that's the takeaway from the week. everybody have a good weekend. >> happy friday. market ending higher on the day and we like that. so we eel tak we'll take it. >> bulls & bears starts right now. isn't 10 million bucks enough? congresswoman alexandria 0 casio cortez asking the question on a show time late night show. one millionaire says the democrat's latest plans for taxes are overdue. this is bull bulls and bulls & . thank you for joining me today. >> if you make -- yes, seriously. if you make more than $10 million in one year, your 10 millionth and one dollar gets taxed at 70%. and it really comes down to the

question, isn't $10 million enough? when does it stop, right? >> when is too much too much. >> at what point is it immoral that we're building jeff ba beza helipad. david: not only defending her call for a 70% tax but it sounds a little like she's saying people should not have more than $10 million period. is that where this is going? we're joined by morris pearl, now chairman of the patriotic millionaires, a group dedicated to pushing for higher taxes on the ultrarich. mr. pearl, do you think $10 million should be enough? >> i think everybody should be rich. it's great. we're in favor of everybody becoming very rich. david: doesn't sound like she is. >> no. he's in favor of those people who make a lot of money paying a lot of tax rates than those who make less money.

an.we've got groz inequality inr country and people aren't putting up with it. we need to make the people who make more money pay their fair share of taxes and make more money. >> morris, i'm wondering if you have looked at the actual experience in european countries where they have taxed wement and put on extremely high marginal tax rates. it seems to me that people leave those country ps and it does not enhance the country's financial position. have you looked at that? we have one of the most progressive tax rates in the world than most of the european countries. >> we don't have the most progressive tax in the world. >> we do. >> look at what happened in the united states in the 1960s and 1950s. we had huge tax rates of 60%, even higher for the few most wealthy people and that's when america did all of the things that made america great. david: the effective rate back then was 40% because there were

all of the tax deductions that people chimed in with. >> that's far higher than the effective rate now. people like me, investors, pay a tax rate of 15% rate. >> you're paying capital gains. >> yeah. >> that's a little different than people working and making a high income. >> i don't want to have the moral discussion about it because most americans look like they want to earn a lot of money. and some day when aoc gets her $10 million book deal her attitude may change. >> can't wait. >> is it a good way, because it seems like most millionaires get their pain by income, got there by cap gains or avoiding cap gains. if you look at the income, wouldn't this lead to a situation where the 10 millionth dollar, i'm not going to pay 70% of it to the state, i think i'll get a bigger office. i will have a nicer car to deduct. you'll expense more stuff and

not pay it anyway. >> i've never known the businessman who would rather own zero than 30%. >> i agree. when you make the choice i'm going to earn and keep half of it, why don't i do more deductions. there was so many deductions you just took. are you going to hire somebody or just basically spend it on -- i'm going to fly first class more, get a jet, that's dedistrictable. everything is deductible. >> so is hiring people. that's deductible people. business people spend the money they want to spend to make money. if business people can make money by spending money, they eldo that. if they can make more money by keeping the money, they'll do that. >> that's true. why are companies right now hiring people when they'll do a stock buyback, they'll borrow money, expand, do advertisement. there are so many deductible things rather than hiring people. will it even raise the money they it's going to raise as

opposed to say a capital gains tax increase? >> i think having people make income by capital gains, those people should pay their fair share of tax too in addition to the people that actually work for a living. there's no reason i should have a lower tax rate than everyone else does that actually has to work. >> there is a basic issue which we talked about before of everybody in an affluent society should have enough. and we clearry have issues now about whether or not that's the case and how to create it. the how to create it part becomes an interesting one. so part of the problem of looking at the '50s as an ideal benchmark is one that the actual tax rate was far lower thatten the 90% tax rate because of the loopholes and two, we didn't have the safety net commitments that came with the great society after 1965, which are far more expansive and which are not going to fund by taxing every marginal dollars over $5 million. the trillions of dollars that that cost is not going to come from this.

