right? you get the juices flowing a little bit. >> or why when you sit on the couch, you are more tired, that sort of thing, i got it. good theory. very cool story. thank you. that does it for us here. >> it does indeed. we will see you tomorrow. bulls & bears starts right now. david: breaking news and a welcome sight on wall street. stocks having their best day since january 4th with the dow surging a whopping 512 points and all the major averages closing at least 2% higher. this as powell merely hinted that rate cuts could be in order if u.s. trade wars slow our economy. >> i think it is more likely that the tariffs go on and we'll probably be talking during the time that the tariffs are on and they are going to be paid, and if they don't step up and give us security for our nation, look, millions of people are flowing through mexico. that's unacceptable.

david: president trump speaking in london earlier, ramping up his threat to slap mexico with 5% tariffs, set to kick in on monday. but some republicans are warning they are divided on his tariff plan. hi everybody. this is bulls & bears. i'm david asman. joining me on the panel is carol roth, robert wolf, john layfield and mark water. new reaction now from republican lawmakers on using tariffs to force mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the u.s. listen. >> i think it was not a setback from the standpoint of how hard i'm going to work to get usmca passed so the president can have a big victory, but it makes it more difficult. >> there is not much support in my conference for tariffs, that's for sure. >> -- [inaudible] -- tariff will have a negligible impact. if we go to a 25% tariff, that's a whole different story --

[inaudible] -- our economy badly. i don't think we will get there. i don't. david: so mark, republicans are divided on this, but do you think the president's on the right track? >> i do. this is not a trade dispute. this is about national security. and if we were dealing with a country that was not one of our close allies and neighbors, we would have a different term for this -- for these actions. they would be called sanctions. but in this case, the president is using an economic incentive for mexico to change its behavior, to do something about confronting the crisis that is passing through its country in order to come to ours. so migrants are first breaking the law in mexico. then they're breaking the law in the united states and the president wants mexico to take a tougher stand on that. they can avoid this if they can join with us to take that step. >> i understand the frustration here. i just don't understand the tactic. the reason why people come

either from mexico or pass through mexico is because they're looking for better economic opportunities. so if we cripple the economy in mexico, doesn't that mean we're going to get more people who are incentiveized to come into the united states? i just think that it is a tactic that doesn't make a lot of sense. i think congress needs to act on this, but i would prefer to see it go another around because of the reasons i mentioned and also because it is a tax on u.s. citizens. david: robert? >> i would agree with carol, but i would also add to that. i mean, we've been talking now for months that tariffs is really just negatively impacting the u.s. we're consumer driven country, and it is a tax on us. we are not getting money from china into our treasury. that's just not happening nor will we get money from mexico into our treasury. we will be paying. it is the tax on the importer, not the exporter. it is a flawed approach. it's been a flawed approach all along.

>> robert, agree with you completely about the fact it is a tax on the american people and also agree with carol that this is a problem of the u.s. government. this is a failure of the u.s. government and taxing the american people through a tariff to me makes no sense whatsoever. we are misjudged what is coming through our borders as far as illegal immigration. years ago it was just a single mexican male coming to our country -- predominantly -- coming to our country to make money and send it back to his family in mexico. it is now families coming to our border for amnesty. it is a completely different mindset. we have not responded to that. whoever it is in congress, you can blame whose side it is, whose fault it is, it is the administration's fault, but it is not mexico's fault. it is our fault for letting this get out of hand. david: here's what the ceo of wal-mart, doug mcmillan had to say about tariffs in a fox business exclusive today. take a listen.

