brand. >> it is. everybody loves going to disney. >> it's been joyful to finish the week with you. the dow finishing down 43 points. not so bad. >> that does it for us. bulls & bears starts right now. we had great numbers this morning. i think it was 224,000 jobs. those were really unexpectedly good. if we had a fed that would lower interest rates, it would be like a rocket ship, but we're paying a lot of interest, and it is unnecessary, but we don't have a fed that knows what they are doing. david: president trump praising the solid june jobs report, which easily beat expectations. but blasting the fed and raising new questions about whether we could see rate cuts. hi everybody. this is bulls & bears. thanks for joining us. i'm david asman. joining me on the panel today carol roth, jonathan hoenig, john burnett and jonas max ferris. let's go one-on-one with the

white house director of trade and manufacturing policy and assistant to the president, peter navarro. congrats first of all. you heard the president say the fed really doesn't know what it is doing. what should the fed be doing? >> let's talk about those numbers first. david: all right. >> they are beautiful. 224,000 jobs. guess what? construction and manufacturing added up to almost 40,000 of those. and as the director of the office of trade manufacturing, i just love it when we get more manufacturing jobs. we're up to over a half a million new manufacturing jobs since president donald trump took office. and that compares with a loss of almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the o-biden administration. the other thing i love -- david: i'm laughing at your reference to the o-biden administration. go ahead. >> back through the campaign, when hillary was talking about the deplorables, these were the

people, these were the prime age workers that were sitting at home out of the workforce, no hope, in despair because of the failed of policies of o-biden, and guess what? you know what? we've got over a million of those folks back in to the workforce, just amazing. so i take a lot of heart from those numbers. having said that, i do think it is really important for the fed to lower interest rates. let me explain why. there's three things that go on when the fed hiked those rates. first of all, higher costs on the debt service. by the way, the fed managed to raise those rates just before they were issuing new bonds, which was just a self-inflicted wound. the second thing that we got is we got of course houses, big-ticket items, like cars, basically interest rates go up, that discourages that kind of consumption, so that's growth

harming, but there's also this other thing, david, as you know, when we get these higher interest rates, our dollar goes up. the value of the dollar goes up. that hurts our exporters. import more, exacerbates the trade deficit, shaves points off our growth. basically what the fed did was take away from the american people about 1/2 to a full point of growth with its precipitous rate hike and its quantitative tightening. they should have lowered interest rates the last time they had a chance to. we hope they will do it this time. and with the biggest reason of course they can do it is because there's zero inflation to worry about. david: that's the point. when you have -- >> zero. david: when you have 335,000 more people coming back -- >> did i say zero? david: the point is, is that we have all these workers coming back into the workforce. for me that was a very encouraging sign of jobs numbers today. and that puts more downward pressure on inflation. how much do you think the fed

should be lowering interest rates? >> well, i would go for half a point. look, it's time to do that. there's nothing to worry about here in terms of inflation. you skate to where the puck is going to be. and we've got to anticipate that these -- this higher interest rates hurts us, because of its impact on the housing market, the auto sales market, and our exporters. as head of part of the trade mission here, we hate to see the fed undo all the good work that folks like bob lighthizer and the president are doing on trade. we negotiate these great trade deals. we get people coming and responding to that, with their tariffs, and then we get the fed basically pushing up the value of the dollar and suppressing our exports. so we can't fight the fed. okay? we don't want to be igt fooing the fed -- we don't want to be fighting the fed. help us out here.