hean that iand that is a socialt we need to address. some say we should cut the safety net. i do not agree with that. in all of the conversation about marginal tax rates were the wealthy, you deal with an easy skimp tom and you totally overlook the major cause and an actual solution to it. >> there's no reason why the matter to the bument deficit was written in stone tablets by god. it was changed last year, can be changed again. it's not the point of how much revenue we raise. the point of the tax is this gross unfairness whereas rich investors pay tax at a much lower rate than people who actually work for a living open that's simply not fair. >> you're not opposed to. >> morris. >> go ahead. sorry. >> i have so many questions for you, i'm not sure i'm going to be able to fit them into the segment here. first of all you started out with the inflammatory gross

inequality. i'm sure you would agree that the word "gross" is subjective rather than objectivity. and second of all, wasn't this country kind of founded and became the greatest country in the world because of that inequality. i'll give you two examples. everyone knows that donald trump is the richest president. i'm sure you probably do not know that the two next richest presidents were george washington and thomas jefferson. no one held it against them that they were big land owners, that they were working people that accomplished a great deal. it's the fact that bill gates is fabulously wealthy and grossly inequal to everyone else, he enriched lives of millions of lives around the world. so when you say gross inequality, i argue with that as being, a, subjective, and b, that's what people in america strive for. don't you agree with that?

>> sure. i'll leave whether the inequality is gross or not to your judgment. but this country was founded by people who created things called commonwealths. we had commonwealths because they understood when they founded the country that we needed commonwealth. >> it was not created by people who founded commonwealth at all. did george washington, did andrew carnegie, did john rockefeller create commonwealth? no. they created wealth by their private enterprise that enriched everyone else. i don't understand what you mean by commonwealth unless you talk about an increasingly large government. >> george washington ran the commonwealth of var r virginia before he was elected president. >> before that he was a wealthy land owner. >> that's true. i'm all for people being wealthy. and at that time. >> you want to cap it at some

subjective gross inequality as if we would put a determination on that. >> well i think that those people who are wealthy, back then, those are the only people who paid taxes. and actually working people didn't pay taxes at all. only land owners paid taxes. >> and the top 70% now pay all of the taxes in the country now. in fact the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes now. >> that's because so many of the people in our country don't have enough money to live on, much less pay taxes. david: it's not about taxes then. it's about redistribution of wealth. and that kind of gets to the wealth tax itself. because more than taxes income, this is a confiscation of property. something that our constitution guards against as much as our individual human rights. aren't you concerned that you're kind of chopping away at a concept that's fundamental to what makes america great which is private property itself?

>> we're not chopping away at private property. david: wealth tax is a confiscation of property on which you have already paid your taxes. your income tax, your capital gains, whatever tax, it is actually taking -- in fact the reason why eight out f 12 european countries have gotten rid of the wealth tax once they put it on because there were a lot of people who were property rich but cash poor. they had inherited a big property which made them sound rich but they had to sell the property very much at a discount very often in order to pay the wealth taxes so they got out of the country. >> what we're talking about, paying a higher tax rate for those people with the highest incomes. that's what representative 0 casio cortez was talking about. and those people currently in many cases, like me, pay lower tax rates that people who actually work for a living. >> david is talking about the wild tax part which was warren's idea. >> i think you also support a wealth tax. isn't that true? >> yes. >> and i mean i have to say in terms of the actual efficacy of

a wealth tax this sounds to me like a complete nightmare every year to have everyone assays exactly the value of e every investment they have, every private fund, et cetera. but let me go back to the capital gains issue. that seems to be your big problem -- not your problem. your big concern is that you pay a lower tax rate because it's capital gains. this is a serious things because occasionally this comes up on twitter. if you feel like you're undertaxed, which is a very generous thing, why don't you write a check to the federal government. i'm saying that completely seriously. >> well, look, i'll answer you completely seriously then. the point isn't my own personal taxes. the point is that people in general with higher incomes having to pay lower tax rates than people. >> from an efficacy level, why not pursue the capital gains tax and the dividend tax and the carried interest which has been

a huge issue. and there's bipartisan consensus of these loopholes only benefit a very few number of people proportionately. the problem with creating the thresholds is again, you can do all of the marginal rate tax increases on the very wealthy and not solve the issues of homelessness, medicare overruns, medicaid overruns and whether or not people are going to have affordable health care. people disagree with that presumption on the right. but a lot of people say this is something we need to deal with. there's not enough income, redistrict tif income to pay for those things. and focusing entirely on that as if that then solves it, i'm personally concerned about. david: give morris a chance to respond and then we have to go. >> sure. i don't claim that changing taxes will solve all of the problems with health care, homelessness open everything else in the world. but i claim that having those people at the top paying their fair share -- i support what you mentioned, ending the capital gains loophole and having lower

tax rate dividend capital gains, those are all good things and will contribute to less. ening inequality. david: please come again. enjoyed the discussion. facebook under fire again. details of a report outlining if connection between app developers, facebook and your most private intimate data. you want to stick around for this one. stay tuned. 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. [indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ 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.

