i'm jamie colby for "strange inheritance." thanks so much for watching, and remember, you can't take it with you. [ airplane engine buzzing ] ♪ulls & bears starts right now. >> president trump doubling down on his threats to close the u.s. border with mexico as early as next week, if mexico doesn't stop illegal entries immediately listen. president trump: mexico is going to have to do something otherwise i'm closing the border , i've just closed the border and with the deficit like we have with mexico that we've had for many years closing the border will be a profit making operation. mexico has a trade surplus with the united states for many years of 100 billion a year at least, and this is for many years mexico has taken a big portion of our car business, mexico is doing very well because of the

united states. lauren: this is bulls & bears i'm lauren simonetti, and on the panel jonas max ferris, adam lashinsky and gary b. smith and we're speaking with national border patrol president, in just a moment but first to the panel, you heard this, liz, the president says we need to close the border do you think that's warranted? >> well i think we need a solution to the fact that our organization our establishment for reigning in collecting the people helping the people who are crossing the border illegally is completely overwhelmed for democrats to say there is no crisis at the border they should go down there, some have and they take a look and they're absolutely horrified. well we don't have the facilit ies to put up the people who are crossing at the border, it's just too many people, so we need to do something. i don't know if closing the border is the right thing to do. we've done it before under numerous presidents, in times of crisis. it does seem to me that we're getting to a crisis but by the way president trump is wrong to

couple this with concerns about our trade balance in mexico, one has nothing to do with the other >> exactly, liz you made my life more difficult, or easier, because i was going to say to you that, you know, you very artfullly changed the subject from what the president was talking about to make some reasonable comments and statements about the fact that we have to do something about the border but of course that's not how the president addressed it. he made this into a trade issue. we can't close the border as a trade matter and assume that that's going to have a good effect on the economy or on people's lives. that's just not realistic, and that's not what he's aiming for here, he's aiming to score political points obviously. >> well, i would say -- >> i guess i'll jump in here. i'm shocked that jonas at this point, surprisingly, i agree with adam and i agree with liz on this point. there's two separate issues here there's the trade issue, assad

am points out and liz points out you're not going to solve that by closing the border, you know, trump is on just the border security aspect of it, he's come up with the whole wall idea. he's proposed it that's what he ran on. that seems to have gone away so now he's going with the well let's just close the border. i think that's ill-advised to be honest with you. mexico actually has been a very good allie. i don't think they're stealing our car business, if you will. we benefit by the lower cost of labor in mexico and having lower -priced cars come in. you know, liz started out with the key statement. we need to come up with a solution. these kind of seat-of the-pants let's close the border he hasn't said for how long, he hasn't said specifically why other than the kind of the drug traffic coming in, which is probably not going to help, so there needs to be a more long term solution. i just hope this isn't a pivot from the fact that the whole i'm

going to build the wall on mexico's money seems to have failed. >> well i like the idea and concept. i think it gets away with a lot of stuff and doesn't pay for their actions. that doesn't mean it's going to be easy to do it or this is a good way to do it. the last time they closed this border wall which was drug- related i believe, during the reagan administration, we do way over like we do one month of exports to this country more than we did all year in 85, so we're only going to hurt "our bodies, ourselves." could we just do with people and maybe it would work in a short period of time? but i see too much economic losses for what little gains you get keeping undesirable criminal s and whatever. >> and jonas, i also think if we're going to have a serious conversation and if he wants to have a serious conversation you can't conflate issues like trade deficits with the crisis at the border. there is a crisis so what is the

crisis you're trying to solve for? pick your crisis and address it and stick to it and then we can talk about another crisis. >> well i think right now the crisis is there are tens of thousands of people who are in limbo. they're not in the country, not allowed in the country and now they are just letting go into the country people are coming across with no identification et cetera. it does seem to me that mexico was acting as a partner in this problem, or in trying to correct this problem, a couple months ago, when you had these huge caravans coming up from central america. it seems to me there is an opportunity to work with mexico, remember we were going to have asylum requests made in mexico at various stoppoints or at our consolate there. that seems to me eminently reasonable and it would make sense to talk to them about this , instead of just kind of blowing the thing up now. >> guys hang on just a second. we do have art delquedo ready he's the national border council vice president. art you've been there, you've worked there and seen all of this and we have information that in the first three months