do the right thing. david: let me bring up trade. we have new demands by china that all tariffs have to be removed before you reach a trade deal. your response? >> okay, negotiations 101 with china. i'm going to tell you this is probably the most important thing you can have as a take away today, we started negotiations immediately after the bilateral, you know, saga this last week. ambassador robert lighthizer, the best u.s. tr in the world ever is personally engaged with the top levels of the chinese. here's my recommendation, do not believe anything you read in either the united states or the chinese press until after that negotiation is concluded because -- david: even when they quote chinese officials, which they were doing today? >> absolutely. my experience coming out of buenos aires argentina in december 1 of 2018 when we

restarted the negotiation is i watched five months of spin coming not just from the chinese side, but a lot of times from the american side where multinational people were putting spin into the media, getting all sorts of bad stories in the fake news, so my recommendation is don't -- as investors, here's what you got to know, we're engaged in good faith, deep negotiations, with the chinese. you should just be patient, and in the meantime, if you are looking for the next leg up, on this market, we're going to hit dow 30,000, if we get two things, fed rate cut and passage this summer of the united states mexico canada agreement, which will get us over a point of gdp growth, over a half a million jobs, 75,000 of those jobs in the auto sector, and really, a north america which will be a manufacturing powerhouse. david: let me be clear on this. you are saying even without the china deal, just the u.s. mexico

canada deal and a rate cut would be enough to bring us up to dow 30,000 >> absolutely. as you know, david, or maybe you don't, i have some credibility on this, the day after donald trump was elected, i got on television, on another network, forgive me for that. david: everybody makes mistakes. >> dow 25,000 based on tax cuts, deregulation, cheap energy and a level trade playing field. president trump delivered on all four of those things. we got dow 25,000. the next leg up, we've got to get this usmca passed. it is a great -- it is the smartest, biggest, most intelligent deal ever done. let's get that don't. let's stay focused on that -- let's get that done. let's stay focused on that. david: before we leave china entirely. you put the nix on that idea they are saying you have to take off all the tariffs before we negotiate. is there any precondition from their side for a trade deal? >> no, not that i'm aware of. we had very frank discussions. you can see the warm personal

chemistry between president xi and our president. we had frank discussions, and coming out of that meeting, the negotiations started immediately. the chief negotiator on the chinese side was sitting next to president xi. robert lighthizer was with our president, just a couple of chairs away. david: right. >> as soon as that was over, they engaged. they are engaged. we will move forward, but it is going to be behind closed doors. david: -- no doubt, particularly because their economy is going down, and they have problems in hong kong. i have to ask you one question. i promised some soybean farmers or people who worked with them, i would ask you, if i had a chance, farmers in the united states, they have 21 billion dollars in exports around the world, the soybean farmers a lot of that goes to china, they are worried about losing their market share to the brazilians because of the tariffs the chinese are putting on our soybeans, what do you tell these

farmers who want that market share back that they have lost? >> well, the president has their back. as you know, sonny perdue is providing some assistance at osaka. president trump stood up for the farmers. in fact, president xi made a comment about how president trump was the guardian of the american farmer. the chinese side promised to make immediate and significant purchase of agricultural products. let's see if they keep that promise. but in the meantime, you know, soybeans are important, and let's see what happens, but donald trump has the backs of american farmers. david: brazil now has 52% of the chinese market. we have 31%. you think we could reverse those numbers if we get a deal? >> of course. let's see what happens. i think that what's important now is let these discussions happen behind closed doors. once they are done, they will be full, full transparency, but in the meantime, let's stay focused on the prize here. remember, david, what we're

fighting for here. you would agree with me. i think every single panelist would agree with this statement, we have to stop china from doing the following, cyber intrusions into our business network, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, dumping unfairly subsidized products into our markets, state-owned enterprises conducting unfair trade, currency manipulation, and dumping opioids particularly fentanyl into the united states. i hope everybody on your panel will embrace the idea that we must stop the chinese from that -- david: i think we all do, but the question is whether you can verify if they will do those things. the verification part is tricky. >> part of my task and mission in this whole effort is ensure we have both monitoring and enforcement of whatever deal that is made. and we have strong enforcement mechanisms on the table, but it's just as important to be able to monitor whether the

