tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business March 2, 2018 12:00pm-2:00pm EST
you stinker! >> obviously. >> slightly to the downside. slight to the downside. stuart: that's a great hitch. >> it's a great buying opportunity. stuart: really? >> absolutely. i love microsoft, apple and facebook. >> and this nor'easter whatever up to the call it and, of course, the west coast dealing with the storm as well. so many storms, so little time. get the read an economic one. adam shapiro with the latest in washington. adam? reporter: we're all talking about the tariffs that the president intends to impose next week on steel and aluminum. 25% for imported steel. 10% for imported aluminum. the president has been tweeting and said among other things -- so senator orrin hatch is one
of many republicans who disagree with what the president is doing to protect the steel industry with tariffs. here's what orrin hatch had to say. >> it's going to turn around and bite the american citizens with much higher taxes, much higher costs, and it's going to discombobulate our whole international trading system, so i'm very upset about it, as you can see. reporter: now, the president even when he was just a candidate, was making this an issue and talked about the need to negotiate fair trade deals for the united states among the partners he wants to do that with is china. the chinese issued a statement about the coming tariffs and they said, quote, what an extremely stupid move, a desperate attempt by trump to pander to his voters which we think counters to america first pledge. the u.s. is setting a very, very bad example. this is the man who leads the
chinese iron and steel association, and you get the commerce secretary wilbur ross who was just on with stuart varney who said, look, when the tariffs go into place, the price of consumer goods isn't going to rise thatchhere in the united states. here's secretary ross. >> i just bought a can of campbell's soup today at the 7-eleven. it was $1.99 for the can. there's about 3 cents worth of tin plate steel in this can so if it goes up 25%, that's a tiny fraction of one penny. that's not a noticeable thing. take cars -- reporter: but the concern for republicans on the hill because quite a few have come out against this. paul ryan came out saying this is not a great idea. ben sas, the senator from nebraska has come out against this. their concern is more expensive items like automobiles or infrastructure projects like bridges and building those
items is much more expensive with the tariffs. back to you. >> i don't know about you, adam, wilbur ross allayed all my fierce about the campbell's soup prices. what the heck? thank you very much, adam shapiro. i don't know, guys. i don't know. again when you're hearing the commerce secretary say that and, of course, other members of the administration are concerned about all of this that it leads to bigger and worse things down the road. people like gary cohn, national economic council head, the defense secretary warning about the strategic concerns longer term from all of this, i guess it's refreshing to know that your campbell's soup can is going up less than a penny. well, i can continue my day. the president -- i want to get the read on all of this, because it seems like lunacy here to come out the gate and totally minimize the whole thing. it's a big deal when you are slapping tariffs on goods coming into this country, no matter what they are. maybe, there is the fear of
reciprocity and the canadians are upset. we like the canadians. >> yeah. >> we have trudeau saying we can't let this fly on its own. we have capri cafaro and gianni caldwell. i have great respect for the commerce secretary but he's got to be kidding. >> i don't know about you, i'm about to stock up on campbell's soup. i have to at this point. interestingly enough, i received calls from celebrities in hollywood saying what is the president doing? and, of course, if you read the media reports they're hyperventilating. i got to be honest with you, i'm not concerned. i would be concerned if it was the obama administration or the bush administration or the clinton administration, because they've been straightforward in terms of policy on this level. with president trump, qualities is the fact that he's unpredictable. could this not be possible that this is used as a bargaining chip? i say it for this reason, people say the stashth china. china is within the top ten
suppliers of steel. however, 75% of exports from canada goes into the united states of america, but we also see a high degree of mexico as well. what's particularly interesting. >> that should make it all the more going. among the steel countries affected, canada number one, brazil is number two, south korea number three and mexico is number four. china is not on the list. it is on the aluminum list. who cares? friend or foes, the fallout for consumers here could be bad. >> which one of us do you want to jump in here? i left gianno speechless which i like to do. capri, that's what i'm saying, be careful what you wish for. gianno has a good point but you might just get it here, and not the intended result you wanted. >> right, look, president trump has been very clear about this from day one. he has really broken with the
traditional republican u.s. chamber of commerce, nfib, free trade views. he's been very clear about their trade. i think that there are concerns around the fact this is a 25% tariff on steel. 10% tariff on aluminum. obviously, look, i come from ohio. i come from a steel valley that is now unfortunately the heart of the rust belt, where we lived and died by the steel industry, but now, guess who our major employer is? general motors. there is a push and pull here, and i think that, you know, we've not finalized. this my hope is that there will be two things happening. one, there will be exemptions for example for canada, the number one consumer of our products which is incredibly important. and two, my hope is that maybe in order to balance this out, i don't think that tariffs are necessarily the answer, but rather how can we make american made goods cheaper? and i've always been an
advocate of providing tax credit or rebate for higher ticket goods like cars, like refrigerators. so we are able to -- >> what might happen is we should stress not all u.s. manufacturers get steel from any of the countries so they would not be affected. but gianno, the one thing i'm curious, where do you see this going? already the chinese are upset, the canadians are upset. can't rely on the u.s. because we don't know where they're coming from or is all that bluster because the president won't have to enact the tariffs to begin with? >> capri mentioned a good point in general motors. what i was going with is the nafta agreement, in the seven rounds of talks, this past week, the rules of origin particularly when it comes to cars was at issue that canada, the united states and mexico couldn't come to a conclusion
on. the president wants 85% of vehicles that are sold in the u.s. to be made in the u.s. versus the 62.5% that is currently written. so with that being the case, my thought is this could potentially be a bargaining chip to say hey, we're going to tax you steel and aluminum, obviously make vehicles with those products, or you can give some go away when it comes to the 85%. come to the table and bargain with us. >> there's a lot more here too, gianno. >> there is. there is. >> presented agriculture, for example, there could be retaliation for example against soy that's exported from the united states. so it is a push-pull. >> we'll see, it is still early. >> this is the art of the deal. >> we'll see. i'm just relieved that i'm a big soup eater and i don't want to go nuts anymore for that. the commerce secretary of the united states. >> i make my own soup, neil. i don't deal with the can. >> you have to now, regardless.