we're finally going on the trip i've been promising. because with expedia, i saved when i added a hotel to our flight. ♪ so even when she outgrows her costume, we'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure together. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip. only when you book with expedia. better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. don't let another morning go by without talking to comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more

than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. david: according to a blockbuster report in "the wall street journal," it appears that many of the most intimate apps that you may use automatically send your personal information to facebook even if you don't use facebook. now information from millions of users has been shared with facebook, including such things as your heart. beat, your eating habits, even

your pregnancy status. and the app users have no clear way of stopping that information from being sent to facebook. so what effect is this going to have on the company and on politicians who were scrutinizing facebook for more privacy regulations. what do you think? >> well, david, there's two different questions here. i guess maybe tonight is my get off my lawn old man night or something. i'm listening to myself and i'm starting to sound like that. maybe it's an age thing. so the politicians, this is like a tax the wealth kind of issue. it's an easy one to say we all rail against it. for facebook, you know, i think facebook fad, if you will, i've never been a fan, is kind of over. here's the reason. yonlt get excited about this personal sharing thing because no one is obligating me to use facebook. in fact no one is using me to obligating any of these personal apps on there. the only apps that i really feel i have to use because it's a time saver are my bank of

america banking app age al app f that data is pl protected. if you think your personal privacy is being impacted, don't use the app. if you think the things are going to appear on facebook, don't use facebook. you don't have to use facebook. i live for 45, 50 years without using facebook. i did okay. now i'm done. >> you know, that whole cave thing with the fires was fine. who needs the light bulb and internal heating. there is a point at which these things become public utilities. and people are going to use the. things like utilities and everyone needs to use applications, smartphones, device to navigate our lives. part of the problem is people are only now waking up to what many people have known is that all of these business models

depend on the free use of our data. and in return we get services, conveniences and we can get targeted advertisin advertisingl which is bad. but i don't think you can just say anymore, oh, you don't have to use these in that you could have said at&t in the 1950s. you don't have to use a telephone. you could walk across the street and have a personal conversation with somebody. >> i think you're going to. >> let me jump in real quick. what exactly are the apps that you have to use? >> you have to use some. you just talked about bank of america. most banking is not mobile. you can't go to a branch in most places which means if you transact with banking -- banks havbankare a little better withe privacy of data. >> you have to use google map. almost no one gets around without google map. reading the map is a bygone talent. i think the answer here is that everyone has to just become

aware that nothing is private. if you put any information of yourself out there, you buy anything online, you fill out any form online, it goes everywhere. and i think the government is eventually going to start trying to stop the connection between apps and the sort of home page or the cloud of information about you. i wonder if they actually. >> and that was the famous line to years ago, you have no privacy, get over it. >> i'm going to go after one part of gary's thing. i want facebook off my lawn. i don't go on facebook and apparently if i'm reading the story correctly, you're using the app -- let's use the example, you have bank of america, bank of america app is telling facebook or selling i presume how much money you have, how many transactions you do. you're looking at a house on still low, a realtor, they're selling information to facebook. so they can build a data monster on you to extort value out of you. it would be one thing if it was

one company. but the government led facebook by one -- you can't avoid it. you don't have to do a lot of products. >> but just to be clear, bank of america app is not one that was cited. these were specific. but i'm just saying, it was a specific apps. >> abuse of your privacy and behavior to then do what with and profit from unbeknownst to you. yeah, you don't have to use the apps but in the world that we're in now, that's sort of -- that's just for the record. i just want to be clear. david: "the wall street journal" says -- they contacted facebook. facebook admitted it happens. but they say they don't make any money on it. but after everything that's happened, the way that that might be technically true but there are various other ways that they can make money on it down the line. quick last word. >> no. i mean i think there are some apps that are breaking the rules here. and we don't -- i think the concerning thing is we don't know which they are.

>> what rules? david: there are no reums as gary pointed out at the beginning. the war of words escalating, billboards calling out alexandria okays ya cortez for driving amazon out of new york. we're going to speak to the man behind the billboards. even the president weighing in this afternoon. here's what he told blake burman. >> i think it's a big loss to new york city. i think it's a big loss. if you look at the deal, the deal was not a great deal from the standpoint of they could have made a better deal than that, a much better deal. but still i think it's a loss to new york city. omes next? retirement? after that. after retirement?