>> merchants for a long time now have been working on mitigation plans as it relates to what's been happening with the conversations in china, the tariff impact there and now as of late this conversation around mexico. we certainly hope that these relationships, these negotiations get resolved, on both sides, whether it's here in the u.s. or in mexico or in china. we're having conversations to try encourage that to happen. in mexico in particular, people may not know that a lot of our fresh fruits and vegetables, things like tomatoes and avocados come across the border from mexico. those are particularly important the us. david: let's bring in u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president neil bradley. great to see you, neil. there are plenty of good reasons against tariffs. we have been listening to some of them here on the show and from the representative from wal-mart. but the border is clearly out of control. it's in crisis mode right now. mexico is not helping, short of tariffs, what would you do to get mexico to help? >> well, you're exactly right.

tariffs aren't the answer here, but we do have a problem at the southern border. david: more than a problem. it is a real crisis. >> it is a crisis. let's call it what it is, it is a crisis. as you all were discussing in the last segment, this is a crisis of the policy on our side, within our government. what we really need is republicans and democrats, congress and the president, to come together and address security at the border. look at our asylum and immigration laws. frankly, we need to be a partner to mexico who are stepping up their efforts both to secure their southern border, but also to deal with the very real economic problems in the northern triangle. david: hold on a second. you are not specifically answering the question. >> sure. david: mexico came up to the table, and they said a couple of weeks ago, we're going to help. they didn't follow through with that at all. so they are not pulling their weight at the border, in calming the crisis that's going on there. what could we do to force them to do what they need to do? >> i think it's a mistake to suggest that it's not in their interest to also control what's going on here.

this is a problem that we both share. they aren't coming to the table reluctantly, but frankly, having them come to the table with the threat of us imposing a tax on american consumers and businesses frankly makes no sense. it is a distraction. look at what we're talking about. we're spending all of our time talking about the taxes that americans are going to pay on everything from avocados to zinc, rather than talking about how our elected officials need to come together and deal with this very real problem. david: but that's not going to happen, not before the election, that's not going to happen. we're not going to have democrats and republicans agree on anything. go ahead, john. >> neil, it is a pleasure having you on. thank you for coming on. let me ask you about the lawsuit that you have threatened to file against the president of the united states. are you threatening to file this lawsuit because you think it is a wrong policy and it is bad for the american economy, a tax on the american people as we suggested, or do you think it is an overreach of presidential powers? >> it is certainly the first two. it is a wrong policy. it is bad for the american economy, bad for american

families. we are also looking at and diving into whether it exceeds the president's authorities under the statutes. and whoever the president, for whatever the reason, we are a rule of laws based country and imposes taxes on american families by edict, without force of law is a pretty dangerous precedent. david: marc? >> this is marc lotter. i'm with the trump campaign. obviously i'm going to strongly disagree with your entire philosophy there. can we at least agree that despite the dire warnings that have been given by economists about the china impact of trade, the prices have been absolutely basically in check, inflation is under control, and the dire warnings about the economy because of the china issue has not borne any fruit, and the same thing is going to happen here. we know supply side is going to adjust. manufacturers will lower their prices. companies will reduce their prices in mexico and the

american consumer is not going to bear the brunt of this -- brunt of this. how do we propose dealing with the border issue aside than just with congress? >> i would take issue with that conclusion; right? here's what we know on the china tariffs. the first round of tariffs were on intermediary goods coming into manufacturing. we are just now beginning to apply tariffs on china to consumer goods, the things we purchase at wal-mart and at the grocery store. we have not to date applied tariffs on all end good, consumer goods coming out of canada or mexico. they were limited to aluminium and steel. this is the first time we're suggesting that -- the administration is suggesting you apply tariffs on everything we import, whether that's from china or mexico. that's a trillion dollars worth of goods that are coming into this country. we don't know what the impact is going to be when you apply tariffs of 25% potentially on a trillion dollars worth of goods, but i will suggest to you, that it will likely raise prices and dampen economic growth and

really harm all the great things that the trump administration has been doing on regulatory reform and tax relief. so we've helped the economy in some places. this is going to move us into the exact wrong direction. >> i mean i would just add to the -- i forgot his first name -- david: neil. >> i would add to neil's point that these tariffs -- but the essence of a trade war is what's really been hurting. we're going into our second farm bailout because china is deciding to change who they buy agriculture from. the whole idea of trade wars is not even a policy. it makes absolutely no sense. we're not going to put a mote around the united states. we should be looking to build on trade, as opposed to put these restrictions on trade. and this idea of tariffs has not worked. it just has not worked. david: you don't think there's a problem at the border or even a crisis at the border? >> i was responding to -- david: i know. how do you deal with the border? >> you know what?