chinese are in fact stealing our intellectual property or forcing technology transfer. so we are on the case. president donald trump is on the case. this is high-stakes poker, but it's gratifying to know that capitol hill, both sides of the aisle, are totally behind us. a recent poll came out, a harris poll that showed that 8 out of 10 republicans support the china tariffs and 53% of americans support the tariffs because those tariffs right now are on an insurance policy to keep the negotiations going in good faith and they are an offensive measure against the economic aggression china has been engaged for 15 years since they joined the world trade organization, and both george w. bush and barack obama and joe biden let all that happen. donald trump is standing up for america. david: let me just ask, i believe what caused the chinese to pull away from talks the last time was this question of

verification. is there a way that we can specifically nail them down on verifying that they are not doing the harm that they have been doing in terms of our intellectual property? >> it is not clear to me why they backed away. the history of this is clear. we had more than 150 page detailed document that had been negotiated word by word by word. seven chapters that correspond roughly to those structural issues i referenced earlier, such as, the intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer. at one point, they came back to us with a microsoft word document that was heavily red lined and effectively wiped that entire agreement out, not clear why. but what's good knew is we're back on -- but what's good now is we're back on track and using that as a starting point for moving forward. again, david, what's important here for investors is in the short run, let's see what the fed does. let's see what we get with u.s. mexico canada agreement. that's the next market movers.

trust robert lighthizer, as our chief negotiator, working closely with president trump on this. let's see what happens. in the meantime, things are -- we're in a good place now in a lot of ways. and today's job numbers i think speak to that. this is an amazing economy. and i mean, incredible stock market. so let's keep riding this goldilocks market. david: it was a great gift on a wonderful week in celebration of july 4th. happy independence day to you, peter. thank you very much. >> take care, david. david: really appreciate it. after a quick break, did our panel just hear something that peter navarro said that gives them hope for the markets on monday? details of that, coming up. most people think a button is just a button. ♪ that a speaker is just a speaker.

♪ or - that the journey can't be the destination. most people haven't driven a lincoln. discover the lincoln approach to craftsmanship at the lincoln summer invitation. right now, get 0% apr on all 2019 lincoln vehicles plus no payments for up to 90 days. only at your lincoln dealer. all right brad, once again foi have revolutionized the songwriting process. oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route. obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know? studying my playbook? yeah, actually.

do not believe anything you read in either the united states or the chinese press until after

that negotiation is concluded because my -- david: even when they quote chinese officials which they were doing today? >> absolutely. absolutely. as investors, here's what you got to know, we're engaged in good faith, deep negotiations with the chinese. you should just be patient. david: that's peter navarro moments ago. did he just tell us something, anything that would give investors hope on monday? carol? >> no. [laughter] >> i think that he gave us a lot of optimism that obviously they're still very engaged in a deal, but that key word patience i think we need to take to heart. this is a deal that's taken a long time. it is going to take a long time. i think it is worthwhile, but the closer we get to the 2020 election given the fact that china has art -- has sort of an infinite time frame and we have

the 2020 presidential elections. >> on the one hand, he criticized china for manipulating its currency and then he says we should lower interest rates to drive our dollar lower to help exporters. he wants to manipulate our currency here. peter navarro and the president want to decide what the right interest will be, who we export to, what kind of tariffs we should pay. although he kept saying people should be patient with these tariffs. farmers should be patient. look they are having an impact, 22 plus billion dollars, americans, they have paid, as you mentioned the farmers have been completely decimated. i'm sorry, prices have gone up. people who bought a grill this 4th of july paid about 10% more because of those steel tariffs. it is every day americans, not china as navarro often says that are paying the cost of these tariffs. >> i completely agree. you know what? we have seen record job numbers. we've seen a rise in wages. everything is going well. the tax cuts, the deregulation.