david: more billboards are up in new york city slamming congresswoman alexandria okays ya cortez in amazon canceling plans to build second headquarters in new york city. congresswoman has lashed out on twit ner response. joining us now is the man behind

the billboards, president of the job creators network. al free do, thank you for coming in. what's your goal here? >> if you look at the rising trend of socialism in this country and the interest especially amongst millennials, we are concerned about that. we're staunch supporters of the free enterprise system. and as staunch supporters, aoc was very vocal about her onslaught on this kind of deal. and we said you know what? we have to find a way of making sure that the discussion is elevated. i salute and applaud the president for incorporating that into his state of the union address. we have to have this discussion because we're now talking about the hearts and minds of america and where we're going to go going forward from here. david: the message you're giving is a very good one and obviously this country has been built not on socialism. but it's a very dangerous time right now to be i think -- this is my question for you. did you walk into a gunfight

with a knife? because it seems like she very quickly snapped back at you. although your message is correct, it's financed or at least originally largely by billionaires and that's going to look weak in a twitter war with aoc. do you think you should have stayed out of this one and let a grass roots effort go? >> we actually are a grass roots efforts if you look at what we did for the tax cuts fight there. we had hundreds of small business advocates which is really what we're talking about here. there are 30 million small business owners that we ad scro katadvocateacross this country. you had to start somewhere. we took it on. we're proud that we took it on. maybe it was a knife in a gunfight but you know what, a lot of different knives are coming out saying we have to have this discussion. so we're very proud. look over the past 48 hours how much conversation has actually taken place and we're excited about that because we to have this conversation.

again this country was founded on principles of liberty and free enterprise, not on socialism. and we're going to keep on fighting that growing tide of socialism. >> i really congratulate you for taking this on because it is difficult and we do need to have this conversation. in this particular battle in new york city there were also conservatives, republicans, who were worried about crony capitalism who didn't like that amazon came what their hands out angot benefits. they were almost as aggressive as the progressive group. what is your view of that crowd? what do you think about the fact that foxconn deals, amazon deals et cetera have been criticized and crony capitalism. >> coney capitalism is something we don't agree with. if you look at the foxconn deal and this deal, i think they're different. but even if you look at the foxconn deal, the incentives were offered were contingent on the jobs coming. and i think it was similar on

the amazon deal. you look at the two leading chief executives of the state and the city, governor cuomo and mayor deblasio, they were the true champions of bringing this here. and they thought it was the right thing for their citizens. 70% remember of new york residents wanted this deal to happen. so what we're here to fight about is the 25,000 jobs lost for the citizens and residents of new york, which is about $4 billion in annual wages. when you look at the related economic activity that was going to happen for them -- i'm not talking other big businesses. i'm talking a the small business owners down the street, the dry cleaner, the hairdressers, pizza guys, deli guys. all of these guys looking forward to have their american dream continue to explode and increase. all of that is gone. >> absolutely true that all of that is gone. and as a pure tactic this has been successful because it's gotten a lot of attention. it's in the middle of times

square. i'm a bit confused as to why you need to get socialism very vus free market. there are millennials who haven't been who oppose this. and those forces and debates have been around long before we were debating socialism versus free market. a lot of people support the free market and didn't like this deal. i think you're on much stronger ground by dealing with the economic consequences of this deal and its collapse and not then becoming a series of talking points for an election. i know socialism versus free market is a good sloganning but i'm not sure what it does for these issues in our communities. >> you know, weapon yo when you, it's much more than a slogan. when you look at the polls amongst millennials, they're quieghquite frightening of how e

growing. there's a misunderstanding being driven by progressives that socialism equals social good. we have a lot of business met network members that came from nicaragua, for example and when she says trust me, we fleed from socialism for a reason. it is not a good thing. we have to have this conversation so we don't have this trend going toward socialism. we're going to keep on fighting for free enterprise unabashedly. and if we have to bring a knife to a gunfight, it's got to start somewhere. and we're willing and proud to take it on and excited about the coverage that we're getting. david: gary, last question from you. >> i understand aoc's point. she made this a class warfare. why should we give the money away. i think you're just trying to educate people. >> that's right. >> do you think the root of it, it's not socialism.

it's quite honestly economic illiteracy. is that what you're really fighting ? if people understood the math behind it they would all get behind this deal. >> we as a country need to do a better job of educating ourselves and our citizens on the real aspects of how public policy affecting their pocketbooks on a daily basis. that's what we do, help folks understand how basic economics works. look at the economics of the deal. $30 billion in expected revenues, about 27 billion. that sounds like a good deal. david: i got to tell you, i don't think the billboards are over. you mentioned deblasio, he was all for the deal until the mob was against it and then he totally switched sides. you got to get the hypocrites in city hall that backed it until they didn't.

thank you for being here. >> thank you. david: president trump joining the china trade talks today with a march 1st deadline faster approaching. the big takeaways with expert gordan chang. he's next.