you and i have been arguing -- actually agreeing on this -- david: a lot of stuff. >> -- for a year. we think immigration reform would pass on an up and down vote. this no do congress isn't going to do an up and down vote. there's no immigration reform coming. david: that means a million people in the next year coming in here. >> i don't think i have a good answer other than to john's point, this is not really about immigration as much as asylum. if we were giving money to the ports of entry, as opposed to having this argument about the border wall, i think you could get a budget for the president because i don't see how the democrats could not approve that type of situation at the port of entries. >> you know, the administration -- >> i want to come back to neil for a second, if you don't mind, and ask a question. neil, it is carol roth. i would like to understand the impact of the uncertainty particularly on small business because we hear a lot about the wal-marts of the world, but we know that 99% of the businesses

in this country happen to be small businesses, and even if they're not getting a direct impact from the tariffs, the fact that we're using tariffs now as quote unquote sanctions makes it very difficult to plan. can you talk a little bit about that? >> absolutely. at the chamber more than 90% of our members are small businesses, and what they are telling us is it's very hard for them to predict what they are ordering, what their costs are going to be. on one hand, they look at it and say should we be stock piling now and incurring those costs? should we be looking to change our supply chain? or what's the economic outlook going to look like? you know, the first people that we heard from after this announcement on thursday night were small business in arizona and texas who have already been struggling under the weight of the real problems at the border who looked at this and said now, you're going to compound that problem with new taxes on our supply chains and the very businesses that we operate. david: the deadline is monday. we will see what happens. neil, great to see you. neil bradley from the chamber, thank you very much for being

here. please come back and see us again. president trump getting down to business in great britain, telling prime minister may the u.s. is committed with a phenomenal deal with the u.k., but will it get done? we will ask former special advisor to margaret thatcher, he is here next, from london, live. ♪

i have heart disease, watch what i eat, take statins, but still struggle to lower my ldl bad cholesterol. which means a heart attack or stroke. could strike without warning, pulling me away from everything that matters most. (siren) because with high bad cholesterol, my risk of a heart attack or stroke is real. ♪ repatha® plus a statin seriously lowers bad cholesterol by 63%. and significantly drops my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. do not take repatha® if you are allergic to it. repatha® can cause serious allergic reactions. signs include: trouble breathing or swallowing, or swelling of the face. most common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu-like symptoms back pain, high blood sugar, and redness, pain, or bruising at the injection site. i won't let a heart attack or stroke come between me and everything i love. neither should you. tell your doctor to lower your ldl and reduce your risk with repatha®. pay no more than $5 per month with the repatha® copay card.

>> as the u.k. makes preparations to exit the european union, the united states is committed to a phenomenal trade deal between the u.s. and the u.k. there is tremendous potential in that trade deal. david: president trump holding a very congenial joint press conference with outgoing prime minister may in london. the president says he's optimistic about a trade deal with the u.k. that would be two to three times larger than what is currently in place. joining us now is former special advisor to prime minister margaret thatcher. he is live in london. the president says the new trade deal's likely once brexit is finished. are you as optimistic as he is? >> yes, i am optimistic even more some in some respects. i think a u.s. u.k. trade deal is a distinct realistic possibility for 2020 provided

that britain is able to leave the european union on october 31st as scheduled. that's the most important element is britain will able to leave the eu, which enables the u.k. then to negotiate and sign free trade agreements, so there's tremendous momentum on both sides of the atlantic. there is a lot of support for a u.s. u.k. free trade deal here in london right now. and i think that the stars are in alignment for such a deal. so yes, i'm optimistic, and it's tremendous that the president has been strongly advancing the idea of a free trade deal with the u.k. >> it's carol roth. in terms of doing a trade deal together, does this impact the ability for the u.k. to brexit and exit the eu a little more cleanly knowing perhaps this lessens the burden of the economic impact of leaving? >> hi, carol, that's a great question. i think certainly the