of this year there were more apprehensions at the southern border in the first three months than all of last year which suggests that this isn't a manufactured crisis. your thoughts? >> it definitely is not a manufactured crisis. we've been talking about this for quite some time. the numbers have slowly been going up and up and now we're alt a point where a lot of our holding cells are beyond full capacity. we're now in a position as its been announced that border patrol themselves are going to be doing nta's so we'll be receiving some of these individuals we'll be vetting them and then we'll just be releasing them giving them a court date later on. it's definitely an emergency for quite some time and i think that we're at a point where other countries that are facilitating what i call an invasion of our country need to start, you know, stepping up and something needs to be done. >> yeah, i'm going to let our panel here ask you questions but i just had one more for you

right now. is there, and i know this seems impossible these days with the political strife that we have in both sides but is there a middle ground that both sides can find here where maybe we can change some of the u.s. asylum laws to alleviate the pressures at the border? >> that's definitely what we're asking for, congress needs to get together and take care of some of these asylum laws and find some kind of fix to the whole situation, because when we're having individuals just coming up and just automatically asking for asylum, they go before asylum officer and then a court date is given to them to speak to an immigration judge. i mean, obviously they're not really showing up to their court date. there has to be something more strict that can happen there along the border itself, so we can return some of these fake asylum claims, because it is. it's definitely a problem and i've said it before. it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. i think the security of our nation's borders should not have anything to do with political parties.

>> this is adam lashinsky in california. no one on this panel has suggested there's a fake or a manufactured crisis. my question to you, i think it would be really helpful if you could explain to us what has changed if anything at the border over the last several months? >> we just had more individuals coming through. we have, you know, obviously we have males now coming through with underage individuals but we also have adults that are coming through claiming political asylum. >> the question i'm asking is that new, or you said earlier i think that this has been going on for years and that's my understanding as well. the question is has anything changed? >> no, what's changed is that we're having more and more individuals of larger groups are coming across and now you're getting groups that are coming across and as soon as they cross into the united states, they just sit there and wait for an agent to show up and take them in. they're not even trying to run. obviously in the tucson sector,

we're still having issues with individuals running from agents and agents are still having to track people and all that and that's also a concern because you start thinking, you know, in those areas maybe the individual has more of a criminal background and that's why he's trying to evade being apprehended so i guess what you would think is changing is we've lost more agents and we have more agents pretty much taking care of these processing duties so you have to remove them from certain areas on the border where they should be defending the line. >> i have a couple questions for you. you mentioned that mexico was facilitating this, i'm curious as to how, and then further, what do you think the solution is? is it a permanent wall and if it is, who pays for it and how far does it extend? does it extend across the entirety of the u.s. mexico border? >> i think that there's several different things that need to be done. obviously, the wall is something that we've been asking for quite

some time. it is a huge deal. it's something that needs to be done. we obviously need to retain some of the agents that we've been losing. we need to hire more agents. you have to have a combination of a lot of things but obviously the wall is a big deal, and when we talk about mexico facilitat ing it, you have mexico has their own immigration laws and, you know, you have all these individuals that are coming in through their southern border, and they're just coming in to the united states and when we apprehend them, perhaps we could or mexico can take some responsibility instead of us having to hold them or release them into the united states. we would be able to take them back and they could wait in mexico, that would be i think more ideal, but at the same time , there's a lot of other things that need to be done. it ain't just the wall we're asking for. it is a big factor and we've always said that but there's a lot of issues that need to be taken care of aside from that, and obviously, i mean, i see it all the time. i grew up on the southern border

i grew up down here. i've seen the reality of what goes on and what's gone on throughout the years and you see when they're coming when these groups are coming through mexico and they're tied to some of these smuggling organizations, somebody's on top of everything else pulling some of those strings so i think everyone needs to take responsibility and if they're coming through mexico somebody within the government in mexico needs to enforce their laws a little bit tougher perhaps. >> i was going to ask you, are these people who are now flooding the border are they mostly from central america and are most of them pretty confident they will be able to pass whatever asylum test there is? i mean what if we just got very strict on asylum cases, even if it went through the courts just saying no you can not stay here and we will take you home. i mean doesn't that message pretty quickly percolate back to central america and slow down the people coming up?