thank you very, very much. l.l. bean is joining a lot of the other companies that are reconsidering their gun sale rules. talking about the exporting goods and walmart, apparently wants to raise the age which can you get hands on guns, getting rid of others as well. the former u.s. attorney general of these fine united states judge alberto gonzalez on that. you know, i'm not a lawyer sir, i know you are and a very good one, i'm wondering if we have laws on the books on the federal level and certainly in the number of the states where all of the retailers operate that have a lower gun age and then you are raising that age to purchase them, is that a lawsuit in the making? >> i don't think it's a lawsuit in the making at the federal level, neil, but i believe there are some 19 states that have laws that prohibit, based upon certain factors. one of the factors in the states is age, age discrimination. so lawyers being the way they
are and our society being the way it is and, of course, as passionate as people are about their guns, i anticipate there will be litigation at the state level, not only the state level but local jurisdictions that have ordinances as well. with respect to the ordinanzes you may have litigation. now of course, the state legislatures and city councils can always change the ordinances and change the state flaws enough pressure is brought to bear. i anticipate that certainly at the state and perhaps local levels around the country, you're going to have litigation to test some of these actions. >> you know, the president seems to have rattled some in that the second amendment community, those who are big supporters of that say, if that, we're going to take your gun away now, and that raised concerns that he was violating due process, something that's
engrained in the way we go about this whole business. what do you think of that? >> i can't speak to what the president was actually speaking about, and perhaps he misspoke -- >> no, he said it again, again, general. he kept saying it. >> when you go to a judge get some kind of warrant or order from a judges based upon certain evidence, probable cause, whatever, whatever the standard may be to make it more difficult for someone who is mentally ill, endanger himself or others, acquire from obtaining a weapon. that is certainly possible and one could make an argument that makes sense, but the notion that the government would simply step in and take guns away immediately from someone without due process, i think raises serious constitutional challenges. >> one of the things he did raise as a possibility, you don't want to leave a gun in the hands of someone who could be a problem and wait for all the constitutional rights about due process. i'm trivializing it to make the
point. i know where its heart is. what's rattling folks is he is doing things unilaterally and ticking off those who think that he's overstepping his bounds and not being consistent. what do you say? >> i don't know if the president can be accused of being totally consistent with respect to all matters of policy, and the president is not a lawyer, and we have to, you know, give him some grace for that. i think he's gathering up ideas and trying to figure out what is the best policy going forward, and obviously, one of the measures being discussed is some kind of streamline process where you don't have to wait a long time, where you can go to a judge or authority based on level of information and make it more difficult or take away guns from people that do present a danger, and i think that's a legitimate thing to look at and what the president is referring to. >> judge, i'm curious what you make of the whole jeff sessions dustup with the president yet
again, the tweeting back and forth, the president ripping him for this latest fisa on the part of the attorney general, on some of the issues the president cares about. but on the treason level alone, would you stand for it? [laughter] >> well, i didn't serve a president who would engage in that kind of conduct. >> what if you did? what if you did? >> president bush made that kind of public comment, that would indicate to me that he no longer has pleasure in my service, and people like the attorney general, like all cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president. >> would that welcome your resignation? >> yes, of course i would. to me that's the kind of relationship with president bush they could ask him, hey, do you want me to resign? i'll submit my resignation. that kind of statement would lead me to believe he has extreme displeasure. again, president trump deals
with people differently, deals with lawyers differently. we've seen various examples where the president is critical of jeff sessions and doesn't make a difference. jeff sessions continues to serve, continues to try and do his job. at the end of the day, doesn't appear to have much effect. they apparently have some kind of relationship where the president can publicly say things like that to jeff sessions, and jeff sessions says okay, that's the way the president is. i'm going to continue to do my job, i know i'm doing the job the best way i can on behalf of the american people. we'll have to see what happens. >> we're told separately, and some of the reports are disputed, who knows, that he had offered his resignation, the president wouldn't accept it which gets weirder, right? >> may be a reflection of the way president trump deals with individuals, deals with lawyers and deals with jeff sessions. >> there is that. judge, thank you very, very much. good seeing you again. >> good seeing you, have some soup. >> only up sixth of a cent
more. things i like to save on a reel, sometimes it puts the whole week in perspective, when the commerce secretary of the united states is explaining to all of us that you needn't worry, that the cost of that soup is likely going up about six-tenths of a cent at most, you needn't worry. i'm telling you whether you are republican or democrat, left or right, if that is your argument, you're already in the soup. after this. you know what they say about the early bird...
he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using tripadvisor! that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.
. neil: all right, for all of their selling, this is better than it was earlier this morning with the dow. of course, got a renewed selling oomph from the president tweeting early today that trade wars are good and they're easy to win and fortunately they illustrate the way the commerce secretary pointed out, a typical can of soup, if you're worried about how much steel or aluminum is
in that, a small percentage, six-tenths of a percent. we'll round that out to a penny. let's go john layfield and mark luccini. what do you think of that? >> measure that on triggering a cent on the can of soup. broader implications because number one far more people in industry employed being use everies steel than those manufacturing it. secondly, the concern of course not only is it inflation breeding environment which protectionism leads to higher prices so it's going to be applied domestic consumers which will ultimately accelerate the fed's policy of raising interest rates and choke off economic activity. the broader concern is retaliatory effect that this is going to breed by way of trading partners imposing tariffs on the way we export them that is important to wide swath of our economy as well. there's a lot of factors around
this they think are yet to be fully appreciated in terms of the cents of a soup can. neil: that is brilliantly explained, you hit it right exactly. when we minimize it, looking at a can of soup and isolate it to a single event and not the repercussions of other products that can be affected and then the global scale. one industry going after another industry, that cuts to the core. and what john layfield, the markets are -- not only m and b, and missing the wisdom of this, and opening salvo and not final policy but does it worry you? >> it certainly does. i agree with what mark said. secretary ross talked about the cost to a new car, a new car will cost you just under $200 to the american consumer. that's not that big a deal percentagewise, but look at gm, a stock which i own, they sold
10.4 million cars last year, over two thirds were sold overseas. 4.04 million sold in china. when you talk about retaliatory measures, only 3 1/2 million cars in the united states dealt with by u.s. consumers but talking about the rest, two-thirds of business is overseas. this could really hurt general motors and jobs in america, and the difference in jobs in steel producing is 6.5 million in companies that use steel compared to 140,000 that produce steel. it's asymmetrical. it's a terrible idea and the market agrees. neil: we're getting reports from canada and brazil and mexico oddly enough, not too surprising, mark, they're eyeing some of our agricultural products and looking at some of our airplanes. and thinking twice either about purchasing or buying as much. what do you make of that? >> well, again, this feeds into what i mentioned earlier and what john was saying as well. the concern particularly as it
relates to mexico and canada with whom we do a tremendous amount of cross-border trade, as it relates to canada, they are number one importer of u.s. steel that goes into manufacture of cars, we turn around and ship into the united states, and the same could be said with mexico. also the impact to the agricultural community and the farm belt so important in electing not only president trump but republicans at large, so this is going to have implications obviously as things heat up over the midterm election in november, but i think economically, if we pull the lens back, we have to understand that the u.s. economy is fairly close. 13% of our economy relies on export related activities. while it may be rather small in the larger context, insignificant to overall economic activity, the consequences could ultimately bleed into sentiment which could turn into something far more economic. market's reaction is a bit knee jerk but ultimately have to see
how this plays out economically and see residual intangible influence that could harm economic activity. neil: john, i was looking at the history of other trade battles in this country. keep in mind, i'm an extremely dull person, this is what i do, and i'm always fascinated that they start small and they get bigger. they start with one item or two items and expand to before you know it, dozens of items. this all started with this administration, you know, targeting solar panels that are dumped in the u.s. so the argument went to south korean washers. it's extended to these products, more could be coming down the road. and other companies would be expected to follow suit, and even if they don't make it a tit-for-tat in the case of electrolux, the swedish conglomerate halting investment in the u.s. over the tariff issue, i imagine that's the kind of thing that markets
talking about -- mark is talking about. i don't mean to exaggerate any of this. it is the constant drumbeat of this stuff that gets the way of economic progress. what do you think? >> i agree with that. i think you are a highly entertaining person. you are selling yourself short. this is a fight we don't have to pick. the biggest worry about president trump when you are talking about election leading up to his being elected, the border adjustment tax, president bush tried tariffs, march 2002. by december 2003, he had to take them off the table. given the biggest fine of $2 billion and retaliatory measures overseas caused him to take that tariff off of steel. president obama tried it with tires, it did not work. this is a self-sabotage that we're doing to the american economy that's doing quite well and it's a fight we don't have to pick. only 2.2% of steel imports
coming from china. we're not doing anything with china against this. a reciprocity tax would be a much better way if you deal with imbalances in trade. >> i want to thank you, both. very, very good in putting this with the big picture that a lot of folks need. when we come back, say what you will of this whole trade deficit, back and forth. what if i told you as critical as economists and market players have been and economists have been of the president making this move, maybe he's smarter than the fox about this. maybe what he is doing is creating a distraction? after this. you're still here? we're voya! we stay with you to and through retirement. i get that voya is with me through retirement, i'm just surprised it means in my kitchen. so, that means no breakfast? voya. helping you to and through retirement.