possibility of a u.s. u.k. free trade deal will make the likelihood of a no deal brexit i think more of a certainty because after all, britain has to have a completely clean break with the eu in order to sign free trade agreements. that means the u.k. has to leave the eu's customs union. right now, according to the eu withdrawal agreement, britain does not actually exit the eu customs union. and i think that that's a real problem for a u.s. u.k. free trade agreement. so yes, i do think that the momentum for a free trade deal with the united states makes a no deal brexit on october 31st far more likely. >> nile i was going to at first respectfully disagree that you were optimistic about the u.k. because of some of the hurdles you then mentioned. i was actually on the president oba obama's export council which was a bipartisan council.

we put together tpa, tpp and t-tip which was transatlantic. there are so many hurdles for the u.k. to get through before there is a u.s. u.k. free deal agreement. i think for our viewers, you know, first, you have to have a no brexit exit because if there's a deal with the eu, then there is no deal with the u.s. number two, if that does happen, then the u.k. becomes part of the wto, which means the impact on the u.k. with respect to new tariffs, new immigration policy, new tourism and travel policy is going to be incredible. i mean, i'm not for a no brexit exit, but -- and then you're saying that then they are going to have a trade agreement which has to pass congress. before 2020? i just don't see it. >> yeah, so my response is that actually i have met with numerous members of congress actually with regard to a u.s. u.k. free trade agreement. in fact, the heritage foundation

put out the first proposal for a u.s. u.k. fta back in 2014, two years ahead of the 2016 referendum. i have to say that the vast majority of members of congress who have taken interest in this issue are supportive of a u.s. u.k. free trade agreement. there are some democrats, i would say a minority, who are skeptical about such a deal, certainly on the republican side, there's overwhelming support. i would expect a u.s. u.k. free trade agreement to go through the u.s. senate. and certainly of course you have a white house that is 100% in favor of this deal. of course the dynamics could change, if there's a democratic administration post 2020. but right now i think with a republican white house and republican-controlled senate as well, it's highly likely to go through. but i do think that if britain does exit under world trade organization terms, britain will do just fine. already the british government

has pledged to remove 95% of existing eu-imposed tariffs. so britain will already be -- immediately be i think a major free trade player on the international stage with the world's fifth largest economy and already discussions have been held between the british government, over hundreds of governments across the world with regard to potential free trade deals. david: marc? >> you talk a lot about the political situation in the united states and how that will affect the u.k., u.s. free trade deal. what about the up coming selection of a prime minister in the u.k.? do you see that adjusting the likelihood of a deal? >> yeah, that's a great question. and we are likely to see a new conservative prime minister in place by the end of july. and it's highly likely that you are going to see a hard-line pro brexit prime minister in place replacing theresa may who has

been very half-hearted on brexit, among the leading contenders for the conservative party leadership, including boris johnson, for example, jeremy hunt, they have all actually mentioned the strong possibility of a no deal brexit in the case that the eu refuses to renegotiate existing eu withdrawal agreements. so i think that with a new prime minister coming in, you're going to have a far more pro brexit administration in place than the theresa may government which has been very lukewarm at times and you will have a prime minister in place who will open up the possibility of a no deal brexit, but certainly i think a new pm will seek to renegotiate the existing eu withdrawal deal with the european union. it is up to brussels to see how that moves forward. if the eu refuses to negotiate, then i think the odds are in favor of a no deal brexit on october 31st. david: last question, john, go ahead. >> yeah, now, to me the brits

have voted against a deal and have voted against a no deal. to me it is like voting against heads and tails of a coin flip. why do you think that october 3 1st, you have a new prime minister, you have the same parliamentary mix you had before. why do you think you can get something done now? >> well, it is different, basically the default position on october 31st is britain to leave under a no deal unless parliament approves the eu withdrawal agreement. right now there's very little prospect of parliament approving the eu withdrawal deal. therefore the default is britain leaves under no deal on october 31st. parliament cannot stop that actually from happening unless they revoke brexit all together, which i think is highly unlikely. david: nile, great to see you my friend. for all the naysayers who said this was going to be a terrible meeting between the president and the prime minister, and the queen, it's turned out to be a lovely series of events, so far, anyway. we're halfway through