>> you have a huge amount of individuals and caravans forming and coming through in mass. a lot of it is because there is no consequences. they are very confident all they have to do is step on u.s. soil and say asylum and they will speak to the asylum officer. there's been back and forth and people have said well they are making their initial court appearance. well their initial court appearance is obviously something that they're doing while they're being detained by immigration, and they're being taken to an asylum officer, but after that, no one seems to have given any indication of what percentage actually shows up to the actual immigration court once they're released from immigration custody, and that's something i think the people need to start asking of course they're coming through and just claiming asylum, they're being released because they're confident that they're going to stay here and that's part of the problem. >> which goes back to the first question the change in the

asylum laws art we really appreciate your time and your perspective today. thank you. have a good weekend, sir. >> thank you for having me. lauren: coming up president trump is lasting obamacare but do republicans have a real fix for healthcare? we'll ask former ceo of cke restaurants what needs to be done, right now. be right back. president trump: the democrats are pushing socialistic, government-run healthcare, that bans private health insurance for 180 million

how do you gauge the greatness of an suv? is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain... or breaking new ground? this is the mercedes-benz suv family.

greatness comes in many forms. lease the glc 300 for just $479 a month at the mercedes-benz spring event. going on now. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. ♪all around the world, we are one♪ we are one♪ ♪so where did we all go wrong?♪ ♪woo ♪where did we all, where did we all go wrong?♪ ♪love, love, love, love ♪love, love, love sometimes a cough gets in the way of a good night's sleep.

that's when he needs vicks vaporub. proven cough medicine. with 8 hours of vapors, so he can sleep. vicks vaporub. goodnight coughs.

president trump: we're doing something that is going to be much less expensive than obamacare for the people. i'm not saying government, i'm saying for the people, and we're going to have pre-existing

conditions and we'll have a much lower deductible, so and i've been saying it, the republicans are going to end up being the party of healthcare. lauren: you heard it there president trump continuing to make the case for a new republican healthcare this afternoon all coming as 2020 democrats push medicare for all on the campaign trail let's bring in the former ceo of cke restaurants andy puzder, joins us right now, andy good to see you. >> good to see you, lauren. thank you. lauren: what do you make of president trump right now pushing republicans to become the party of healthcare haven't we tried this before? >> well we haven't tried it this way before. i think this is great. look obamacare was supposed to reduce the cost of health insurance and reduce the cost of healthcare. they both have gone way up. there's only one thing that improves quality and reduces costs and that's competition. when you put government into the process competition goes away, prices go up, quality goes down,

so i think it's exactly the right approach, we want to lower costs, we want less government involved, we want more competition involved and that's exactly the mantel that republicans can assume. this is exactly what republicans stand for, so i think it would be great. if we can be the party of healthcare, i think that'll be real positive for the american people. >> andy, this is jonas ferris. i agree broadly speaking with everything you just described, any system, but with healthcare, since the republicans seem to want to keep the popular pre- existing conditions rule from obamacare, how does that ever jive with any kind of free market? someone could walk in and need hundreds of thousands of dollars of something and you have to provide it at a relatively low cost and with no limit. how would that ever work without got backstops or taxes so it's like in restaurants you had to serve an unlimited amount of food for $5 not just one burrito

or whatever how does it work? >> i would say when you're talking about competition the government can make requirements that all competitors have to meet so everybody would be competing on the same basis. everybody would have to offer coverage that covered pre- existing conditions. there's a great system that could be used as an example. it's a system in singapore. singapore has the best healthcare results in the world and it also has the lowest percentage of gdp spent on healthcare in the world, and they do it through competition, through health savings accounts, through doctors having ratings and they're rated like uber drivers you get to rate your doctor and then they list their prices so you can be price selective, you can be doctor selective, you get a health savings account, it's actually your money you can leave it to your children so there is always an incentive to get a lower cost for healthcare and the system works incredibly well. it could work here and they cover pre-existing conditions in singapore. >> but it must be broad

mandated coverage. you can't just walk in once you have an expensive condition and then get health insurance. how would that even work in singapore in a good system like that? >> everybody does have coverage you're exactly right and you actually have to pay more, everybody has coverage but you have to pay always have to pay a percentage, a certain percentage of whatever procedure you get. when you're young you pay a higher percentage. when you're older you pay a lower percentage but everybody always has an iron in the fire. everybody always has an investment in keeping costs down , so it's a system, shawn flynn, a friend of mine who is an economist in california has a book coming out on this in june and i'm hoping people pay a lot of attention to it. >> andy this is gary here. i couldn't agree more that the free market works and it works in health care and that's been proven. just one fact for example,, lasi k eye surgery which is 99% of the time elective and doctors compete was $22 per-eye in 1998