i just discovered it myself. the president saying i meant to do this. the president saying in this trade war, whatever you want to call it, that he's sending a signal on the one hand to send a message that we're not going to put up with countries that treat our products unfairly or tax them unfairly or make them prohibitive to remotely get their hands on in those countries, but another school of thought here, the peewee argument that this distracts from other things he may be wanting to talk about, like hope hicks leaving, all the jeff sessions problems, all of that, to bustle senior director of research jessica tarlov who clearly buys all of this, and mike murphy. the president has succeeded in getting us to talk about this and not so much the other stuff. i hasten to warn the other networks are more than covering that other stuff but your thoughts. >> i think this is something he
wanted to get out for a long time. i don't think it's a distraction. neil: and he's done it before. >> so i think this is something he's wanted out and i think his message is the way he delivered the message maybe wasn't the most effective way, but the message being. neil: here's what's not most effective. trade wars are good and easy to win. he tweeted that. do you agree? >> i would have worded that differently. if you are taxing us 50% in your country, we're going to tax your products at 50% coming into this country. neil: he didn't say that. >> he didn't but that's the underlying message. if that, is i have no problem with it. >> the whole trade wars are good and easy to win. i don't know where to start with that, certain not in the 1930s, right? neil was a cub reporter during those days. >> don't get him started. neil: hoover never returned my calls! [laughter]. neil: did we even have phones back then. >> i remember the story, cavuto
doesn't want to interview hoover! what's next is a legitimate point, what mike is getting at that. gets us to china. the president talked about a new speech, davos was one, state of the union was the other about the intellectual property punishments coming for china. after he's gone down the route he's gone down here, presuming he goes through with it, the 25 and 10 wilbur ross is said to have presented to him. how punitive will he be with china and what will the response be? neil: on the other hand, canada. canada! >> i think americans like canada. >> not the first time with canada, the lumber -- neil: you were okay with this, bottom line. >> well, if it's not fair, then making it fair i'm fine with. taking advantage of others because we're bigger, i'm not okay with. that sets off a trade war. if we're being taken advantage of and level the playing field,
if that is the case, i'm okay with it. neil: that's interesting, democratic and republican administrations had tariffs of one sort or another and come back, and to the defense of an industry they thought was unfairly treated here, but does get a lot of attention, in this case, because it reminds people that a lot of these countries have these kind of policies in effect. how should it be handleed? >> well, i agree with mike that it shouldn't be handled in the exact phraseology he's using on twitter. i feel bad for everyone who has to be the trump whisperer. if they are taking 50%, we should get a 50% bump or whatever. neil: you would still be upset with him. >> well, because i'm a democrat. neil: seriously. mike is right that we're at a disadvantage and he's right to say good luck finding an american car in japan or china,
how do you rectify that without ticking people off? >> i don't think you can. fundamentally we're never going to meet at parody here and never agreement on both sides. as you said george bush tried to do this, obama tried to do that, significant pushback to organizations that didn't like it. this is a campaign promise. donald trump is going back to what got him elected, he's saying this is america first. people say it's going to raise costs for american consumers. i think both things apply here, what you said about the distraction game and the fact he wanted to do. this probably waiting until opportune time and i would add to the hope hicks, jeff sessions issue -- >> the nra has a strategy to this. [laughter] >> i don't think there is a strategy. neil: timing is everything and not great timing. >> but on this issue in particular, one of the criticisms of this president, you can change his mind, depending what the time of day is, that's not true on trade. it never has been true on
trade. this is something he actually believes. you go back actually shows you what kind of time on my hands. i watched his 1988 interview with oprah, and how he's talking about japan and china. neil: you are duller than i am. >> i was trying to preview the next presidential race. he's talking about japan. i'd make our allies pay for their fair share. and talking about japan, they sell their cars and vcr's which tells you when the interview was done and knocking the hell out of our company. >> you are right about that. one of the things he said over the years, we are defensive on trade when it comes to the chinese because they own so much of our debt, don't rattle their cage, and he says they are playing that they don't have the upper hand and they argue that they do. i don't know where you stand on that particular issue, but he's going on on offense.
this if is going to be the tone, as a market guys, he's right to do what he's doing, are you worried for the markets? >> i'm not. simply, this is a reaction to statements that were made. overall when you looked at markets, two weeks ago talking about the economy overheating interest rates going up before we get a sell-off in the market. neil: you are not worried about more product goods and services widening of this. >> again, as long as this is fair, i don't think there's a massive reaction to it. i think it blows over and the u.s. economy continues -- >> so many republicans are upset, so many business groups are upset. they are obviously looking at their own interests. >> they are looking at their own interests, democrats are upset, republicans aren't. neil: jessica was upset. >> few democrats are upset about it. and as we know from the art of the deal, everything is an
opening offer. i want 25 billion for my border wall. it probably wouldn't end up being 25 billion and aggravates everyone when he says that. neil: so this is a negotiating strategy. >> maybe it is. i watched the soup interview, i don't know where we're going with that. >> it could be different this time. because this issue is different for him. >> it could be. how many times have we said it's going to be different and it's always about trump. >> i didn't use that negotiating strategy. you know other anchors around here are paid? >> no way! >> guys, thank you very, very much. mike started talking and everyone calmed down, and took a 230-point drop to 140. we're going to keep him here for the rest of the show. more after this. nah. not gonna happen.
hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call for a free kohler nightlight toilet seat with consultation or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. . neil: all right, a real quick update that canada's prime minister trudeau is very upset about the latest tariffs that the president is proposing.
canada would be a big target of them and says it's going to push the trump administration to get an exemption of them. all of this could have a big effect on the price of cars. toyota the latest to say that. gerri willis has more. reporter: that's right. weighing in on the impact of steel and aluminum tariffs, didn't get definitive numbers how much it would add to the cost of a car in the u.s., the company telling fox business this, the administration's decision to impose substantial steel and aluminum tariffs will adversely impact automakers, automotive supply and community says it will substantially raise cost of cars and trucks sold in america. also saying 90% of the steel and aluminum they use comes from the u.s. and toyota isn't the only company in the automotive industry complaining. the american international auto dealers association said yesterday the burden will be passed onto u.s. consumers.
gm sharply critical saying it supported trade policies to enable u.s. manufacturers to win and grow jobs in the u.s. talk of tariffs comes as gm and ford reported lower monthly sales for february. gm and ford said sales were down 6.9%. see how chrysler said u.s. sales slipped 4%. weighing heavily on all sectors of the market, but certainly automakers, neil? neil: gerri willis, thank you very, very much. there are separate reports this did not go well within the trump white house. you know the commerce secretary, wilbur ross, a former steel guy beautifully illustrated the point with my friend and colleague stuart varney. i'll repeat it for you later. others like gary cohn said even the defense secretary of the united states were not keen on, this but it's the kohn concern
that raised eyebrows here, folks are saying enough is enough. for charlie gasparino -- >> it's odd that the treasury secretary is quiet on something that is so fundamental to the u.s. economy. he should be weigh in on how he feels. which he hasn't. neil: he was at a west coast event at the time. >> but he couldn't -- neil: there are phones. >> this is a fundamental piece of the trump economic policy. neil: wilbur ross won on this. >> here's thing, gary cohn always looking for exit strategy, according to the wall street sources i speak to. chances of him going back to his old firm, goldman sachs are extremely low i hear. neil: but the street likes him. >> unless lloyd blankfein -- actually the street doesn't like him. i'll explain in a minute. >> you don't think if he left, that would panic? >> i don't think wall street likes him personally.