>> a pretty successful state visit so far. david: seems to be. nile, great to see you, thank you very much. former vice president joe biden calling out on the campaign trail. he was called out by the far left for not announcing a plan on climate change. well, he has one now. but does his multitrillion dollars plan go far enough to appease them? >> i will be dammed if the same politicians who refused to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need a middle of the road approach to save our lives. that is too much for me. (ding) 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. ♪ if his denture can cope with... a steak. luckily for him, he uses super poligrip. it helps give him 65% more chewing power. leaving brad to dig in and enjoy. super poligrip.

the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living.

together we'll make the right choice.

>> science tells us how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet. so today i'm announcing my plan for clean energy revolution. it outlines what we have to do to meet this challenge head-on and how we're going to get there. david: former vice president joe biden unveiling his new 5

trillion dollars climate plan. the campaign saying the proposal gets the u.s. to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, reenters the paris climate agreement and creates 10 million clean energy jobs. i also calls the green new deal, quote, a crucial framework. here's what the plan does not include, an enforcement mechanism or a carbon tax. will this be enough to satisfy the progressives in his party? >> so i'm going to define progressives. there are moderate progressives, which i think is the majority and then there's populist progressives. i would say on that all 24 candidates are somewhat progressive on climate change, healthcare, gun reform and immigration reform. i think the majority of the democratic party will support and applaud this biden climate change deal, but the far left will have an issue with that. david: what percent is that. >> probably 25 to 30 percent. he's not signing on for the green new deal that has carbon

leaving by 2030. this says 2050. david: but he loses 25% by this? >> he loses 25% because he's not for the green new deal. >> even though he outlines the green new deal as a critical framework, let's remember that the labor unions including in california are -- the members are sending hate mail to their labor leaders saying the democratic party doesn't support our jobs and our beliefs anymore, and we should also point out too that while he's being criticized by the left, he's also being criticized across the rest of the country because it looks like great many sections of this climate deal were plagiarized. so joe biden's old campaign bug-a-boos coming back pretty early in this 2020 race. >> yeah, look, there's nothing wrong with fixing the world. i mean, i'm far from a tree hugger. i grew up in old country of west texas rg but there's nothing wrong with the environment. we're throwing the baby out with the bath water because we didn't like the messenger.

back in the 90s, it was al gore. people didn't like al gore so they throw out the message. now it is aoc, people don't like her, so they throw out the message. you have extremists on both side. 25% of democrats who will hate this. 25% of republicans are going to hate anything that democrats put out anyway. america is somewhere in the middle. biden has to find a way if he can to get to the primary. then i think this will have more chance of a reception. >> i sort of agree with john. i think there is certainly a whole lot that is wrong with the message, but i do think that what's wrong with it in the eyes of the democrats depends on if it's the primary versus the general election because in the primary, this doesn't go far enough. this is not extreme enough. this is not going to destroy our country which is basically what, you know, a lot of the far progressive democrats want to do. but in the general, the problem is that the g.o.p. has nothing to say on this. whether it's dispelling myths,

trying to track down on china, even going towards private enterprise. there are fantastic private organizations and nonprofit organizations like for ocean that are cleaning the oceans and using donations from the plastics that they find to finance that. so they have absolutely nothing to say, so i think if he makes it to the general -- david: i'm going to be the lone man out here for a second and john, even if you call me a nut as it regards to this, i think the economy -- or the ecology of the united states is improving as a result of the free market. we have moved from coal to natural gas. that has cleaned our environment much more than it used to be clean. we've also done some very good due diligence epa and others to clean up the waterways etc. i'm an optimist but i also do believe in the carbon energy program that this president has brought on. not only are we moving to cleaner ways of burning carbon fuel, but we're also incredibly strengthening the economy. so is nobody else with me on