and now it's $300 per eye, so it can work, but here is the problem. the government and large organizations like the ama limit supply and the companies on the other hand increase demand, how are you going to break up the aetna of the world, these large hospitals of the world that quite frankly, want to keep high prices engrained in us how do you get to that free market that's the question. >> by forcing them to compete with other hospitals and once they're competing once the government opens up the market and allows competition just like it did with the airlines, remember we didn't have southwest. we didn't have these discount airlines years ago everybody paid a lot. when you open up the field so those entities have to compete with other entities on a level playing field, you're going to see prices go down and you're going to see quality go up. >> hang on andy you're e indicating deregulation and the airline industry with something

i don't know what in the healthcare industry but the problem is we never had a right to fly in airplanes what we did is deregulated airlines and the prices came down and more people flew that's absolutely true but in your opening comment you left something out about the goals of the affordable care act which was to get millions of more people insured which it did. i still don't understand what we're talking about here. what is the republican plan? is there an it that we're talking about? >> well there are first of all, the example i used with the airlines was an example not to compare flying on a plane to health care was to compare what can happen when large companies have to compete, how that affect s the industry. >> but how many do compete in healthcare. there's a bunch of large companies. >> what market are you in? >> the large health insurance company. >> one plan that you can have, you can get one plan. >> okay that doesn't make any sense but go ahead.

>> anyway. >> i don't know, united healthcare, i'm no expert on this stuff the list goes on and on plus all of the exchanges in the affordable care act. >> they compete for private sector business, that's absolutely true, and that's why private sector insurance is so much better than anything you can get on obamacare. you go into most markets there's one insurer, some markets we're faced with no insurer i mean there's not competition under obamacare. there's competition under the system that existed before obamacare, that insured most people. >> andy if i could interrupt one second it's liz. >> sure, hi, liz. >> i think you're totally right , transparency, competition all that's going to work. how could they possibly kabul together a bill in time for the 2020 election let's just be political here this cannot possibly happen i can't imagine this. >> well i can tell you there are groups that are working on bills john goodman's group does a very good job, tom price is working with the job creators network, there are groups working now to come up with a

bill. the question is can republicans come together behind a bill. hopeful that they can. actually i thought the senate bill that didn't pass by one vote was actually a pretty good bill. i'd hope they could modify that and improve it and get behind something like that. i hope they do that before the election and they should get it together and get behind it. >> lauren: senator cassidy working on it but the issue is americans are used to obamacare now and the system that we have so we'd be changing it once again. andy we thank you very much for your time. >> my pleasure, thank you. lauren: shares lift off today but what could we expect for the future of this company and future of ipo's more on that, future of ipo's more on that, straight ahead. so, you're open all day, that's what 24/7 means, sugar. kind of like how you get 24/7 access

to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7. run with us in the unstoppable john deere gator xuv835, and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks, we take the wheel. with three-wide seating, heat and ac, this is the coolest, most comfortable gator yet. nothing runs like a deere. run with us.

save $300 when you test drive and buy a gator xuv835 at participating john deere dealers.

rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. 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 asking your doctor about xeljanz xr

lauren: well ridesharing giant lyft debuted on the nasdac surging out of the gate over 20% after pricing last night at $72 a share this was an ipo in pretty high demand. and it lost steam at the end of the day closed at about 9% at $ 78.29, and many people though are worrying about the company's long term profitability so we'll ask our panel what do we make of lyft's performance today? >> well i'm willing to make a prediction the high for the day was around a little over l $88 a share i think that's the last time lyft will see $88 for a year, and not because i don't think it's a good company, but it is not profitable, it has no path to profitability. there's some sort of myth it call pent-up demand for ipo's which doesn't really make any sense. there's either liquidity in the market or there isn't and i just don't think this will last. >> gambling doesn't make any sense, but longer term business, you know what concerns me about