neil: i'm not -- but people like you personally, but very much respected. >> here's the thing, there was talk about him going to work for larry fink at blackrock, they tell me no. the street actually is telling him probably to get out while the getting is good. his friends on the street, and he's been telling him he's looking for the exit strategy, this may be it. the problem for gary cohn, he does not have a prominent place to go in the street. unless larry fink hires him, so far they said no. his old boss lloyd blankfein has to bring him to goldman which probably is not going to happen. he would end up running a hedge fund. neil: i don't know where he goes. >> he might stay for a while. neil: in this sense, you need a variety of opinions in a white house, and i know what you're saying there, but i think losing that voice, whatever the personal issues are and bigger sense of world markets and
economies, that would be a problem. >> you're right, remember the trump economic policy is always extremely schizophrenic, schizophrenic on a lot of things, particularly economics. he was a mixture of supply side and protectionism. but he always combined. that he ran on an anti-trade platform. neil: and the markets continue to live with that? >> no. here's the thing, the markets are starting to digest. donald trump is very unfist indicated economically. say what you want as a businessman. neil: you like his regulations and taxes. >> they know he goes off the deep end every now and then. remember what he said during the campaign? he would renegotiate the debt if he has to. it would be a 10,000 point move down. neil: you hold a grudge, you focus on negative stuff. >> so do you. that's why we get along. neil: that's right. you just have to fear charlie. and a lot of folks in the northeast are fearing this
gripping much of the east coast of the united states. we're learning just a few minutes ago that the faa tower was evacuated at dulles international airport of virginia because of very high winds. faa controllers are currently transitioning to an airport ramp tower, lower to be on the safe side, operations are expected to resume shortly. they've had better than i think 3,000 flights delayed and/or canceled. more likely to come. i saw a lot of this coming and how widespread it would be. what about chief meteorologist joe bastardi. how bad is this? >> well, this storm is -- remember the bomb back on january 5th. it's bombing off the eastern seaboard again and doing it in a similar manner to patterns that we saw back in the 1960s. in fact for a few weeks now we've been warning clients about the threat of a monster storm in early march because of the similarities to the weather pattern back in 1962. same thing in europe.
brutal cold in europe, mid and late february, big blocking area of high pressure system developing in the arctic, back west across and the jet stream crashes in underneath it. in all my years i looked at the weather, the weather map tomorrow morning is so close to march 7, 1962, i can't believe it, how someone just dropped the weather map. neil: what does that mean and how would it look tomorrow morning? >> tomorrow morning it will be diminishing, but the next 12-24 hours, southeastern new england, long island, coastal new jersey, the howling winds, 50, 60 miles an hour, the full moon and changing to wet snow in a lot of places. though this isn't like a 20" snowstorm in new york. you get 5-6" of snow and 40-50-mile-an-hour winds like this. you have trees and power lines coming down. we saw that in the cleveland area last night. we may be seeing it again,
starting this afternoon into this evening and tonight all across southeastern new england, parts of long island, new jersey and the new york metropolitan area certainly where heavier snows have fallen to the northwest and higher elevations. neil: what do people do with the winds and darn near hurricane force, what do they do? >> probably in nantucket and cape cod, without trying to downplay, it those folks are used to storms like this. when you look at nor'easters that have hit in past years, you go why aren't we seeing more of them. never mind one or two show up every winter. as far as this, the only thing i could say from operational meteorologist standpoint is that we just try to warn people. i've got retail clients, soft clients, energy clients, and you try to give them as far as
advanced notice as you can. the interesting thing is it was so warm last week, there was a lot of disbelief it could do it. i'm friends with one of the wrestles coaches at hofstra in the easterns, and i remember we were going back and forth wednesday, i said you ought to get into new york a day early. he said i'm not worried about it, it's not going to snow. that's what the weather can do, folks, especially in a pattern like this. march into early april this year, the weather is going to be a wild child. not going to be tranquil at all. let's put it that way. neil: so the next time i have you my friend, thank you very, very much. joe bastardi following this on so many of the trends, keeping a good eye on it for us. i feel safe about that. feel safe as an investor we pared our losses considerably, we are down and seen a drubs of the dow of over 1100 points
where, does it end and how does the end? does the president dial back the tough trade talk? no indication he will. we'll have more after this. at holiday inn express, we can't guarantee that you'll be able to contain yourself at our breakfast bar. morning, egg white omelet. sup lady bacon! fruit, there it is! but we can guarantee that you'll get the best price when you book with us. holiday inn express. be the readiest.
neil: all right, just to let you know about this weather thing, this nor'easter gripping much of the east coast of the united states, this temporary ground stop at dulles international airport has been lifted, traffic control is returning to the tower after momentarily being forced out as a result of high
winds, but that has not stopped a lot of flight disruptions, if i have the latest. delays around the united states around 1,447, total cancellations better than 2,600. and that's just now. we're barely into this, just a few hours into this. all right, in the meantime, stocks paring their losses on the president's earlier remarks. remember, they were sort of digesting the significance of the trade in your face approach the president took yesterday. he doubled down on that with a tweet this morning, trade wars are good and easy to win. let's get the read with former new york lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey and brian reilly. betsy, to that point that trade wars are easy to win, are they? >> well, in this case the president's real concern is not just with trade wars, it's with real wars. and if anybody reads this report put out by the commerce department last month, you will be convinced that these tariffs
are necessary because this report shows that the american steel industry is in such a rapid decline that it could not ramp up for a major military emergency. it says right on page 49 that unlike world war ii where steel production had to increase 200% between 1938 and 1942, this time around the u.s. will not be ready. and who is ready? china. china's steel production capacity is 12 times as great as the united states. they produce more steel in a month than we do in an entire year. in fact, their excess capacity is bigger than our entire capacity. so the u.s. steel industry has to be bolstered with these tariffs not to make people on wall street rich, it's to make us prepared for a major military conflict. neil: all right. brian, i do know that the steel industry has, you know, dating back to john kennedy, maybe even sooner, you know, gone to the white house either to complain
or to ask for help or to, in the case of john kennedy, ease up on the badgering talk that they were raising prices at a bad time. and yet, you know, president by president, year by year, decade by decade, their influence has lessened. can a president, can a country change that with its policy by singling out countries like canada, brazil, south korea, some of these others? >> well, i think the fundamental choice that president trump is facing is do i want to go down in history as the next herbert hoover or the next ronald reagan. and it's not a hard choice at all. we know what happens when you go down the path of trade wars. and by the way, the defense department has made it clear that we have plenty of steel, plenty of aluminum to supply our defense needs -- neil: but, brian, you mentioned ronald reagan, he responded to the japanese dumping computer chips on our country in the '80s, so he wasn't above trade wars of his own. >> yeah, he spoke loud and clear
about the need to avoid trade wars, to avoid a return to the great depression. sure, he had some targeted measures, but he looked at creating nafta, the world trade organization -- neil: so you think what president trump is doing is setting us on the wrong course, what you're saying might be a legitimate issue, but the wrong remedy. >> it's undermining everything that he's trying to do to make america a better place to do business. neil: betsy, what do you think of that? >> that's simply not true. the united states does have the commercial power to win these trade wars. we produce 24% of the goods and services produced in the entire world, but right now we are getting our clocks cleaned in so many areas of trade. not just steel, take a look at pharmaceuticals. it's the same thing. neil: so look at all of it, brian, i mean, i always pledge that we use the market as sort of a gauge, and you're quite right to say let's not obsess too much on that, it's not like markets are always right, but these are largely free market ears to -- marketeers.