president trump didn't need lower interest rates to get the market to record territory. he doesn't need it to get to 30,000. the last thing the president needs is someone to say, you know, a few years from now, that the president needed help from the fed to boost and sustain the economy. that's not going to work well for president trump. david: but jonas, we saw what happened when the fed was raising rates a little too much in december. i mean, we came very close to a downward spin in the economy. >> yeah, all that crisis in the markets late last year was because rates were going up. i mean, they were initially going up for pretty good reasons. the economy was very strong, and i want to say as much as i've been bashing the fed too because i'm a low interest rate person, i think rates should be low, lower than they are now, they didn't raise them to 5% either like in the last recessions and caused a serious recession. we did avoid that problem. >> so it is not a disaster. >> i think the most interesting part of the conversation about navarro about our government is

so in debt that we need rates to be lower. we should err on the side of low rates because we can't afford to finance our debt at 5%. that in itself would lead to a snowball effect. we're not going to do what germany does which is keep a balance budget, raise taxes, cut spending, that's not going to happen here. there's no political will for it. we need inflation and a strong economy, and the best way to get that -- >> could very much be like -- [speaking over each other] >> these are questionable things we are getting into right now, but the reality of it is we're not going -- the noncentrally planned way get out of our deficit, debt situation, the economy is strong. we're still going to have this war. >> i'm just saying jonas, you know there's no such thing as a free lunch. look at japan, 20 plus years of ultra low interest rates and a more abundant economy. look, we don't learn from history, even with peter navarro with all respect that bush's 02 steel and aluminium tariffs cost jobs, cost gdp, they cost the economy. once again, we're making the

same lessons on government intervention -- david: carol, i need to step in and throw it to you. do you think this president is more of a central planner than the last president was? this is the president who was pulled the government out of so many areas in which this economy was overregulated. doing the opposite of central planning with regard to deregulation, no? >> he's bifurcated. i certainly agree with you on that particular standpoint, but if you think about the fact that he's trying to dictate what the fed should do and what he's doing with tariffs, not to say that i do think we need to do something with china, and obviously the spending issue too. i mean i would have loved to see trump cut spending and balance a budget. those are the kinds of things i think people are wanting to see him do. i don't think he's the same level of central planner that obama is, but he's not doing enough things that i think people would like to see him do. david: we have to wrap it at that. there was a lot in that interview. thank you, gang.

2020 candidate joe biden making his case for illegals getting free end quote healthcare. does he have a point? we will ask republican congressman andy biggs, coming next. i can't tell you who i am or what i witnessed, but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i want to be an animal doctor,p, so i can make things better. i've come a long way- but i have a long way to go and i need your help to get there. save the children helps millions like sophia grow up healthy and safe, with the early education they deserve. learn how one small act from you can create a ripple of change for children- and the future we all share. changing a life lasts a lifetime. save the children. ♪you can be the best ♪you can be the king kong

♪bangin on your chest ♪you can beat the world you can beat the war♪ ♪you can talk to god while bangin on his door♪ ♪you can throw your hands up you can beat the clock♪ ♪you can move a mountain you can break rocks♪ ♪you can be a master don't wait for luck♪ ♪dedicate yourself and you can find yourself♪ ♪standin in the hall of fame ♪yea ♪and the world's gonna know your name, yea♪

>> i think when documented people need to have a means by which they can be covered when they're sick, and so the idea is that's what i think we should be doing by building more clinics around the country, not just for undocumented, for other people, when they are ill, when they are sick. people need -- this is just common decency, if an emergency they should have healthcare, everybody should. anybody here in the country, how do you say you're undocumented, i'm going to let you die, man? david: 2020 presidential candidate and former vice president joe biden doubling

down on his support of free healthcare for illegal immigrants. this after all 10 candidates on the debate stage, you remember this, raising their hands in support of this too. let's bring in republican congressman andy biggs. we are hearing from the vice president saying in an emergency, everybody needs emergency care whether they are legal or illegal but aren't emergency rooms already required by law to treat the very sick? >> absolutely, anybody who walks into an emergency room is going to be treated, whether they can pay orb-- pay or or not pay. the problem with that is they are really required to stabilize, they are eating all the costs and passing it to everyone else which is why you see insurance and medical care costs go up. they don't just treat them and stabilize they are now doing tests because they are concerned about liability. yes, we already do that.