this is investors right now are a little worried about the economy with interest rates going down. they somehow think these unicorn s are free of the business cycle and what i don't think investors are thinking about is they are more tapped into the business cycle than regular businesses that you think are the business cycle like mcdonald's they are living off advertising first of all which is extremely cyclical when the economy turns or they have some sort of luxury upgrade service to average people like lyft. and when the economy turns people are going to take subways , this is a premium service for a lot of people as is uber and to adam's point i just couldn't get my uber in time to get here so i took a taxi, and it was twice the expense of the uber that didn't show up that i had to cancel and that is not a sustainable price model. you can't behalf the price of cabs and have a driver in the car, maybe they can kick it long enough. lauren: but jonas, that's the point in the ipo road show they are saying this is our path to profitability. we'll bring insurance costs down

and then when we get rid of the drivers when we have autonomous vehicles is that convincing though? is anybody convinced of that? >> i think general motors is. a lot of companies have put money into the operation because that's what they see as the future. i wouldn't buy it but i'm not a gambler. i think also that the key here is fear of missing out people are terribly afraid that this is going to be the next facebook, this is the next alphabet whatever and they won't have gotten in on the ground floor. >> they were all profitable before the ipo. >> let's talk about amazon that was not profitable. >> i think there's a couple takeaways. takeaway number one is adam is a hater. >> [laughter] >> he's just a hater okay? now that we know that, the takeaways -- >> jonas wants to walk. >> gary my mother would have told you that i'm a lover not a fighter but this is a company that last $1 billion last year, but people say well, amazon lost

money early on, the big difference though is amazon was the king. they were the first there. lyft is not the king, they're the second. look on your iphones, how many of you have a lyft app? i don't have a lyft app. >> i do. >> i've got an uber app that i use like never but at least i have it there, so you're spending a billion dollars on an ipo for a company that loses money hand over fist and is the second place player in the field so it's kind of like 1999. lauren: but do you still get the fist bump when you get in the car? oh, great! anyway, all right thanks guys we have a major leadership shakeup happening at the nations fourth largest bank, wells fargo ceo abruptly resigning and elizabeth warren has been calling for his out for quite some time says that's not enough

wait until you hear. i'm working to keep the fire going for another 150 years. ♪ to inspire confidence through style. ♪ i'm working to make connections of a different kind. ♪ i'm working for beauty that begins with nature. ♪ to treat every car like i treat mine. ♪ at adp we're designing a better way to work, so you can achieve what you're working for. ♪

lauren: 2020 presidential candidate elizabeth warren getting what she's wanted for years celebrating tim sloan's surprise and abrupt retirement as ceo of wells fargo but she's not letting him off the hook. listen to what she said earlier today while campaigning in iowa. >> it's about time that wells fargo gets another ceo. tim sloan was up to his eyeballs in the scams and corruption that wells fargo had perpetrated for years and now the next question is he going to get a golden parachute or actually be held accountable for what he did? if he broke the law he ought to be subject to prosecution just like everybody else. lauren: sloan became ceo largely after the big scandal so we ask gary b., is this necessary

potentially jailing him? >> i don't think so. i'll be honest with you if i was tim sloan i'd look to sue warren she's made liable claims he was up to his eyeballs. maybe he knew about it maybe he didn't that's for a jury if they want to pursue. second of all it bothers me when any president whether it's ronald regan or john f. kennedy with the steel mills or elizabeth warren sticks their finger in how businesses should be operated. they had penalties. they paid wells fargo nearly a half a billion dollars in fines. were they right in all these cases? of course not, but they paid what the courts were asking of them, so, you know, warren now obviously, this is her campaign platform, this is all she's known for. she's going to continue beating this, until the day is done, sloan was brought in as you point out after the crisis. he did his best. he was honorable in all the

congressional and senate hearings i think this is just a travesty on the part of big government. >> so i would take a little bit different point of view which is i think the board made a very big mistake when they appointed tim sloan. i think they should have gone outside the bank and brought in someone with a sterling squeaky clean reputation to guide the bank to what was obviously a very very troubled time, because as lauren pointed out he was there during the time all these things happened. that said, i totally agree with you, elizabeth warren this is her campaign montra, the banks are bad. we've got to really slaughter the banks to make sure that they don't misbehave again so i think she's cynically running on this but i have to say and by the way i think sloan is probably fine, i'm sure the board of directors really vetted his involvement with all these scams, but i do think optics were not good of making him ceo. >> first of all its not ben & jerry's it's a bank we've got to make money for shareholders including warren buffett but i