but i do wonder what happens next. let's say, brian, right now that the canadians are already looking at responding, target some of our agricultural products or in europe the european union also not pleased with this, decides to skip boeing and go right to airbus to order its next lot of planes. then what? >> there's always this chance for a tit for tat trade war. nobody can predict the future, but i can guarantee putting a $9-$10 billion a year tax on americans is certainly not a good idea, and the commerce secretary must have seen the movie "office space," the idea we'll make every pay a little bit more for a can of soup and a car -- neil: yeah, i had no idea where he was going with that. >> that's horrible economic policy and bad for america. >> if i could make a prediction on the basis of donald trump's success in the past negotiating deals, i predict that some of these countries will come to the table and offer concessions
before there's a trade war. neil: well, i think that is the strategy here. i think that's what he's hoping, that they'll avoid this by doing something either to expand a plan in the u.s. or something like that. by the way, one company -- sweden's electrolux -- has halted an investment in the u.s. until this issue is resolved. so from that, brian, i'd have to worry whether we're going to see that anytime soon. >> it's just another example of the government picking winners and losers through the political process. we should met the market rule -- let the market rule. and, look, if you look around the world, the countries most prosperous have the most economic freedom and those that give people the freedom to choose how to spend their money. we don't want donald trump or nancy pelosi or anybody else -- >> i would support that as long as we're just talking about economics, but that's not what this report is about. we are talking about national defense, and it has always been the president's prerogative, moreover his duty, to insure
that our trade negotiations protect industries that are vital to national defense. >> and if you cut off, betsy, if we cut off the supply of steel and aluminum, we're driving up costs in the united states, and we're hurting our national security, making the world less secure, not more secure. neil: if i have to bring up this can of soup argument again -- the. [laughter] i want to thank you both very much for taking the time. i do want to first pick up this issue with ken blackwell, a former cincinnati mayor who joins us right now in west palm beach florida. the fact that it's accelerating, are you worried just that it could lead to a pretty, you know, international nastiness? >> well, look, i think what we have to do is to tell the president, mr. president, the folks that you are concerned about, the families that shop at wal-mart, the families that are
of very moderate income, you know, when you start talking about this move leading to $160 a year more on that family and you sort of dismiss it, you sort of fall into the trap that nancy pelosi fell into with her crumbs statement. that has a real impact. and i think he has been a voice to those folks. he doesn't have to the -- we don't have to talk about what it means to big corporations. bring it back down to the impact at the kitchen table on those families that he has given voice to. and i think you would then see him take a different approach. i actually hi he's using it -- think he's using it as a negotiating chip. it's a risky negotiating ploy, but i think that's what -- neil: no, i agree with you, ken, and that should worry you. you might want to run the other way. but, you know, ken, i did think his commerce secretary, you
know, didn't help him with this analogy of a campbell's can of soup that would, at most, the limited steel in it would have to go up by six-tenths of a cent. i thought it was idiotic, it didn't make the point, and i think it made him look as cavalier as you mentioned there, the crumbs argument of nancy pelosi. what do you think? >> oh, and i think you're absolutely right. we really do have to keep it focused on those americans that have been left out and left behind. and, again, i bring back this is a president that has given voice to those americans, those families. you know, it's the same reason why we have to talk about rationalizing our fuel economy standards and helping people understand the tie between, you know, economic growth and the benefits that we're realizing from the tax cuts and then watch those things sort of fritter
away with the volatility of gas prices and the influence of external economic powers. opec, for example. finish so we have to bring all of these highfalutin discussions back down to common americans and the benefit that it has or the destructive effect that it has on their quality of life. neil: you know, that's very well put, ken. i'm also interested, sometimes it's not your message, but how you deliver the message. the president has a very different style, some really love that frankness, that unpredictability. others are a little exasperated by it. i got a sense talking to the former attorney general, alberto gonzalez, on this whole trump/sessions back and forth that he's at that exasperated point and that it's not helping. i want you to react to this. >> i think if the president -- if president bush had made that kind of public comment, that would indicate to me that he no longer had pleasure in my
service. and people like the attorney general, like all cabinet officials, serve at the pleasure of the -- neil: would you offer your resignation? it's happening publicly -- >> yes. yes, of course i would. to me, i had the kind of relationship with president bush that i could ask him, hey, do you know, do you want me to resign? i'll submit my resignation. because that kind of statement would lead me to believe that he has extreme displeasure. neil: all right, ken. but jeff sessions remains, hasn't resigned, hasn't been fired, and this goes on and on. what do you think? >> well, again, this president has a style like no other president that i've ever experienced -- [laughter] or actually ever read about. i know newt gingrich talked about andrew jackson, but -- neil: well, i covered andrew jackson. [laughter] that didn't, i don't remember that. >> yeah. so at the end of the day, here is the president that uses controversy to accelerate his agenda. but he also uses debate and
dissension and, you know, sort of conflict to finalize a statement of policy position. so i think jeff is a solid supporter of the president. he understands the situation that he's in. the question will always be can we move the ball down the field, or does this sort of conflict stall us in advancing the agenda that serves the american people. and right now, you know, the president, i think, is satisfied with jeff or he would find a way to -- neil: i get it. i always hear from people, oh, neil, you're a never trumper, ignoring all the good reporting we've done. i just -- never act like a horrible human being person. i think that kind of stuff and tweeting nasty stuff about -- forget about a fellow human
being, someone in your own cabinet,st just bad to do, you know? -- it's just bad to do, you know? >> yeah. i'm really glad that jeff has staying power. neil, let me say you have to be ready for head tricks. it's just like charlie who told me i was coming on your show, not to join a tie, i would join his club -- neil: then he wears a tie. >> then i see him on your show today, and he wears a tie. neil: i'm telling you, he's as phony as a $3 billion. [laughter] you're -- $3 bill. neil: he does this all the time. ken blackwell, thank you. we're keeping track of this nor'easter and the effect it's having on the east coast. could affect your traveling as well. ing amtrak temporarily suspending service along its northeast corridor route due to this weather. so already my crew is reacting here because, well, we'll use the studio. overnight party.