it is kind of, you know -- it is a political statement by mr. biden, that's for sure >> congressman, it is carol roth. it seems to me completely outrageous. i mean, i have a problem with paying for other citizens healthcare out of my own pocket, let alone somebody who is in the country illegally, has broken a law, isn't this the exact bad behavior rewarding of this kind of behavior that's causing more and more people to try and come into the country, and wouldn't putting a stem on this help to reduce the crisis that we're currently facing? >> yeah, you're exactly right. because what's happening is the incentives drive people. this is an economic show, so you guys all get this. incentives drive people. and when you have free healthcare, you see more and more people come across. there's no deterrent there. and so this -- you're just going to perpetuate the problem. but the other issue too is, just think about this, we already have the issue we have talked about, but you really don't know how many people are in this

country. it could be 12 million that are here illegally, it could be 20 million. they would all come on to our healthcare and health insurance rolls? just think about the cost that would be and the expense to the medical care system which is already taxed even though we're under the obama care system. it's an incentive to come across when we should be deterring people to enter illegally. >> during the 20th century, immigrants came, left their families knowing they would never see them again with no minimum wage, no healthcare, no types of benefits or entitlement. they came from freedom. that's all they needed. biden has said he believes these undocumented immigrants have a right to healthcare. you said you don't. let me ask you does anyone have a right to healthcare in america? or is it like a hamburger like everybody in a free economy should have to purchase themselves? >> my own opinion is we have a right to healthcare if we pay for it.

your ham uburgehamburger, i get hamburger if i want it or sushi if i want that. we get choices. i think we get to make those choices and it comes with some responsibilities. this notion that every person needs to have free healthcare is something that's truly un-american, in my opinion. i get to provide healthcare, and you know what? america's so great and is so full of charitable people, that if we have folks who can't afford to pay for traumatic illnesses, you will see people respond and take up that need to pay for those costs. david: congressman, i just want to pivot if i can. democrat congresswoman ocasio cortez blasting border patrol over an offensive facebook group. the congresswoman tweeting out a report from politico and she added by herself when members of congress asked cbp if they knew about violently racist and sexually disturbing secret facebook group with up to 10,000 cbp officers, they told us they just learned about it, looks

like cbp lied, reporting shows they knew about it for years. what do you make of this? >> well, if she's indicating that 10,000 people are on those facebook sites, ranting with racist and hateful comments, she's just wrong. she's just flat-out wrong. this is the same lady that wants and supports open borders. this is the same congresswoman who supports eliminating i.c.e. and she is totally biased. my guess is if you have 17,000 agents and personnel, you're going to have several dozen, maybe a few hundred even that are bad eggs that need to be disciplined and reprimanded, but to say that you have 10,000 people there, that's just -- that's just flat-out wrong. >> so in essence, aoc is the de facto speaker, right? we can all agree on that. but how do we hold aoc accountable? right? she's making claims about this

facebook group page that's private. she's also saying that the border patrol is having, you know, the migrants drinking out of toilets, making all of these claims. how do we hold her accountable? >> well, we have to continue to keep proving her wrong. at some point her credibility will just be shot. but i'm afraid that she is the de facto speaker, so nancy pelosi is beholden to lead that group. they gave her the votes over the top. it was so close for her to become speaker. to held her accountable for this, normally you would see the speaker publicly i don't want to say shaming but certainly pointing out that there's some flaws there. you would see as this escalated, there would be some potential repercussions from the speaker, but you are not going to see that. david: congressman, we need to leave it at that. thank you very much for being here. we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. david: the trump administration

considering a new way to get the citizenship question on the census. will it work? we will debate, coming next.

vo: mrs. and mrs. jimmie and mindy beall. jimmie: i came from five generations of teachers.