. it more likely that a deal happens or doesn't happen. speaking for the united states, i would say it's probably more likely that a deal does happen. but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. >> from china would you say it is very likely that it will happen and we hope that ultimately we'll have a deal. david: president trump just a short time ago giving some hope that a deal may be reached with china. trade negotiations between u.s. and china officials are going to extend an official 48 hours into this weekend. while the deal is far from done, traders like the optimistic talk

with the dow ending up for the ninth straight week in a row, the longest winning streak in 24 hours. gordan chang, author of "the coming collapse of china" joins us. are you worried that we may be letting china off too easily here? >> certainly. china steals 3 to $400 billion a year in u.s. intellectual property. this is deal is not going to have enforceable provisions on that. that is really the core on this. the chinese are saying, look, we'll buy $1.2 trillion worth of american goods. they're a wto member. you can't have a private deal with another wto member like the u.s. china has to offer that same deal to all 162 other members. you take 1.2 trillion, multiply it by 163, 162 plus the u.s., that means china is committing to buy $195.6 trillion worth of goods.

this can't survive. >> they're very wealthy. >> that would be great. that would solve so many things like that. >> hallelujah. >> did this ever have a chance? i mean if you do -- we've talked about this a bunch of times. if you do 10% tariffs on $200 billion of goods, that's 20 billion in tariffs that americans are paying. it's unsettled the chinese government. we don't want this problem. but this was in my mind never enough pressure to achieve its aim and just enough pressure to create total chaos for a year. >> we should be banning the importation into the u.s. of all goods that have benefited from u.s. intellectual property theft. that is a start. that would hurt the chinese and it would also get producer to move their supply chains out of china. we would be disengaging from china. i think that would actually help us solve a lot of problems like ip theft and all of the other problems of trade violations. i think that would be a good

thing. >> but you would have to do a massive domestic spending program to cushion the blow in the united states. >> it would naturally transfer from china to bangladesh, egypt, jordan, mexico, countries that don't threaten the united states with the destruction. that would be a good thing too. >> i am more optimistic than you are and you are more knowledgeable than i am. it seems to me we've had really strong comments from pompeo, lighthizer, mnuchin and enforcement. they're specific that they want enforcement. they're also specific memorandums of understanding being drawn up that cover a lot of the big issues that we're talking about, possibly with the exception of state-owned enterprises. i think that's the one issue that gets thrown out of the mix because that is really asking china to overhaul their economy and they won't do it.

why are you not at least a little optimistic that they mean what they're saying about these enforcement issues? >> we've had agreements with the chinese spanning three decades and they've violated a all of them, including the last one september 2015 where you had xi jinping standing in the rose garden next to the president saying i'm not going to hack any more u.s. companies. i would like to believe that the six mo mo memos of understandind end up with agreements. but we have history as a guide and history says no way. >> gordon, it's so good to see you again. we've been together many times. it's always a joe. i have a macro question for you. my take on it is china, and you probably agree, has seen its glory days coming to a close basically because they move from an agrarian society into

industry. that's like we had our big bump in the u.s. when we went from agrarian in the 1800s to industrial. now i think their glory days are over, especially because they have so much of a socialist government intervention policy. so regard ms of what happens with tariffs, do you see -- and you probably do from the title of your book -- see a coming decline or at least a slow pace of growth in china? >> well the technical answer is no, gary. it's not a coming attraction. it's occurred. you look at the december numbers and you cannot make an argument i think that they actually grew in december. january numbers have always been bad. i think that you're absolutely right. their glory days are over. they're now starting to have an economy which can no longer sustain itself. trump's tariffs have sort of accelerated the process a little bit. but nonetheless china's economy was going to start to really collapse. >> gordon, i'm for what the

president did. i don't understand why we didn't use the existing wto power as long time ago. >> the reason is we brought comie that to the wto so many times, won every case since 200. >> are they already too big? it'do they get to do what they t and there's nothing we can do at this point? >> we got a $19 trillion economy so we can push them around. yeah they're big but they're also very fragile because they've tried to delay their 2008 downturn, accumulated too much debt. they're at a point where i think they understand they need access to the u.s. market. last year, according to china's own numbers which understate exports to the u.s., surplus against the u.s. was 91.9% of their overall surplus. when the commerce numbers come out, that's over 1007%. clearly they need access to our market. we can drive a better deal.

david: thank you for coming in. appreciate it. meanwhile, student loan delinkcies hitting a record high as more 2020 candidates push for free schej but is tha college by the answer? we'll debate it coming next.

this isn't just any moving day. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected.

and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. in honor of my dad, who was alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink, and they just came out perfect.