meaning i can do what i need to do, then i can focus on what i want to do. visit learnfuturestoday.com to see what adding futures can do for you. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store
near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. neil: all right, you've been reading a lot of stories about all these companies that are buying back stock or raising their dividends as a result of the tax cuts, and they say in percentage terms it's kind of chump change when
they hand out these bonuses. that's been a big issue for democrats who voted unanimously against those tax cuts. but now and then you do hear companies that go above and beyond what you would typically think is sharing that loot. new jersey natural gas, by the way, is announcing it's going to provide a one-time refund to customers totaling about $31 million. the refund for the typical residential heat customer is said to be about $47. now, of course, it's a little different, a little unusual. other utilities have been doing that elsewhere, but it's a reminder that that trickle down that a lot of people say this is not enough, it's still alive and well. so how that helps the economy, how this helps customers and those who work at those places, still anyone's guess. this is hardly any way to quantify it, but right now we are seeing a lot more of that. fortune magazine editor, adam lashinsky, and market watcher larry shover. larry, this is just the latest example. it's slowed down lately, not the least of which because of what's
been going on the if in the markets, but what do you make of that? >> right now i think we're going through a regime shift, and i do believe buybacks -- consider last year, $500 billion in buybacks, they're expecting $800 billion this year. whether it's good or bad for the average person, it will provide a floor for the stock market. it's one of the reasons i think all the dips we have in the market right now we're looking at a 15 and a half times eps if you believe the mid 170 number for 2019. so it's constructive. it's good for the stock market, and i think any kind of complexity this regime shift that we're experiencing with monetary policy, fiscal policy, etc., when somebody comes out like came out yesterday, it's a good time to just focus on the facts; that is, buybacks are good for the stock market. neil: earnings per share, eps, and, of course, that equation changes favorably. all of a sudden this market
looks a lot more affordable. adam, given the selloff the last few days now drifting back from around 6-7% from our old highs, does the market look more affordable now? is that the enticement for investors now? >> well, i mean the market is more affordable now and, of course, even more affordable than it was in october or november. without disputing anything that larry said, i would point out when these companies go to buybacks, there's one bad element to that which is if they were really excited about the economy, if they were really excited about their businesses, they would be making investments with that money. now, they are making investments, and they're doing other things, but their impulse is to buy back stock. that says they don't have any better ideas. neil: well, a lot of them are doing other things and a lot of them have been pruning their balance sheets over the last few years. they could do more, maybe they're holding back until they see more proof. i mean, parking your cash in your company -- which is equivalent to us parking in a
checking account -- is like, you know, keeping your powder dry, right? waiting to see what happens, right? >> yeah. and i think adam made a great point. i mean, it's not all positive. and the fact is to the point of people worried about interest rates, well, here's the thing, people are parking cash, one, because it's a great tax benefit for a company to do that, and number two, productivity can't really go any higher right now. that's the issue. there's nowhere where they can put the money. neil: well, if product it can't go any higher than a half percent clip, then we've got some problems, right? >> exactly, exactly. so good point by adam. neil: all right. see how nice he was to you, adam, and you were so mean to him. laugh. >> no! [laughter] neil: neil right, right. i want to thank you both very much. the dow down 158 points. the imf is out on this whole trade move that the president wants to make saying the import restrictions on steel and aluminum are likely to cause damage not only outside the u.s., but also to the u.s. economy itself. says it's concerned that the tariffs will be de facto expand
the factor where companies justify broad-based import restrictions, referencing the fact that president trump is saying this has now become a national security issue. we need steel, it's vital to our national security, and those guys are getting hosed. are they? after this. here... i want you to pick a new truck for your mom or dad, knowing that they could possibly pass it down to you one day. cool. but before you decide, you should know that chevy silverado's are the most dependable, longest lasting full-size pickups on the road. which means that ford f-150s are not. (laughs) which truck would you pick? the chevy. the chevy. the chevy. there you go. boom. that was obvious. plus it looks cooler. no doubt about it. now they know what to get me. (laughs)
♪ neil: this nor'easter is moving up the east coast, and whether on the east coast or not, you are probably affected in one way, shape or form especially if you're flying today because 2600 flights have been canceled so far, amtrak is suspending service along the northeast corridor line, and all federal offices in d.c. just closed for the day. my kids also got home from school early, and my wife is just exasperated. all right. in the meantime, donald trump is tweeting that the u.s. will soon be charging reciprocal taxes to make trade fair. to americans for prosperity
president tim phillips and alliance for manufacturing president -- [inaudible] on that line that everyone is focusing on, guys, and i'll get your view first, scott, the president tweeting out that trade wars are good and easy to win. what'd you think of that? >> well, i think the president is trying to articulate a rationale for why he's doing this which is we've been in a one-sided trade war for almost two decades with china. we haven't pushed back. he fully intends to do that, and he's right, we have market leverage. we have by far the largest consumer market in the world -- neil: so you're assume ising that it won't come to that, right, scott? just to be clear. i think it's the thinking that it'll never come to this, that they will come to their senses, ease up and then nothing has to happen. >> well, look, there'll be some adjustment. there'll be threats of retaliation. i saw the e.u. threatened to retaliate against u.s. blue jeans. we don't make any blue jeans in the united states anymore unfortunately, so it's largely
symbolic. but they all know the president is right about this. i mean, america imports more steel than any other country by par. we have the most pope -- by far. we have the most open market, and trade predators have taken advantage of that. it's wreaked devastation in communities in pennsylvania and ohio -- neil: so you welcome this. you don't necessarily love it, but you welcome what he's doing. >> i think it's about time we pushed back and ended the era of trade surrender. it's hurt way too many communities in america. neil: understood. tim, what do you think of that? we are hosed in a lot of these countries where, you know, you don't see a lot of chevys or gm products on japanese streets, chinese streets, etc. maybe we've just gotten used to that and it ends. what do you think? >> tariffs are a bad idea because they have government picking winners and losers, neil. neil: well, the governments abroad do that. a lot of governments abroad do that. >> it doesn't mean our nation should be doing that because you typically pick people who have the best lobbyists, the best
lawyers, it also typically begins driving up costs for american consumers. free trade has lored the cost of everyday goods that americans, especially those on fixed incomes, buy at wal-mart and target. free trade is without question lowering the price -- neil: well, but wilbur ross, the commerce secretary, tim, made a brilliant point showing a can of soup saying that it won't because it's such a small percentage of the product that it ultimately amounts to six-tenthst of a credibility -- tenths of a cent. >> such thinking assumes that other countries won't retaliate. they will. american agriculture is vulnerable. we export a lot of food across the world. we have industry after industry that is export -- neil: fair enough, fair enough. and by the way, he was holding up a campbells soup can, not a progresso to soup can. [laughter] scott, i'm curious where all this goes because you always fear once the genie's out of the
bottle, it gets crazy, and it can escalate. the history of trade wars is that it goes from one product to another and another and another and, boom. are you worried about the boom part? because the markets certainly are. not that they're nostradamus, but they're worried this is developing into something. are you? >> sure. well, first of all, i think that there is a national security rationale and is that we're on very safe ground in doing that. i was just in pennsylvania, they've made armor plate there since 1810. it is a steel mill that is beleaguered by imports. and so i think we're on solid ground there. you know, if you're looking at an outlier in the global trading system, it is not the united states, it's not donald trump, it's china. and i think this will get more governments to focus on -- neil: canada, canada's our biggest steel importer here. canada. >> they are. neil: they're our friend, right? >> i am certain we can work out an arrangement with canada. but, neil, i think at the end of this folks should look at
beijing, at its communist government, at its state-led -- neil: no, no, that's fine. i agree. you look at china -- [inaudible conversations] fine, i understand, but they're not the real culprit here. they're a culprit in a lot of things, you're quite right -- >> oh, they are, they are the culprit. ill spills over. -- it spills over. neil: would you think canada should get a pass or an exemption? prime minister trudeau wants something like that because i can't see them deliberately hosing it. but you never know. they've had a lot of suspicious movies. [laughter] >> that very point, maybe let's give an exception to canada, the united kingdom. we should have across the board free trade to the greatest extent possible. the government does a lousy job -- neil: but would you ignore scott's point on -- it's a good one, and i think it's the one the president was making. look, they've been doing this, so we can ignore it and just let it go on, or we could do
something. >> our nation is best served by having strong free trade across the board. and if you want -- how about national security risks, i'll tell you a way to alleviate that. have a growing, vibrant economy where everyone's doing well. that makes your nation stronger. and it's without question that agreements like nafta do that, neil. broad free trade is best. neil: you're saying been there, done that. we're getting -- >> we lost it, right, we lost a third of our manufacturing jobs since 2000, most of them fled to china. it's time we pushed back. neil: gentlemen, i want to thank you both. again, to put this into perspective, argument for the administration, i want you to look at this paper cup -- [laughter] there's no steel in here. so if there were, it would be a very small percentage, and it would amount to, let's say, maybe 1% in this cup if it were a steel cup of soup, and that would amount to a 25% tariff on that. it would be six-tenths of one
cent. but, again, soup analogy doesn't work, right? because the campbells can analogy doesn't work, and the automatic view that those prices go up doesn't work. someone's kicking you in the can, folks -- [laughter] and it's not an economist. we'll have more after this. you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, that can take you out of the game for weeks, even if you're healthy. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that in severe cases can lead to hospitalization. it may hit quickly, without warning, causing you to miss out on the things you enjoy most. prevnar 13® is not a treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia...