losing my job was the bottom falling out of my world. david: we still have chaos over the census. the justice department still exploring options to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. this as president trump mulls using an executive order to get things done. edward lawrence has the latest. edward? >> the administration will use

new legal language and new legal tact to go forward to try and get the citizenship question on the census. the justice department lawyers did not lay out exactly their entire strategy in district court today but made it clear that this legal battle is not over. the u.s. supreme court basically saying that the government did not adequately have a good explanation for why the question needs to be on the census. president donald trump feels so strongly that there should be -- it should be there, that he may take matters into his own hands. >> we will see what happens. we could add an addition on. could start the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision. we're working on a lot of things, including an executive order. >> that could basically restart the legal process. some democrats on the campaign trail say that they believe this is tied directly to immigration, adding that the united states should be welcoming, not a place that divides us based on citizen or non-citizen. now, the president saying this is a basic question.

he says the census gathers all kinds of personal information, why not ask if you're an actual citizen. now, the president says if at the end of the legal process, he wins the challenges, the commerce department could add an addendum to the census form. those forms are already in the process of being printed out here, according to the commerce department, but without that citizenship question on the census. back to you. david: edward, thank you very much. jonas, how important is this over a single question? >> it is extremely important. look at the last segment we did, president o-biden -- i almost said. [laughter] >> we're not going to know how many illegal immigrants there are, how do you know what the cost is of that? not to mention other questions don't even do that. you have to be a citizen. there's emergency care. you don't go see doctors, get blood pressure tests, that's

just ridiculous. back to this question, i can't speak to the legal path and the supreme court. i know our government needs it. what's really an embarrassment is this is still how it's done. this is my main problem is, let's pretend it is legal to ask, i think the government needs to know, do this every ten years, facebook knows if i'm buying ladies underwear every five seconds. [laughter] >> how often are you buying ladies underwear, jonas? >> for his wife. >> other countries do this every five years. can't we just buy the information from facebook or instagram? this is ridiculous. >> i don't know what the intent of the federal government to ask a question that's legitimate. i really don't understand here. look, the democrats will push back. why? because they don't want that question to be asked because, you know what? they want to continue to siphon off tax dollars from the federal government to subsidize a lot of things that the services that a

lot of the illegal migrants are actually utilizing while at the same time saying they contribute to the society. >> i -- >> there's a real -- go ahead, carol, please. >> i just want to know how often jonas is buying ladies underwear. david: now, now, move on. >> facebook will tell you. that's how it works. >> that's a different blog. [laughter] >> i'm a recovering investment banker. there's something when we do da data analysis calling garbage in and garbage out. they ask over other question that divides us up by race, by income, by everything else, we absolutely have to have this data to know who is in our country. i can't understand why someone wouldn't want to have that data. >> no one is going to answer the question because it is a stupid way of collecting it any way; right? david: go ahead, jonathan. >> there is a very real concern

that people will not either answer -- we need to know how many people are in this country. that's the purpose of the census. david: right. >> there's a real risk that when asked if someone is a citizen or not, they won't answer the question because i think they are pretty rightfully fearful that i.c.e. agents will show up with batons and put them on a train out of town. david: do you know who said it was a reasonable question? chief justice roberts said i'm quoting that decision was reasonable and reasonably explained particularly in light of the long history of citizenship question on the census. then he got into the motivation. what was the motivation of wilbur ross? that's where the problem came in. this is going to be a big mess. we have to leave it at that. i'm sure we will talk about it again. facebook taking aim at fake news. wait till you hear who is actually getting hurt by these new rules. we will break it down, next. but allstate actually helps you drive safely...

with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. my bladder leak underwear.orried someone might see so, i switched. to always discreet boutique. its shape-hugging threads smooth out the back. so it fits better than depend. and no one notices. always discreet.

david: the facebook's new

algorithm used to crack down on fake political ads is having an unintended side effect, small businesses are saying some of their nonpolitical ads are getting sucked into these algorithms and spits back out. it blocks ads focused on social issues elections or politics unless the original poster has created a long authorization process and is a u.s. resident. the issue for companies is that facebook is blocking ads that may just reference political top ibs without endorsing -- topics without endorsing them. carol, this happened to you; right? >> this exact same thing happened to me. i have a pod cast called the roth effect. i was interviewing a new york times best-selling author on political thrillers. i wanted to run an ad. i have a verified page and they said i can't do this because i'm not authorized, that this is political content or some sort of social issue content. it was about his book. so i appealed it, and they wouldn't do anything. it just goes to show you the

slippery slope that we're on when you randomly apply standards to people instead of going with free speech. >> carol, look, these companies are really public enemy number one right now, these social media companies. it is like what nuclear was in the 80s. what far yaw was in the 90s -- what pharma was in the 90s. oil in 2000. this is social media. everyone is out to get there, not only the truly malevolent actors like foreign governments or the alex joneses of the world, but also the particularly the regulators they are the biggest threats of these companies. i'm sorry it happened to you or any legitimate business, but let the private companies work it out. let competitors come out and offer similar services or compete. >> you might want to hear my little story about this. it's worth noting that this isn't just political stuff. they use ai to go through the ads of all small businesses. if you are nike doing $100,000 a week -- if you are doing

lingerie ads, swimsuits, they think you are in the porn business. in the old age, you could run those ads in the new york times, it is not adult entertainment. they stop a small business from growing and you don't speak to real people, you get ais that kick you out. it is very difficult and it is actually why partially this last jobs report was very good but not so great for small businesses. it is getting hard to compete with large business who have access to these platforms and different people and not getting aied out. >> just when i think there's nothing worse than government regulation, there's big tech regulation; right? >> yeah. >> i'm already worn-out from fighting the good fight to fight against progressive humans. now have i have to fight against progressive artificial intelligence? david: right. >> i can't take it anymore. david: and jonathan, i know you don't have a lot of sympathy for carol, but on the other hand, you can't -- they are trying to get algorithms, machines to make judgment calls. and wouldn't you at least admit that there's a big problem when

you do that? >> david, they have a billion customers they have to set standards, just like for example, a restaurant doesn't want potentially disorderly people to come into their restaurant. look, there are some people who get in effect lost along the way, but it is not like carol was prohibited from being on the site or even posting. david: i'm getting a wrap. i need to give carol the last word on this. >> listen, i don't want this to be regulated but as users and as shareholders, i think we need to hold them accountable and i would like to see them have a better standard that's closer to free speech. >> if small businesses can't compete, it will be a monopoly. >> jonas got the last word. we have more coming up. the songwriting process.

oh, here we go. i know i can't play an instrument, but this... this is my forte. obviously, for auto insurance, we've got the wheel route. obviously. retirement, we're going with a long-term play. makes sense. pet insurance, wait, let me guess... flea flicker. yes! how'd you know? studying my playbook? yeah, actually.

hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.

david: the trump administration is preparing an executive order for drug prices called the quote favored nations clause. we heard the president talking about it which aims to have u.s. patients pay no more than other countries. listen. >> talk about drug pricing, we're going to be announcing something very shortly, a favored nations clause. as you know, for years and years, other nations paid less for drugs than we do. sometimes by 60, 70 percent. we're going to be -- and we are working on it right now, working on a favored nations clause, where we pay whatever the lowest nation's price is. why should other nations like canada, why should other nations pay much less than us? they've taken advantage of the system for a long time. david: john, is this going to work? >> well, you know, i applaud the

president for taking, you know, a strong stance on lowering drug costs and really trying to reduce the huge burden that a lot of the drug companies put on, you know, those that are sick, but, you know, i don't know if this is going to work. you know, when you look at the global landscape, a lot of these countries don't have the wealth that we have, and i'm really concerned that the drug companies will begin to scale back. possibly an alternative is to streamline the drug approval process. david: uh-huh. >> that's where a lot of bureaucracy, and that's where a lot of the capital of these pharmaceutical companies go to make sure they're complying with the overburdensome regulations. >> yeah, i think that's a great point, john. it costs 1.2 billion dollars to bring a drug to market and only about 12% of those drugs proposed actually get to market. but david, i have to say, i think this is essentially kind of beating around the bush. it is missing the real issue of why drug prices are so much -- david: which is?