- [announcer] check out our huge selection of custom apparel for every occasion. you'll even get free shipping. get started today at customink.com.

delippingcies reaching a $166 billion in the fourth quarter and the federal reserve bank of new york says the real delinkcy rate woul could be twie that amount as many 202 hopefuls push for debt free college for all. is that really the answer to tackling college affordability in the u.s.? what do you think, gang? >> david, i don't think it is and it's probably no surprise to anyone on the panel. look, first of all, a couple key points. there is no such thing as a free college. everyone in the united states will pay for that one way or another. the reason colleges are so expensive is because like a lot of things, basically run by the government, not that most colleges are, all know a lot of them are run by the government, they're government subsidized. colleges are not stupid. they see kids with quote unquote free money and they jack up the tuition. the only way to make college affordable is two. pronged. go back to the roots, the

harvard universities, the university of pennsylvania, william and maries, original colleges and universities were private colleges. compete in the free market. college is not the answer for a great majority of people out there, i'm sorry to say. what they should be learning are computer programming skills, computer technical skills, logistics, things that are much more applicable than four years of learning greek, for example. >> i feel community colleges and trade schools should be largely subsidized or free. the problem was the loans. the loans were given and subsidizing worthless degrees that nobody would finance. these poor kids are wind up up for debt for life for getting degrees that are worthless. if the system shifted more to an equity financing where you had to let's say some of your salary went back to pay the loan obviously nobody would make the loan because they're not going to make the loan for a worthless

film degree. you're never going to pay it back. >> this is where the debate is really distorted. a huge portion of the student loan problem in the united states is for-profit colleges for students who do not finish their degrees. 40% of the defaults in new york state are for-profit colleges for people who don't finish their degrees and they take on far more debt. i don't think the government should be in the business of backstopping for-profit student loans. a lot of colleges could not exist without that. >> and yet there is a ka dre of student for whom those for-profit schools are a god send. they can't keep traditional hours and go through a certain number of years. good ones and bad ones. the thing that's troublesome is a mountain of student debt that we have. it's impacting the ability of the millennial generation to buy homes and start families and everything else. i don't know what we do about

this. obama's idea was you give people credit if they went into public service. that was a terrible idea. that's picking and choosing career options for kids. i don't know what we do. my guess is over the next ten years we're going to see more and more of the loans forgiven. but we have to make sure that if numbers don't get bigger and bigger. david: government funding always eventually means government control. if you want to dumb down colleges, put the bureaucrats in charges of it. meanwhile, u.s. existing home sales hitting a three-year low but what's really to blame. we'll debate that coming next. ♪ e you look small.

..

david: hope sales falling for the third straight month. some commits are putting the blame on the change in the mortgage deduction in the trump tax law. >> i don't know if there is

enough decrease in new jersey, new york or california. the tax bill that was passed is done mostly on the backs of blue states like the one we are sitting in right now. >> no question about it. but there are other narratives. there is very little inventory. that raises prices, but we are hearing prices are down and purchases are down. i keep thinking this will be a sector that's strong in this year because it lagged so dramatically. everything is prime for an upturn in housing. >> this is after leveling out corporate taxes. we had a distortion in the market where you could deduct $1.1 million. pump up the prices and cause problems like bankruptcies and

other factors. we only went down to 750. it should have gone down to zero. he also raised the standard deduction which makes the mortgage deduction less valuable. so these are distortions that shouldn't have been there in the first place. >> the high end market across areas of the u.s., parts here in florida parts along like the area in connecticut, the suburbs, those big suburban $5,000, 8,000 square foot homes are the most of interested in the mortgage interest deduction. those markets are dead and dying. david: the free market may have a solution. zillow will renovate and resell your property in 90 days. so maybe the answer will come from the free market.

they have tentacles all over the place in all real estate markets. so good for them. thank you for joining "bulls and bears." we'll see you next time. [♪] >> we decide to help those who are not getting medical help. help those who are hungry, and hopefully today we can start maybe getting supplied into venezuela so that people are not suffering so much. every country, every people in the world want freedom. they want fair elections. and venezuela should be no different and any election should be monitored. and people should know they are free and fair so they can accept the outcome. liz: that's richard branson talking about