it's a vaccine you can get to help protect against it. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever, chills, and rash. help protect yourself against pneumococcal pneumonia. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price.
♪ ♪ neil: you know, so much attention is paid to all the illegals who are here, but, you know, someone hires hem, someone brings them in to work for them, and that's the lathes area where i.c.e. is trying -- latest area where i.c.e. is trying to crack down. hillary vaughn in washington with more on that. >> reporter: hey, neil. i talked to the second in command at homeland security investigation's matthew allen, and he tells me it is not business as usual at the u.s. immigrations and custom enforcement. we have a directive straighting from the president to ramp up -- straight from the president to show up to businesses
unannounced and audit everyone on the payroll to make sure employers aren't cheating the system by exploiting cheap and illegal labor. >> in 2017 hsi conducted about 1700 audits of companies. i think you can expect us to almost quadruple that this year. if you are not paying attention to your work force and making sure that you have a lawful and legal work force, you should be concerned that hsi could show up on your doorstep. >> reporter: in 20 the 17 businesses found in -- 2017 businesses found in violation forked over $97 million in assets and fines and paid over $7 million in civil fines. allen says they expect those 2018 totals to top those. i got the chance to ride along with i.c.e. agents as they conducted a sweep of audits in the l.a. area, i asked the assistant director if recent comments from oakland's mayor have affected their enforcement operations. he tells me employers who hire illegals no matter where they
are do so at their own peril. >> the political desires of a local or a state administration have nothing to do with worksite enforcement, and no employer should believe that they have any protection or safe harbor from hsi's worksite enforcement program if they operate a business in what they or anybody else interprets to be a sanctuary city. >> reporter: neil, the assistant director tells me that focusing on employers who are hiring illegal workers has been identified as a lynch pin in their -- linchpin in their crackdown on illegal immigration. neil: hillary, thank you very much. meanwhile, the president continuing to make his list to cut down on school violence by trying to get a sense how video games might be contributing to it. he's meeting with a lot of honchos next week, to child adolescent psychiatrist dr. dominic sportelli. doctor, thank you for taking the time. >> thanks for having me, neil. neil: what percentage of kids,
teens, whatever, do you think violent video games might make an impression beyond entertainment, that they become transfixing? >> yeah. of so the facts are this: a very, very, very small percentage of kids -- you have to understand, millions of kids are are playing these video games on a daily basis, and it's the incredibly rare for a circumstance of mass violence to take place. and most of the research to date does show that there is no causal real correlation between playing these violent video games and future violent acts. however, i will tell you this, which is very interesting, children that are exposed to violence in the media on television, in the movies, on social media, etc., are more likely to engage in violent acts. we don't really see it with the video games per se, but we do see it with the movies. neil meehl would you as someone who works with kids, the president seemed to be intimating a rating system for games. i guess what he was referring to was maybe tightening it or for
excessive violence which, again, they're rated for as well, that we really police this better because even if it's a tiny percentage among millions of kids, that's all you need? >> right. and i think that's a very, very good point because we have the rating system. guess what it comes down to, neil? it comes down to the guardians and the parents enforcing these rules for the kids. because the truth is a lot of these kids are playing these games that are rated for mature -- neil: you're right, no, you're right. >> they're seeing r-rated movies. who's enforcing it? that's the important thing. neil: no, you're right. what happens is all their friends are doing it, and you feel like pope francis, i don't care if all your friends are doing it, you're not going to do it. but i'm wondering how much of a factor in the overall scheme where games themselves have gotten more violent, and that's just a fact. now, the impression they make, again, i'll leave it to folks like you, but there are a lot of these games out there, and the predominant players are, you know, teenage males. >> well, here's the thing, in
2015 the american psychological association did put out a statement that said they thought that violent video games lead to increased aggression and decreased pro-social behavior. unfortunately, the literature now isn't really supporting that. this is what we have to understand, that to the average, well-adjusted kid they're not going to really have an increase in violence when playing a video game. like i said, millions of kids play these games. but for the at-risk population, the kids that have poor impulse control, the kids that have anti-social traits, the kids that have experienced bullying, the kids that have poor coping mechanisms, those are the kids that are at risk, and those are the kids that these violent video games might have an impact and push them over the edge. neil: don't you find, though, that kids are numb to violence today whether in games or real sly life, seeing it on the news? it's certainly nothing like i remember in the kid. >> yeah, listen, in the 1950s, 10% of households had televisions. now 99% have them, most kids
have televisions in their rooms. there's no question that kids are being desensitized to violence, absolutely. neil: doctor, thank you very much. good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: stocks swooning again, are boomers worried? we'll ask 'em, after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ mvo: with everything that is going on around us and in the nation, we need to work together. we need to do it more often to help people that need help. ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you. fvo: he's encouraged other people to look around and notice one another and take the time for each other. that's his gift. ♪ i'll stand by you.
♪ ♪ neil: all right, you know, boomers are upset about this tariff talk. so you millennials are are like, who cares? lizzie mcdonald here, charlie brady, charlie gasparino and steve loeb. as a boomer, steve, are you worried? >> i'm, like, flummoxed. what -- neil: no big words here. [laughter] >> i'm sorry. i mean, i can't believe it. i mean, china, yes -- >> china! >> it's done so many things wrong, and they're eating our lunch. but we don't attack our friends because of this. i mean, basically -- neil: canada is one that's going to get hurt. >> canada's going to get hurt, europe's going to get hurt. if he wants to go after china, for goodness sakes -- neil: isn't that his point, that
we've been letting this ride for too long and we've got to do something? >> yes, fair trade, reciprocal tax. i'm just surprised how they did it. it came out via leak -- neil: yeah, yeah. >> when bush tried in 2002 -- >> it backfired. >> the wto said $2 billion in sanctions on the u.s., and then he pulled it back. neil: democrats didn't think it went far enough, the republicans -- >> the e.u. went to the world trade organization and got $2 billion in sanctions against the u.s -- >> look at the record of the reagan tariffs that trump always touts. >> right. >> not so great. i mean, automobile sales went down, prices went up. they still lost, they still lost jobs in the concern. neil: but i think the one he's referring to is how reagan went after the japanese on dumping chips. that did get -- >> yeah -- [inaudible conversations] solar panels are okay to go after too, but what happened with bush, lizzie, you're right. there was, you know, a fine
imposed by the wto, but also what the chinese did, the chinese have an electoral map. i'm convinced every chinese knows which states trump won. so what are the chinese going to retaliate? on something called sorghum. i don't even know what it is, but it's a vital product many texas, kansas and states that went more trump. it's not -- neil: i have no idea what you're talking about, but you're saying there's going to be -- >> i'm sorry. neil: no, no, a tit for tat response. >> yeah, that is the problem. >> carveout toss get around something -- neil: okay. what do you think? >> liz referred to the timing of it, and it actually should get the bad times award because the markets were already on edge -- neil: but he doubled down on it this morning, charlie, that trade wars are easy to win. >> why are they easy to win? neil: i don't know where he got that. >> i don't either. go ahead, charlie. >> the last trade war that i can remember was right before the great depression. [laughter] smoot holly. that's the last trade war, and it was really bad.