>> it is because the government is who pays for them. government pays for 50% of healthcare. it pays for 40% of all pharmaceuticals. that's up from basically nothing before the 1960s, and that is what continues to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals, raise the cost of healthcare, whereas something like an iphone continues to go down in price. so if you want to see drugs and you want to see healthcare become reformed, become more accessible, more available, three words, get government out. >> okay. first of all, the government also grants them a mere 20 year monopoly to charge whatever they want for a drug. that's a big component of it. drugs aren't like cars. they're basically free once you have invented it and gotten through the process, it is a fixed cost and then you want to price it what every market will bear. some countries are poor to your point and they will pay a tenth of what we're going to pay. that can't be our price. we're a rich country. the other problem is in other countries the government decrees what the price will be. we don't do that. with the medicare part d

expansion, we're not allowed to say what the price will be, because that's a monopoly. what i'm most waiting to see how the democrats will say this is a bad thing and how republicans will say this is a good thing. it is so much more left than even medicare negotiating drug prices, i can't believe it. >> part of the issue, and jonathan started to touch upon it is we don't have a free market in healthcare. it is so convoluted, not transparent at all. on the private side, part of the reason why everything is so expensive is because you have the pharmacy benefit managers in the middle of the transaction deciding who gets coverage and which drugs get covered and we wouldn't need that if we had a truly free and transparent market. we need to move in that direction. the whole discussion about insurance comes down to the fact that healthcare and drugs are expensive. if it wasn't that expensive because market brings competent igs to bear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> you can't ignore that aspect

of it. why some foodies are freaking out over regional shortage of an item many say they actually can't live without? could your area be affected? details you don't want to miss, coming next. to nowhere. but perhaps this year, a more exhilarating endeavor awaits. defy the laws of human nature,at the summer of audi sales event. get exceptional offers now.

♪ ♪ david: okay, everybody, you may want to sit down for this, folks. your tack tuesdays -- [laughter] they could be in jeopardy! taco bell, which has about 7,000 locations in the united states, says it is facing a tortilla shortage at some locations across the country. now, the mexican fast food chain says the shortage is due to a supplier issue, but it hasn't said exactly how many restaurants are being impacted. carol, can you survive the week -- >> i am not, i am not sure! this is a big crisis. we've talked about a lot of

them, but this is epic proportions because i absolutely love taco bell. i guess the burrito is half full, it could be worst. it's perhaps a supplier issue, not something like salmonella that has affected other mexican chains. i think if you're going to have a crisis, this is the best one possible. >> there's a wonderful libertarian story called i pencil about all the factors that come together to make a pencil. this reminds me very much of that, and all elements that come from the farmers to truckers, sales people to servers who come together to make that burrito or whatever the heck it is. it is a supply chain issue, and i think it hearkens back to what we talked about with peter navarro -- david: getting too serious. john, go ahead. >> i will say, first of all -- [laughter] your going to be sitting down -- you're going to be sitting down anyways if you eat at taco bell! david: ooh! >> quickly, judd.

>> i don't know if i can top that. i thought the higher prices of avocados would get to them first, but at least there's something worse than climate change -- david: that's true. by the way, good news,i think the company that carol didn't want to mention, chipotle, it has all the tortillas you need. that does it for bulls and bears. see you next time. >> from the fox studios in new york city, this is maria bartiromo's "wall street." maria: happy inbegins day weekend, everybody -- independence day weekend, everybody, thanks for joining us. i'm maria bartiromo. coming up in just a few moments, long-term stock exchange ceo and founder eric reese is joining us this morning along with, later, my one-on-one with park mark's ceo. then more of my exclusive interview president trump as we talked about the economy and trade. president trump coming up. but first, america's newest stock exchange, the