this? >> well, i'm going to disagree because i think this will strengthen the economy more. this is the essence of really a bipartisan climate change platform because it's done with public private partnership. david: didn't we try this during the obama era? we tried the green energy programs and they didn't pan out. >> no, we didn't try it. public private partnerships never actually went forward other than about a dozen of them because we couldn't do it on a national plan. david: you say other than a dozen of them. the problem is that a lot of those dozen didn't work out too well. that was part of the problem. we never got the job growth that vice president biden said we were going to get. >> well, we could argue about the job growth because actually per month private sector -- [inaudible] -- than it is with president trump. >> it was actually job loss during the obama biden administration. >> that's not accurate. >> since it is absolutely 100% accurate. let's also point out that the

president pulled out of the horrible paris climate accord. the united states of america leads the world in reducing carbon emissions. >> 185 countries signed up for the paris accord. one exited and no one followed. >> we're still leading the world in solving the problem. >> we're leading from behind on that. >> china is actually adding to it. >> guys -- but the point with that is the actions speak louder than words. if everybody says we're going to do this and they do nothing, and we're actually walking the walk, then i'd say us leaving it is much stronger than a bunch of people being in it and not doing anything. >> by the way, people are doing the paris accord in the u.s. most mayors including -- by the way, energy companies are for carbon emission reductions. this is a pro business plan. this is a pro business plan. david: hold on a second. the united states is cleaning up its act, both locally and on the

federal level, whereas there are two big elephants in the room. those are chai in -- china and india. if china and india don't get on board, all the carbon emissions will continue to grow and grow and grow; right? >> david, that doesn't excuse us for our responsibility to take care of the world that we're a steward of as well. to your point, we are taking care of it. we are doing a lot of great things. david: we are. >> one of the biggest solar users in the world today. there are a lot of great things going on in the united states. it's just not an either or. the republicans don't have to hate renewable energy and the democrats don't have to hate fossil fuels. there's a medium there that somebody is going to get to. david: we have to move on. the ftc, doj and now congress all saying they will look into a crackdown on big tech. but is this really even necessary? we're going to get judge andrew napolitano's take on this and a lot more, coming next. ♪ limu emu & doug look limu. a civilian buying a new car.

let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ back then, we checked our 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.

it made her d my mom feel proud.esults, they saw us, they recognized us. ancestry specifically showed the regions that my family was from. the state of jalisco. the city of guadalajara. the results were a reflection of our family and the results were really human.

i feel proud about my identity. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com. >> it's very clear these large

technologies platforms cannot expected to -- cannot in fact be counted on to regulate themselves. david: so now congress is taking on silicon valley. the house judiciary committee saying they are launching an antitrust probe of big tech the day after the doj and the ftc announced probes of their own. joining us now is fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. it looks like regulatory overkill, no, judge? >> it looks like a bunch of people want to tell private enterprise how to run themselves because the government thinks it can run them better. look, there can be antitrust violations, but with the exception of price fixing, which doesn't appear to be alleged here, there can be no antitrust violation without showing harm to the consumer. if the consumer benefits because the services cost next to nothing, and the consumer wants these services, it doesn't matter if there's some sharp elbows in the delivery of them. now, that's the philosophical bottom line.

can they find some violations? they probably can. will there be a trial on a case of this magnitude with a big four or big five, however you count them, tech companies? probably not. there will be some sort of a settlement. each side will claim some victory. who is going to make out in this? where's stuart varney? the lawyers are going to make -- david: the lawyers. >> tens of millions in legal fees. who is paying the government's legal fees? everybody watching us now, everybody who pays taxes or in whose name the government borrows money it doesn't have. >> judge, we love having you on the show. thank you for coming on. when you talk about monopoly, and it's been mentioned as far as amazon, which i don't understand when rockefeller was considered monopoly and roosevelt broke that up, they had 95% market share. amazon is exactly opposite. they have a 5% market share of total retail in the united states. how is this considered in the same vein as say a standard oil as far as a monopoly?

>> you know, that's a question that would be answered by the trial judge, if they do file a complaint. talking about years before they file their first document in court. the way they would address that is to reshape the marketplace. you have very generously put amazon in the marketplace of all retailers. so the government would argue that amazon should be in the marketplace of just on-line retailers in which case of course it is the king of the hill. >> judge, it is carol roth. one of things that's not such a well kept secret is that big business actually loves regulation because it ends up hurting small business who can't compete because they don't have the resources. >> yes. >> to the extent there is regulation here, whether it's around privacy or something else, has there been any discussion -- are you hearing any rumbling that maybe they exempt small business because if not, then this ends up being more anticompetitive than competitive? >> i have not heard those rumblings and i probably would.

this has just come out in the past 48 hours. can you imagine the government with a straight face saying to facebook youre violating privacy, there's no entity on the planet that violates privacy more than the federal government of the united states. [laughter] >> amen. >> i don't really want to follow that. [laughter] >> you've got everyone applauding you. david: including the democrats. >> what i hear from some of my sources in d.c. is that the antitrust thing is really likely not going anywhere but the ftc is the one that's really going to take a much harder look on these large companies. >> wouldn't you have expected the type of announcements that -- and you and i have talked about this before, the type of announcement that we heard in the past 48 hours to come out of the eric holder or the loretta lynch doj as opposed to the bill barr doj? it's a facade. >> what i'm hearing is it is going to be carol's point more of the regulatory part under the

fcc taking the lead as opposed to the antitrust part. >> carol's point is well taken. how many times did mark zuckerberg say we welcome regulation? yes, as long as he can be the regulator. >> yeah. >> look at the 737 max, who is the regulator there? the government or -- david: big companies can afford the lawyers and all of the lobbyists inside the beltway. >> correct. >> you have in some ways it would be interesting to hear what marc says. i mean this is a bit of a nationalist and populist approach with the antitrust. >> there you go with the populist again. >> 35% with trump side. 35% with the populist left and it kind of fits to what the narrative is. >> when i say to the government oh the free market, they would say to me the barriers to entry are so extraordinary. facebook is so huge, nobody can compete with it. guess what? they got big by delivering a service that people want for

which they pay nothing. david: and the pioneers of social media grew out of a relatively nonregulated sector. i'm just wondering if we begin to regulate it more, will we lose our dominance as the leader of social media? >> look the attitude that it is too big and therefore we have to regulate it really does not find any comfort in the constitution of the united states whatsoever, unless it is just being done to win up a vote. david: judge andrew napolitano, great to see you. thank you very much. u.s. china trade tensions are sizzling as the u.s. calls china out for playing the blame game and beijing targets two very lucrative u.s. sectors. details coming next. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions

whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase sensimist relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

you can barely feel. at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

david: china's looking for ways to fire back at u.s. trade sanctions so now it is issuing advisories to its citizens to reconsider visiting or studying in the u.s. the idea is you target our very lucrative tourism and education sectors since china is the largest source of tourism dollars and international students in the u.s. but with the u.s. already cutting back on visas to chinese students, is this really the best way to put pressure on the u.s.? what do you think? >> absolutely not. this is just more scare tactics to their own people.

it is more directed at their own people trying to look tough in these negotiations, than it is actually going to have a significant impact on u.s. tourism and, you know, just like the white paper they put out over the weekend from the chinese blaming the united states from walking away from these talks and the area of contention was supposedly enforcement mechanisms. look, the we make a deal -- if we make a deal, we want to be able to enforce it. that's why president trump is not just going to sign on the dotted line to a meaningless agreement that has no backup to it. >> acompletely agree with marc. david: wow. >> come on, this is an easy one for me. you gave me a softball. [laughter] >> i mean, there isn't anyone, i don't care whether you're from china or anywhere else that doesn't want to visit the united states and there's no one that doesn't want to come to our colleges. david: they are trying to hurt us with this. >> this is a ridiculous thing that's not going to stick to it. it is all rhetoric. >> yeah, and you have to understand that the american everything is a luxury to the

chinese, whether it's things that they put on their body, in their body, whether it's their education, whether it's their tourism, they view anything american as truly a luxury. so i don't think that it's going to have a big impact. and i'm certainly not going to give the chinese any ideas on what they could be doing because i know they are looking to save face and play the long game and i'm not going to help them out with ideas here. >> i think they are going to play the long game, carol. i think you are right. look, china, we have been hearing we're going to have a phenomenal trade deal any time now. we said that last november. we are now halfway into the year and we aren't any closer than we were then. china is prepared to play the long game. all their rhetoric is going for that. we are not any closer to a deal. this whole trade war to me is absolutely absurd. the trump administration has done some really good things with this economy, with the tax cuts and cuts in regulation. to me this is all self-sabotage. david: i would disagree that we haven't done anything. i think we have gotten very close. the folks who are in the know inside these rooms have been

saying it's the last 5 yards that can make-or-break you in a game like this. they have processed all the way 95 yards down to the goal line, but it is that last 5 yards. what this shows to me, by the way, starting with this segment is how limited their options are. i mean, their options are far more limited. marc can speak to this -- than ours are. if they try to impose tariffs on their own, as they have these countertariffs, they are hurting their own consumers because they have inflation that's much higher than ours. >> david, i completely disagree. i don't think we're that close to a deal. every time the market goes down, president trump comes out and says we're close to a deal to push the market back up. they still have the rare earth if they choose to pull that card. tell that to our farmers. this trade war is a disaster. president trump has done a good job with tax cuts and deregulation, but i don't understand this trade war. david: i understand. we will see a lot coming this friday about the jobs figures.

marc, we have to move on, we thank you for being here. perk up coffee drinkers, a california health agency just making a major ruling on your cup of joe and links to cancer. details you don't want to miss, coming next. ♪ (playing) did you know that nationwide has customized small business insurance? huh-uh. maybe that's a song. yeah, maybe. (peyton) did you know nationwide is america's #1 provider of pet insurance, farms, and ranches? now that's a song. yeah, maybe. oh, that's gold right there. did you know that nationwide has an interactive retirement planner? (music stops) are we there yet? ♪ (nationwide jingle) ..

david: good news for coffee drinkers. the california office of

environmental health hazard assessment concluded coffee reduces the risk of some kinds of cancer. does that show there is hope for sensible regulations in california? >> no, there is no hope for california. but we'll take any small victory of common sense. if you drink too much caffeine it's not a good thing for you. let people enjoy their lives. everything we enjoy is bad for you in some way. why would you want to live to 100 if you can't enjoy alcohol or whatever else you like. >> there is no help for california. zero. let it sink into the ocean. people care about not dying. nobody cares about living. run with the freakin' bulls, jump out of planes.

do whatever you want. >> california now has dunkin' co-nuts. of course, -- donuts. so they have to side with coffee. so i'm all for this. >> there is a british study that says you can have up to 20 cups a day and not have heart problems. that's great for journalists across the world. david: i don't think it's too much to think that eventually common sense will cop out of the legislation -- will come out of the legislators in california. the crazy groups that come out with all their edicts -- remember ronald reagan came from california. i think you are way too optimistic.

but i will celebrate every small victory because we do not do enough celebrating of the small victories. >> and china is going to buy our coffee. david: that does it for "bulls and bears." we'll see you next time. liz: day two of president trump's state visit to the u.k. did the president's visit push british politics on the brink of a brexit push? the administration highlighting british media coverage giving president trump positive reviews, as much of the american mainstream media not so much. also the story of the dishonesty and duplicity of london's mayor i deck kahn.