neil: well, there was our trade war to get you over here, and we swapped a player -- [laughter] oh, that's different. >> but, you know, here's the one thing i think the markets are worried about right now, that president trump just doesn't get basic economics. you remember during the campaign -- >> i agree. >> just let me make this point. during the campaign he made some crazy remarks, but one thing that -- now, if he said this now, it would really destroy the markets. he said he would renegotiate the debt if it got out of hand. now, you could do that with the trumka see knows that are junk -- trump casinos that are junk bonds, and i think markets are starting to look back and say, you know, this guy has some weird economic theories -- neil: but in the aggregate, they like his message. they like the cut down in regulations, they like the tax cuts, right? >> right, that's all good. neil: but he stepped on that -- >> right, exactly. >> so much success right now you've got consumer confidence at a ten-year high, manufacturing activity hit a
14-year high yesterday, we found out. the markets are up -- neil: so we should all -- >> then he comes out with this complete dud of tariffs that yo pun likes. >> the oil and energy sectors are even now saying this'll kill jobs. exxon is mobile may dial back expanding a refinery in beaumont, texas -- neil: electrolux is cutting back on an investment -- [inaudible conversations] >> as long as he goes after nafta. see, that's the whole thing. >> that's scary. >> if he goes tit for tat on tariffs, it may be bad, and all that stuff you said obviously true, but suppose he indulges his inner protectionist which appears he is, listening to wilbur and that other loony tune, navarro, and goes after nafta. that would be catastrophic. >> quickly, neil, the other thing too is this is short-term gain for possible long-term pain. and we've always talked about how trade wars can lead to shooting wars. we're in a new world of cyber wars. i mean, you never know how a country's going to retaliate,
and to brood it about so loudly like this and just have -- neil: do you think they're used to it, though, the world worried about walking on egg shells and all, but at least he's -- it's about people -- >> neil, i mean, i come back to it. one of the most surprising things i learned, and it was fairly recently because i've studied china, and i thought i knew a lot about it. what they export to us, much more than steel, much more than anything else are electronic products. and that's -- neil: didn't the president say before he became president that these guys need us a lot more than we need them, and let's prove it? >> yes, exactly. >> they need us to buy their products. neil: what's wrong with getting, what's wrong with getting a little more chutzpah here? >> well, be he targeted -- i think liz mentioned, what was the word, reciprocal tax. that's a little more of a refined scalpel as opposed to a blunt instrument which is tariffs. neil people understand blunt instruments. they understand. >> trump is a blunt instrument.
there is nothing he wants -- [laughter] neil: pardon me, kettle. [laughter] >> don't i have better hair than him? neil: no. all right. so where's this going, guys? [laughter] you know, a lot of people look at this and say, you know, maybe it's another excuse more people to sell. you know, we've come back, i think, 70% of the losses and now we're back, right? what do you think? >> no, i think this is just another hiccup in the market. we've seen corporate profits rose 15% last quarter from a year ago. that's a record. neil: you think it's still solid, the market itself? >> i think it is, but we don't have the details what exactly he's going to do with these tariffs. neil: i think he's waiting to see what they do in response. >> already there's massive response coming out from the e.u., china's threatening, you know -- >> 3.5 billion from the e.u. >> people are getting upset about this, we go into the weekend with this -- neil: what did you guys think of wilbur ross when i saw him with your colleague and friend, stuart varney, and you know
where he was going. worried about the cost of a can of soup. by the way, as if he has ever gone to the store to buy a can of campbells soup, that's fine. [laughter] i thought it was idiotic. >> the point is bring on the keystone pipeline -- neil: right. or stand by a skyscraper or a car. >> how about a car? you know, this is going to raise prices of automobiles. i mean, here's the other thing that i think, listen, the economy's fundamentally fine. we got all that. this moil is real problematic -- this policy is real problematic if he does -- oh, jeez, is that wilbur? neil: yeah. that sold it for me. [laughter] >> now i'm for the policy. if he goes all the way to nafta, i mean, let's see how far he goes -- >> i think charlie's totally right. nafta would be a very big deal. >> they're approaching it like a zero sum game. >> yes. >> and it's not a zero sum -- neil: but if you're toyota -- the i'm sorry. if you're toyota and you're upset about this and they are, and it's going to add a lot to
the cost of a car and they have plants here in the united states, would they go so far as to raise the cost of those cars to the degree they potentially could, and would they even go further than that and say, you know about that additional plant? we're not going to do it. >> yes. because when you look at the price action on the tape and watch ford go down practically the same, you can bet bottom dollar that all of the carmakers and the industrialists are looking at this intently and seeing -- neil: but even's looking at the steel or lumbar numb and -- aluminum in almost any product -- >> unless they can increase productivity. neil: should the american consumers be worried about a correct hit on them anytime soon? >> yes. >> yes. >> the economy can slow because of this, neil, and that would cause hiring to slow. neil: what if purchases have nothing to do with this? a typical box of m and ms, there is no steel or aluminum. >> the economy slows down -- [inaudible conversations]
>> lizzie was the only one that got that. >> there's no traces of metal in pumpkin spice? neil: there might be. i think to wilbur ross' brilliant explanation, it's so tiny that you wouldn't even notice it. >> then why are they doing it? >> how about the massive machines that make the covering for it? i mean, steel's pretty pervasive. >> here's a bearish way of looking at it. we're getting some higher interest rates, we're worried about inflation. we are actually worried about budget deficits growing out, and on so top of that he gets into a trade war, those are sort of the things that generally can hurt consumers, hurt the economy, hurt the market -- >> and undo the tax cut benefit. neil: that's what i was going to end with, just that. >> a trade war would definitely offset that and undo it completely. no one wins in a trade war. >> just based on this conversation, i think the chances of these tariffs going through are maybe 1 in 100. i think he will change his mind. look, he changed his mind twice
yesterday -- >> universal background checks now too. >> you're not going to see these tariffs, that's my prediction. i hope i'm right. >> we should buy this. >> i think so, charlie. i don't have the nerve to do it, but i think -- neil: all right. we've all got to run and see if there's any steel, any aluminum in prune juice because -- [laughter] we'll have more right after this.
neil: dow down 184 points. push and pull on trade, whether cracking down on it, help these markets or hurt these markets. whether it will sell after the markets, who knows. trish regan. trish. ainsley: we'll find out, neil cavuto. markets sell off second day in a row, president trump. we're recovering that is the good news. anything can happen. there is two hours to go until the close of trading. i'm trish regan, welcome to "the intelligence report." u.s. trading partners around the world are threatening retaliation with new tariffs slap 25% on steel imports and tin% on aluminum. the president says, when a country is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade w