with something or another. you know, there's a very clear, and the president has said this, he likes all different voices in the room. peter navarro, robert lighthizer, they are kind of in one lane. larry kudlow, steve mnuchin, wilbur ross, kind of in their other lane, how that messaging gets played out back and forth is the palace intrigue that's always fun to follow. but at the end of the day, what everybody says that we talk to is there's going to be one person making this decision. not robert lighthizer, not peter navarro, not steven mnuchin. it's president trump. >> hey, blake, it's gary smith. i want to go back to the topic that you talked about and liz kicked it off with this whole intellectual property. that seems to be the big stumbling block here. especially with the made in china initiative that they have now, where they are going to

focus even more on technology. i'm just wondering how something so complicated like an intellectual property agreement, could get hammered out in 30 days. does either side feel that this can be done in a short time, or is this going to be just kind of put off to work on in the future? >> well, look, it is just at this point i believe days but they have been going at this for awhile. 's the been 60 days since the dinner at buenos aries and they have talked about it since then. we heard from the president today and maybe that's what he was alluding to, i don't know for sure, when he said look, maybe we will have some sort of deal but maybe not everything on paper by march 1st. it seems like that's going to be one of the sticking points going forward, as we get to the end of february, what is agreed to, how much can they put on tape and maybe at that point, maybe that's when the president decides if this goes up to 25% or not, meaning the tariff levels. david: blake, we know that the trade team itself is at odds on certain issues.

lighthizer, navarro are very hard line, larry kudlow is more of a free trader. the issue of whether we get a more equal trade balance, that came into play a couple of weeks ago with a suggestion that was shot down by larry kudlow that there was some chinese move to import more u.s. goods. is that in play here? because i didn't hear the president or the chinese talk about that today. >> yeah, it's a good question. we heard a little here, right, like it was obviously very symbolic to have the president in the oval office before the cameras. last time liu he was here, this was not on camera. the fact they put this on camera shows sort of the progress here. we got some details, but not all of them. as gary points out, there's a lot of details here and that should not be lost in all of this. >> yet another topic is the unfair subsidies given to state-owned enterprises. i haven't heard that mentioned in quite awhile. i'm wondering if they are just going to flip that over to the

world trade organization, say get your act together, this is illegal, you need to change these rules. >> yeah. good question. again, there's just a host of issues at play here. i think what we just saw today is kind of like the 30,000 foot level. the details are what's going to matter and i believe we are going to be getting those soon from the key players here, maybe even potentially within the end of your show. david: you think the wto should be dealing with it? >> i do. for ten years, they tried to actually talk about that because when china came in, they had never -- they never had a country that relied on such subsidies before for exports. everyone knew it needed to be addressed but the wto, as like so many big institutions, couldn't get it done. >> part of what we are asking china, not that we don't have a right to, not that we aren't on ethical high ground but it goes against the way they do business which is what you started with. with the communist system, business shares information and technology. david: they even put communist party members in various u.s.

corporations, essentially as spies there. i'm wondering how long that continues. i guess that's kind of the back channel stuff, right? >> i'm wondering, though, i'm back to liz's point, so the government subsidizes the industries there. so what? so do we, with our tax policy. why is that a problem? >> there's actually tech transfer, i don't know, say oracle, you want to do business and you are oracle, you want to do business in china, you are going to have -- >> no, but that's intellectual property. that's the intellectual property argument we are talking about. >> china is a mixed economy that doesn't respect by and large people's property rights so you do business with them at your own risk. why then are we being taxed? it infuriates me. today the president was crowing about all this money we are taking in from tariffs. he's taking it in from american corporations.

david: then you will be happy to know we are going to be talking a lot about taxes in this coming hour so we got a lot of talk about on that front. blake, thank you so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. coming up next, amazon beating expectations, chalking up its third record profit in a row. so why is the stock trading down after hours? we've got the answer, next. what if numbers tell only half the story? at t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing.

because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. want a performance car that actually fits your life? introducing the new 2019 ford edge st. capability meets power. in the first suv from the ford performance team. the new 2019 ford edge st our grandparents checked zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today. i am not for just treating my symptoms... (ah-choo) i am for shortening colds when i'm sick. with zicam.

zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines... ...zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam. oral or nasal. - with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done. destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest: searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest. (owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance,

paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

david: breaking news. amazon beating expectations on both revenue and profit after the bell. this as markets finished way up for the month of january, after a disastrous december. deirdre bolton has been covering amazon all day and the question is why, after beating expectations, is it down after hours? >> well, they did guide a little bit lighter on the revenue for the fiscal first quarter which is where we are now, so $56 to $60 billion, wall street looking for $60.7 billion. so fine. but is it sliding in a different direction than investors had wanted. also, you have to make the point they exceeded expectations on the top and bottom line and if you look at just earnings, it's 165%, i'm not going to underline that too much more because i

think quarter on quarter there was a tax comp that kind of made them look weaker this quarter last year, but the revenue is strong. it's up something like 20% year on year. >> 18.25, which is amazing for a $200 billion company. >> with the lighter revenue, one point i wanted to make as well, you talked a lot about a currency effect so they're not necessarily at least giving indications right this minute with the data set that seems to be like they're losing a competitive advantage. it's a currency thing. i mean, their aws, their cloud computing, did exceptionally well, beating the street, 7.43 billion, i think wall street looking for 7.2. but it beat nonetheless. >> just a few thoughts. thanks, deirdre. a few thoughts on this. one, just kind of off topic a little, i think we have the wrong billionaire running for president. bezos should run for president. i guarantee "the washington post" would love him a lot more than they like schultz. number two is this is a company,

and credit to bezos, this is a standard oil of our era. they have created a monopoly and walmart and others have tried to make in-roads, but doesn't even matter what the numbers were, and they were spectacular, this is a company that's going to be around for a long time because they have created monopoly with the distribution. >> gary, gary -- >> hold on one second. my only question is this. they are like sears was when i was growing up. they are the be-all and end-all of retail. my question to the panel, can they maintain dominance for as long as sears did which is call it 67 years? >> it's not even dominance, gary. it's a valuation. think about the early 2000s. cis cisco, intel, microsoft, those were the big leaders for a decade. then they essentially took a decade off. the earnings did well, the companies were very profitable, but they didn't achieve the valuations that they had

throughout the '90s. that's my fear about stocks like amazon. [ speaking simultaneously ] >> other companies have monopolies, though. >> you are using the word monopoly wrong. that's another discussion all together. but to put it bluntly, the thrill is gone when it comes to stocks like microsoft, like amazon. big cap tech will not lead the next bull market as it has the last. >> i would disagree with you only in that amazon continues to reinvent itself and continues to find marketplaces and industries where there has not yet been disruption. i want to see amazon going to health care. bring health care prices down and costs down for various kinds of services. i just have a feeling they are going to continue to expand into industries as they have done with groceries now, which are going to really be rewarding consumers which are begging to reward consumers with better value. i think amazon just has so much traction there. >> although it doesn't have a perfect record in terms of

having a golden touch. we were talking about whole foods. it took over whole foods. there are a lot of complaints now from loyal customers of whole foods that the quality of service has gone down, the quality of the foodstuffs has gone down. >> and the price has gone down. you know, to gary's point, oh, they are a monopoly, they took over whole foods. what's the first thing they did? they cut prices. this is why we should applaud these big companies. david: yeah, but service was a very important part of whole foods' success. john mackey, the founder, focused on service, focused on dealing with the employees in a very special way. that has changed dramatically. a lot of people say service has gone down. i'm not saying it's not a great company. it is, fantastic company, but it's not perfect. no company is. >> i want to come back to something liz just highlighted. i think this is a great example, amazon, you had bezos, jamie dimon of jpmorgan chase whom bezos tried to hire something like 30 years ago and jamie dimon said i don't want to live on a houseboat off of seattle. david: i didn't know that. >> all those three people said

you know what, maybe we are going to figure out something, health care related for our employees, and that day, you saw hospital stocks crash, pharmacy benefit managers crash -- i shouldn't say crash but down around 5%. to liz's points, he will keep looking. one day amazon will be bankrupt, but it's obviously not tomorrow. >> by the way -- >> i want to get in on liz's point, though. i think a lot of these billionaires, they had this one fantastic idea. for him it was online retailing. start with books, expanded from that. the idea that to david's point that you can go into something like supermarket, like lampert tried with sears and think because he's a hedge fund manager, his brilliance would transfer. i think that bezos can go into health care and banking and these other areas --

[ speaking simultaneously ] >> i think there are opportunities for them. by the way, we can't let this segment end without talking about what's happening to them in new york city right now, where new york city seems to be just apoplectic that amazon might bring thousands of jobs to the city. it's unbelievable. the city council was met with the amazon spokesman. they didn't listen to anything he had to say in terms of job training, hiring people in the local housing projects. this has to be a home run for new york but they didn't want to hear about it. >> talk about kicking the hand that feeds you. this is an example. just when you thought they were beginning to get along, president trump and nancy pelosi going at it again over the wall. the latest on that battle and whether it could lead to another shutdown, coming up. >> the problem is, if they don't give us the wall, it doesn't work. without a wall, it doesn't work. my experience with usaa has been excellent.

they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

♪ do i use a toothpaste that whitens my teeth, or one that's good for my teeth? now i don't have to choose. from crest 3d white, the whitening therapy collection with new spearmint and peppermint oil. it gently whitens, plus it has a fortifying formula to protect your enamel. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.

david: we have breaking news on trade. the u.s. trade rep, robert lighthizer, says the arrest of huawei executive has no impact on the trade talks with china. we will continue to monitor this for any other developments. as you know, the president and lighthizer are meeting with the chinese rep now. >> we are building a lot of wall, you know. i'm not waiting for this committee. by the way, if you go to tijuana and you take down that wall, you will have so many people coming into our country that nancy pelosi will be begging for a wall. she will be begging for a wall. david: president trump earlier today responding to nancy pel i pelosi's statement that there's no wall money in the budget. she hasn't started begging for the wall yet, chad. >> not yet. i did not officially put that call into her office because that's not the case. no. she is not. >> has there been much conversation about the letter

that alexandria ocasio-cortez sent about cutting dhs spending? has that been a big topic of conversation amongst the people prying trying to work on this? >> this will be one of the issues. when you talk to appropriators, members working on that conference committee, they will tell you if the president wants $5.7 billion, they have to cut in other areas of spending. they don't have $5.7 billion. now, here's the red line for democrats in this conference committee. they are not going to want more i.c.e. agents or more i.c.e. beds, but i was told that some of the language that could emerge in the bill might be interpreted by republicans to be wall and might be interpreted by democrats to be border security. i mean, that's what everybody wants, then everybody has an exit ramp to say they got what they wanted but fought against the other side. i was told no matter what the language actually looks like, the letters w-a-l-l probably will not be in the bill. but at the end of the day, alexandria ocasio-cortez is not in this conference committee.

and this is where chuck schumer, the democratic leader, said yesterday he thought it was best that president trump stay out of this and maybe some people think it's best that nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, stays out of this and others might say the same thing with the freshman congresswoman from new york who is not part of this committee. >> well said. >> what do you make of president trump's tweet earlier, let's just call them walls from now on, stop playing political games. a wall is a wall. it seemed like between the lines, it seems like the trump administration was making a certain amount of progress with spending on e-verify, with the kind of metal slats, whatever you want to call it, i understand the president's point, and also beefed-up man power and security. it almost seems like they could have been close and then he tweeted that. what kind of reaction did that get? >> it's going to come down to semantics at the end of the day. this is where henry cuellar, chair of the house appropriations subcommittee that deals with homeland security,

says there's just a limited amount of mileage of wall that still needs to be built. so this is going to be semantics. it's going to be up to interpretation. and at the end of the day it's going to be can they command the votes. i go back to one point i have made repeatedly. if democrats, nancy pelosi knows that she needs to get some of her new freshmen moderate democrats to yes, this is a good vote for that. she might say one thing and say there's not going to be any wall money in there, but there might be wall money in there if they can actually come to an accord and that's a good vote for those freshmen democrats. >> it's amazing, so much of this seems like it literally comes down to semantics. the president can say i got my wall, the democrats who obviously hold the pursestrings at least in congress can say we didn't give it to you. but i want to ask you about the wall. the president keeps saying it is the only answer, without a wall there can't be border security. we know that the democrats don't agree with that but is there consensus among republicans about that as well, that you cannot have border security without a wall? >> that's why i want to go back to that $5.7 billion request.

when you talk to the most ardent republicans, they will tell you they are limited in how much money they can spend in this area. in 2011, in the fight over the debt ceiling, they imposed sequestration, the mandatory set of spending caps to deal with mandatory spending which is the type of spending we are talking about here. if they were to provide additional money for a wall, then they start to eat into other parts of the homeland security budget and that could jeopardize u.s. national security. that's what they tell me when i pressed them on that the other day behind closed doors. so again, they could maybe go in and raid other bills or something, but those other six bills are set. here is going to be the other issue. this is the real, you know, problem for getting an agreement here, is time. that is the biggest enemy. the deadline seems to be february 15th. that's when the government would shut down again. but they really need to have this set in stone by next friday, that's the 8th, because the house now has this 72-hour rule, a solid three days that they have to have to consider legislation. they have to post the bill text,

the house has to move it, the senate has to move it, so at the latest they have to have this worked out at the end of next week and that's a really tight turning radius. >> chad, it's gary here. you know, my take, and i think many others, is that trump completely got outduelled on this last, the latest shutdown, and that a lot of the power quite frankly has shifted to pelosi, where i thought many others thought that trump had the power. do you think there is any chance now that there's going to be a shutdown in the future, and b, do you think there's any chance that pelosi, given this new victory lap they're taking, is going to budge an inch on any kind of funding? >> she doesn't have to budge much at all. i mean, that's why a lot of people think she certainly won that first round. if nothing else, it solidified her in her caucus among skeptical democrats. remember there was this whole debate in november when they won control of the house as to whether or not she would have the votes to become speaker. well, she put out those fires

and probably amplified her position with this shutdown, and number two, she was able to kind of take on the president toe-to-toe and direct these new freshmen. you have all these upstarts who want to come in here and burn down the building, and by the shutdown kind of worked out maybe fortuitously for them. at the end of the day they probably want to get down, deal with education policy and infrastructure and other major things here, but it gave these new freshman democrats a focus and to get them away from talking about impeachment and you know, profane language from tlaib. they were able to focus on the shutdown and president trump and that works to pelosi's advantage. david: very quickly, we got to run, but national emergency, pulling the nuclear option as it's called, what's the chance of that happening? >> well, lot of people think the president is already there. and you know, they were going to give him the $5.7 billion, you know what congress could do? declare that emergency spending and then go above the spending cap. so there's kind of levers both sides can pull here. david: good stuff.

chad, great to see you. thank you very much. most americans want to eliminate the estate tax. 2020 hopeful bernie sanders wants to hike it to a level we haven't seen since the 1950s. could this be taking the tax the rich narrative a little too far? details next. as a fitness junkie, i customize everything - bike, wheels, saddle. that's why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my insurance, so i only pay for what i need. i insured my car, and my bike. my calves are custom too, but i can't insure those... which is a crying shame. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

woi felt completely helpless. trashed online, my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name.

if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. vo: if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-492-6705.

♪

the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? david: first it was ocasio-cortez with her 70% tax rate, then elizabeth warren with her wealth tax. now senator bernie sanders wants to dramatically reverse recent downward trend of estate taxes, imposing a massive 77% top rate on the richest americans. he also wants to widen the tax net to include anybody inheriting an estate that's worth more than $3.5 million. candidate hillary clinton had a similar plan in 2016, but of course, voters rejected her and that plan. so will voters in 2020 feel the

same or is this taxing the rich narrative gaining traction? what do you think? >> david, it's absolutely gaining traction, because it has broad appeal. the fact is, most of us don't know the top 1% of americans so to tax the other guy, if you're not in that bracket, sounds fantastic. in fact, most people don't even have a dream of being in the top 1% no matter how hard they work. now, that's politically, i think it's a good message for bernie sanders. realistically, of course it's a silly message and this is ironic coming from someone like sanders, who probably himself with his worth of i think over $2 million is probably in the top 10% himself. it ruins any incentive to try to get ahead. forget about companies like amazon and microsoft. guys like gates and bezos and elon musk, what's the incentive to creating and accumulating

vast wealth if you can't give it away to your kids and your family and your estate? but for sanders, probably a good platform to run on. >> yeah, i'm with you 100%. i think it's a wonderful message. i mean, we remember here as new yorkers, the 99% versus the 1%, it was really all about bringing down the 1% and the 99% weren't particularly organized which is why it didn't really sort of take off in a meaningful way or with teeth, but i spent some time in louisiana, in new orleans, speaking with a lot of farmers at this farm bureaus association and for them, this is really a big deal. this is acres and acres of land that has been in their family so i mean, we think of, i think, the hollywood version of the 1% or .1% which is hedge fund manager on a boat in the riviera but i spent all day, a day and a half, with people for whom this is really an issue. this is a livelihood. it's a legacy. to your point -- david: people who work with their hands. >> yeah. >> forgive me.

i don't want to sound cynical here but it seems like every new progressive who jumps into the race finds a new tax that they can kind of make that their own. we've got, you know, elizabeth warren with the wealth tax. now we've got bernie sanders with the estate tax. is there another tax out there -- david: oh, i'm sure. >> what will kirsten gillibrand look at? i don't think any of these things will pass because there is enormous interest against them but i agree with gary, unfortunately the narrative from the left is that the world is unfair, that the united states is unfair. i wish they would spend a little more time talking about how to create wealth, make more people move into that 1%, than only figure out how to bring down that 1%. >> the world is unfair. it is unfair, but instead of ripping people down, let's create more tools to lift more people up. >> that old australian saying, you want to cut down the tall poppies. men like bill gates are the tall

poppies and they earned it. i'm bewildered why billionaires, people who earned all this money, become public enemy number one. they have created these tremendous values and there's that well, they leave it to the worthless heirs. you know what, that's their decision. what they want to do, like bill gates or jeff bezos can blast it off in a spaceship or give it to heirs, that's their decision. there's this hatred for wealth, for successful individuals. it's tremendously european. it's never really before been seen in american history. david: but i don't think that -- i wouldn't say it's a dead sure thing that americans are going to fall for the snake oil because in fact, there was a poll out in 2016 and liz, we were talking about one in 2017 saying that most americans want to eliminate the death tax or inheritance tax. so maybe americans aren't buying into this rhetoric. maybe democrats are just talking amongst themselves. they think it's going to sell but it won't. >> i tell you who's come out very intelligently against this is howard schultz, who basically said hey, i'm a billionaire, i

came out of nothing, i created this great company, and he's proud of it. david: we will talk about that in the next block. the left hates starbucks legend howard schultz and his potential run for president almost as much as they hate president trump. so what happens if they turn that hatred on the brand that he helped create? will starbucks suffer? details on that coming next. the latest innovation from xfinity

isn't just a store. it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

david: howard schultz, life-long democrat and rags to riches billionaire who built up starbucks from next to nothing is now being pillaried by democrats for a possible run for the presidency. he's not running as a deck becau democrat because he thinks the party's gigantic shift to the left is not part of the american dream and some are calling for a boycott of starbucks. could a schultz run for the presidency help or hurt starbucks brand? >> i think it's going to take a lot to separate millenials from their latte so i don't think a boycott will get any traction but boy, are people angry. i don't think anyone in the last several months has really had rained down on them the kind of anger schultz has simply by saying he might want to run. people are saying he's not --

he's undermining our democracy. my view is that's what our democracy is. this guy has done really well. if he wants to spend a lot of money on a probably fruitless run for the presidency, go for it. >> i'm with you. that's his business. i think what an amazing model for even young entrepreneurs, right. he's very clear about his story. he grew up in very, very modest means. i'm probably using a euphemism. he called it the brooklyn housing projects. look at him now. i'm with you. if he wants to use it to run for office, i think he's a great example. totally. >> i don't see this really having a major impact on the company, unlike for example the trump chirldren. he's no longer ceo, he's not pursuing new deals. was forbes' magazine hurt by steve forbes' run for the presidency? was perot's -- it was? i don't remember. david: it was a cash drain, to answer your question. quickly. >> okay. all right. well, i don't see, to the panel's point, i don't see it having an impact on starbucks

stock. schultz's policies are shaking up the political landscape and i think for the better. >> me, too. >> look, i agree with the panel basically. this is like a new year's resolution. even if you're a solid blue democrat and hate schultz because he's going to ruin the chances of harris or whoever, biden, whoever else they put up to win, it's going to last about a week, then look, if you have already chosen to go to pete's, you will go there anyway. if starbucks is on your way to work, you will say i might as well stop in and buy a starbucks. look, this is not going to change one iota. i applaud schultz for running but the other thing is that a lot of what we're talking about here, quite frankly, to the average starbucks consumer out there, is inside baseball. unless you are reading eugene robinson's opinion column in "the washington post" like maybe

all of us are, but 99% of the people aren't, you don't know who howard schultz is. >> they are going to make a big thing, they will go to starbucks with banners and signs, have a big protest. they will disrupt his business just as many on the right did -- david: for about a week. >> the great thing is not only is schultz proud to say i'm a billionaire, i made it myself, which is a great message for somebody to be saying out there, but also, he is exposing liberals for projecting all these proposals they're talking about free health care, free tuition, we don't have the money for it. that is schultz's biggest message. both sides, republicans and democrats, have walked away from fiscal prudence. i think maybe the country is ready to talk about that again. >> good for him. david: this company is an example of how the private sector can do it. he's very proud of the fact that he provides his baristas with education, with health care, that you can't get from obamacare. >> for part-time workers. david: he's an example of the private sector doing better than

the public sector. >> efficiency. >> pretty good role model. pretty good record to run on, actually. david: i'm wondering if as a nation that instead of applauding wealth, we used to applaud wealth all the time. the fact that there's a rags-to-riches story, that's the american dream. but has jealousy and envy sort of taken over as the emotional component of politics? because that's the emotional component of socialism, right? >> yeah. well -- >> i'm waiting for -- >> it's the inequality. they say it's not fair because schultz has $10 billion and other people have zero. they are unequal so that is unfair. the reality, it's equality that's unfair. the fact that howard schultz as the panelist talked about, earned this money, made this money, it's his, and to hate him for that, to put him down for that really is hatred of the good simply for being the good. >> the real question is, is there ever going to be a

democrat like president kennedy, who comes and says you know what, let's lower taxes. my gosh, are we so far past that era that it will never happen again? >> i think it's hard for middle of the road, we will see what happens, but i think it's getting harder and harder for moderate candidates, whether it's from the right or the left, to make traction or get as much chatter as the two extremes. david: we'll see. again, he may pull from republican side. there are a lot of republicans not too happy about president trump. they may vote for schultz if he gets both republicans and democrats, he stands a chance, i think. any rate, elizabeth warren, she's out making the case for the wealth tax, as we just talked about. wait until you hear what she thinks is the secret sauce for the success of capitalism. you won't believe it. that's next. t. rowe price experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand, like biotech. because your investments deserve the full story.