don't think elizabeth warren understands what really happened at wells fargo. they've done other things that were bad but the specific issue that everyone talks about the creating accounts, the dummy acts accounts that was basically people ripping off who worked at the company gaining the bonus program and the hard-charging environment that led to so many accounts they were ripping off it was like first place cadillac , second place steak knives, and they did that to the employees like i better make up some fake accounts so i don't get fired or get a bonus. that didn't make any money for wells fargo. you don't make money off dummy accounts you made a few pennys per account that's not how banks make money. this was an internal problem through aggressive strategy. it wasn't ripping off people. >> but jonas that's fair you're understating that a little bit that parse in parse" they had a hyper aggressive sales culture which also encouraged their people to upsell customers on as many products as possible whether or not these were good products for people that has

also been part of the wells fargo culture, that is part of the wells fargo culture that tim sloan rose in over a course of 30 years and so i think liz put it well. you don't have to agree with the way elizabeth warren says it to agree that wells fargo might have done better by itself, by having gotten an outside ceo at the beginning of the crisis, not now. >> adam, when does upselling, when is that a criminal concern? i stopped in the mcdonald's the extra large fries were bad for me, but they tried to sell them to me. >> it's interesting it may or may not be a criminal concern when you're dealing with financial products and we went through this with the financial crisis with people having mortgages pushed on them that they couldn't afford, that was there are laws on the books, gary, that prevent you from taking advantage of consumers that way. by the way, i know we're out of time. elizabeth warren wrote some of those laws. lauren: investors like what they saw today, stock was up. all right high level trade talks

wrapping up in china, the latest details on where things stand, right now, next.

lauren: high level trade talks wrapping up in beijing with china bringing more to the negotiating table, edward

lawrence has been following all of the developments from washington. edward, where do things stand right now? >> yeah, right now we're moving into another phase baby steps towards possibly an agreement the u.s. trade delegation headed back to the united states following two intense days of talks. treasury secretary steven mnuchin tweeting out talks have been constructive but the white house says two parties continued to make progress during candid and constructive discussions on the negotiations and important next steps and that next step happens april 3 in washington when the chinese delegation cops here. president donald trump touting some success and strength. president trump: it's a very comprehensive, to use a word some people like some people don't like, i think it's okay but it is a very comprehensive, very detailed enlisting of problems that we've had with china over the years and it's going to have to be a great deal if it's not a great deal we can't do it. >> the chinese went farther

than they have in the past with these meetings the eighth round of talks the chinese government sources say that's because they were waiting to see if the mueller report would damage president trump and the chinese now believe he could be re- elected so they have to deal with his trade policies through probably possibly 2024 white house economic advisors say a trade deal would be good for the u.s. , and china, but we must fix our trading relationships. >> it's not about disadvantag ing our friends & partners. it's really about leveling the playing field, and i think that lots of other presidents probably wanted to make progress but they haven't had success. president trump has had success. >> the major countries are coming back to the table to talk about new trade deals and another white house economic advisor says the president is willing to negotiate with china for weeks or months to get the right trade deal. back to you guys. lauren: edward thank you very much.

now we want to bring in china watcher gordon chang, you're very skeptical on what progress can actually be achieved, so why are you skeptical and do you think we're wasting our time here? >> well, the reason i'm concerned is that we're arguing over, for instance the cybersecurity law, and other laws and the chinese don't care about laws. it's not important in the chinese system. the communist party is un constrained by laws or anything else, and we've seen this in the past, so for instance, in 2001 they agreed to allow our credit card companies into china by 2006. well aren't credit card companies are still not in even though we won a world trade organization case even though everything else so we've got to be really concerned. i mean we have to see the text of the deal and of course, history is going to prove everybody right or wrong, but we've got to remember that this history is not very good. >> gordon, jonas ferris. to your point if they're not going to do what they say can

you make the case for permanent tariffs to punish for doing whatever they want, all of the stuff they do that we don't do here that adjusts for a leveling mechanism forever? >> well one of the things is we want change the chinese system, and xi-jinping the chinese ruler leaves in a state dominated economy, so the way to deal with that is just to increase the cost until they stop doing what they shouldn't be doing, in other words, stealing our intellectual property, and committing trade violations, so the idea is you just pile on the tariffs you have import bans, and you try to disengage the american and chinese economies so that we trade with our friends, not with the country that is using the proceeds of trade to develop its military, where its officers are openly talking about killing americans. this just does not work. >> gordon, i agree with your skepticism, but what you just advocated, don't you think that that would lead to massive

disruption in the global economy and would portend bad things essentially for the whole economy for some period of time? >> yeah, sure there would certainly be disruptions but we're already starting to see the u.s. and china disengage to some extent because companies are moving parts of their supply chain out of china because of the concerns that we've been talking about that they just don't feel they can get a fair shake there costs are too high all sorts of things, so yes this is going to be bad but on the other hand, when we consider what's alternative could be, you know, short-term disruptions not that. remember we're losing something like three to $400 billion worth of intellectual property each and every year. that's a loss for the american economy. >> gordon, it's gary here, and going back to the whole cybersecurity thing. there's two issues the cybersecurity and intellectual property and the head of the cybersecurity basically said you

got to do that on a case-by-case basis, you can't solve it government to government. as far as the intellectual property isn't that really just a choice of companies wanting to do business in china and then being ripped off? isn't the real solution like i'm not going to do business in china. that's it. i don't think you can solve this with tariffs your thoughts though? >> you know, gary, you make an important point and part of it is that companies have made a decision that they will surrender some of their ip in order for market access, and they sort of assume that they're going to lose some of it through theft. yeah, i can understand that but we also have companies that aren't doing business in china, that through cyber means and other means china is taking their intellectual property, and that, we absolutely have to stop , because we've allowed this to continue for far too long, so this whole thing of force taking is one issue. the other issue though is just out and autocrime it criminality lauren: gordon chang, thank you

very much. the president just tweeted on the fed and the economy what president trump is saying is holding american growth back holding american growth back right no

there's brushing...and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. even my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada. oral-b. brush like a pro.

frstill, we never stoppedss wamaking it stronger.. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. the new 2019 c-class family. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional lease & financing offers during the mercedes-benz spring event. going on now.

. >> p president tweeting about federal reserve, and u.s. economy quote have fed knowed mainly raised interest rates especially since very little inflation had they not done ridiculous timed quantitative tightening 3% gdp stock market would have been much higher markets in a better place, that is the tweet, we asked panel, do you agree with thet. >> okay. i actually wrote something last fall saying it was mistake to hike rates again in december, because there was absolutely no indication that inflation was increasing, and i think the fed for a couple years now has expected a tighter employment markets was going to lead to wages, rising at rate that would push inflation higher it hasn't happened. partied because oil prices during that period were coming down i think it was a mistake,

i think the fed really did kind of clobber the economy, and then europe slowed down and china, and we also hada had a government shutdown tsunami of bad news statement but the fed did not help. >> yeah, i agree with liz, i think they took their eye off the target should have been is there any inflation, there was no inflation. >> exactly. >> 70s mentality trying to fight, i am no big believer why there should be a fed i think done by algorithm mr. r of the deal needs to learn how to sell a little bit take guy to lunch to golf, you put his arm around his shoulder don't beat him up, over twitter going to inflame them i don't understand salesmanship at all. >> that said. >> i think he is right. >> note salesmanship gary the i have a 12-year-old i spend a lot of time around 12-years

old tend to blame other people when something goes wrong. >> eye agree but we're in agreement. this is not selling. >> yeah. exactly, and so that -- that is what he is doing here unseemly, i think, by the way, we're like his dancing bears because he tweets and we decide we need to talk about it. [laughter] >> -- inflation fears the federal reserve needs to get out to 70s point they have more power to end inflation can let it happen they don't get -- if it happens never able to end it -- a balance sheet nearly letting 50 bead as president revered lit on fire causing all kind of problems tractor a trillion flew aconvey to get rid of qe thing did he inflation we can err on side of inflation no reason to get ahead i think they i ray of short-term rates should have been o gone beyond

1 -- >> a positive curve wouldn't have scared investors having a recession dealing with now in maths would have been short-term rates longer you longer term rates not above (announcer) the following is a paid presentation for prostagenix, brought to you by prostatereport.com. (upbeat music) ♪ hi, this is larry king. over 30 million men in america have prostrate problems. i know, i was one of them. and all these natural prostate supplements like the ones i have here in front of me are everywhere. drugstores, health food stores, on the internet, and all over tv, selling millions of bottles every year.