t. rowe price invest with confidence. our grandparents checked zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today. that strip mall sushi, well,t i'm a bit unpredictable. .. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i.

and i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding,

or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. - with tripadvisor finding the right hotel at the lowest price is as easy as dates, deals, done. going on a work trip? dates, deals, done. destination wedding? dates, deals, done. because with tripadvisor all you have to do is enter the dates of your stay and we'll take care of the rest: searching over 200 booking sites to find you the best deal it's as easy dates, deals, you know the rest. (owl hoots) read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do, tripadvisor.

>> i believe in capitalism. i see the wealth that can be produced. but let's be clear. capitalism without rules is theft. encouraging companies to build their business models on cheating people. that's not capital i am. i believe in capitalism with serious rules where everybody gets a chance to play. david: that was senator

elizabeth warren suggesting our rules and regulations are too loose in this country. is she right? do we need more rules and regulations for capitalism to work better? >> she is a frightening woman. she stand up the old -- the old straw man. it's simply not true. for her to suggest companies have become successful by cheating customers? is that how microsoft and amazon got successful? she is a danger to our way of life. the fact that she has stood before students all these years is sobering and scary. >> her claim to fame is the consumer protection bureau and dodd-frank. in the midst of a horrible crash, she could blame banks.

that's what she has to run on and she won't let it go easily. let's take the bank experience and make it as horrifying as we can for individuals. she is saying all companies behave as badly as the worst behaving banks and hedge funds. she knows it isn't true because she is a smart woman. but this is why her negatives are so high. she comes across as a nanny lecturer. >> i am okay with some guidelines, rules of the road. but to jonathon's point. if you are just a terrible business person, you are just hosing every single person you are doing business with. that's not going to last. maybe it takes too long in an ideal world. but characterwise.

>> i think what jonathon meant to say is the rules of capitalism are capital i am. that's why companies go out of business. we didn't need the government to break up standard oil. they are already in the process of breaking up from competition. we didn't need the government to step in and sue ibm for being a monopoly. they are eaten away by many competitors. netscape vanished because of competition. j & j suffered with the tylenol scare. elizabeth warren is like any other politician who only served time in academia or politics like bernie sanders. they never had a paycheck outside in their life so they don't know what capital i am is really like. if capitalism is allowed to

flourish it will take care of itself. >> the basic respect for property rights and fair trade. if a company screws you, you have legal recourse. but if elizabeth warren and aoc comes with their guns and take 70% of your wealth, you have no recourse. david: that's a good point. i would say rule number one for capitalism is respect for private property. her wealth tax which is essentially confiscation of private property by the state is a violation of rule number one. >> you didn't earn that, that's not your wealth. >> i think this is bad for the country. the whole projection from the left now is that the tables are not equal. you don't have an opportunity. i think republicans need to get back to talking about opportunity. and i think that begins with

education. something no one wants to talk about in this cycle other last cycle. >> the former high school teacher, i agree with you, liz. thanks for watching bulls and bears. i'll see you back here tomorrow. >> they have some suggestions about certain localities where technology, some infrastructure at the ports of entry. that's part of the negotiation. if the president wants to call that a wall, he can call it a wall. president trump: if there is no wallet doesn't work. she is just playing games. if you go to tijuana and take down that wall, you will have so many people coming into our country nancy pelosi will be begging for a wall. she'll say mr. president, please, please give us a wall. liz: that sounded like a thaw, a crack in the