Skip to main content

tv   Bulls Bears  FOX Business  December 29, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm EST

11:00 am
and videos on our website, i'll see you next week. [ woman vocalizing ] us, "bullsd bears" starts right now. ♪ ♪ david: an historic week for markets ending with more volatility in the final hours of trading. buckling up, everybody, thanks for joining us. i'm david asman if, joining me today, liz peek, johnathan hoenig, jack howe. in a week that gave us the worst christmas eve trading day ever followed by the biggest point game ever followed by the biggest rebound ever, it may be comforting to see the dow trading with just 400-point swings from high to low and not 800 today. gang, should we be happy that stocks were up for the week, or is it too early to pop the champagne? what do you think? >> you know, there's such a
11:01 am
thing as a day where the dow goes up 1,000 points, and it's not great news, i think we saw it this week. it gives me no comfort that investors are that fickle about where stocks should be valued right now. everyone is waiting to see what growth is going to look like next year. we knew all the time that this year would be great. is there going to be a carryover effect, or will growth slow greatly next year. >> well, it's pretty obviously not an efficient market anymore, but that said, it was very important that it did -- [laughter] it did come back. these are trillion dollar swing withs, these -- believe it or not, in total market value when you move about 3%. you know, a 20 drop -- which is roughly what we had -- is right on the edge of a bear market, essentially, and that is a level that you don't -- you're with either going to go into a recession and fall 30, 40, 50%, or it's going to be a real buying opportunity like we saw, you know, with long-term capital management during that, in '98. or with the euro crisis, 2011. those are times where it came
11:02 am
back big. you made a lot of money buying at that point. and investors don't really know, so that's why you're swinging a lot. you don't know if it's going to tank, but it's a good buying opportunity if it does come pack. >> people are confused, they're not sure what the big elements that are going to determine what growth looks like. is it going to be the government shutdown, is it the china tensions, is that really going to matter down the road is? what about the fed? now the market is factoring it absolutely zero rate hikes next year -- >> you are so bullish though. i mean, you were so bullish weeks ago, oh, trump is going to make everything okay again -- [laughter] david: oh, here we go. >> what happened? i don't know, you seem a little more confused right now. it's a bear market. i mean we -- this is a bear market. >> jonathan, we were talking, so, since you're so on top of everything, you have foresight and far sight, but the answer is a lot of investors don't really
11:03 am
know which way to jump right now, and i think that's what we're seeing in these big market swings. we also have technical indicators like tax laws selling, companies have been big buyers of their own stock. so there are a lot of elements. in terms of jack's comment about growth being uncertain, i think that's always the case. nobody really knows for sure what 2019 growth is going to look like, but that's pretty much always the case. >> one of the reasons why it is so uncertain next year is part of it is about the market itself. we always think about the market as following the economy, following earnings. but let's keep in mind that the stock market has a wealth effect. those raging gains have made people spend, and that spending makes the economy look good. when people look at their next statements, how are they going to feel about spending going into early next year. david: what about the volatility, the crazy swings we have seen all week beginning on christmas eve? is that an indicator -- maybe it's just an indicator that a lot of retail investors are in
11:04 am
there rather than the money managers who are all in hawaii -- >> you could actually make the case there was a lack of volatility -- david: so we're just catching up. >> look, we also have engineered a new way of investing for individuals where all the money now goes into etfs. that was a relatively stable asset class as far as, i mean, it was some hot money, but something you could buy and sell intraday. and you're talking hundreds of billions per year goes out of traditional mutual funds, and that leads to a more volatile environment because of the ease of buying and selling, so -- and that is -- >> well, and a lot of the volatility has been caused by government, has been caused -- i mean, look, david, when treasury secretary mnuchin called the banks on sunday night -- [laughter] oh, do you guys have enough liquidity? you can't blame investors for being a little bit nervous. yeah, i think the trade war in particular has been a self-inflicted wound. so now we're in, you know, day,
11:05 am
whatever, a week now of a shutdown, self-inflicted wound. trade war, self-inflicted wound -- david: by the way, there is also the uncertainty about what's going to happen with the new congress. we do have a new democrat congress that could do a lot of things to at least put roadblocks up in terms of what could be done by government to make it easier to do business. >> and they're also going to undertake one investigation into president trump after another which, if nothing else, is somewhat unsettling. the things that they're going after seem to me sort of farfetched -- david: by the way, they're lawyering up right now. >> sure. david: all of the democrat committees are hiring all these lawyers. washington is booming, by the way. >> i don't want to interrupt a good round of blame the democrats for the stock market -- [laughter] but i'll just point out that the market has already voted the day after the democrats took the house, the market went up by twice as much as it went up after trump was elected. so if the market likes trump, it somehow loves the democrats -- david: well -- >> no, no, no, no.
11:06 am
no, no. that was because the republicans held the senate. let's not kid ourselves. [laughter] >> jack, i'm not sure if you heard this, but jonathan was actually blaming the republicans for this. david: right, right. >> by the same logic, donald trump did come out on christmas and say this is a good buying opportunity causing, theoretically, the biggest point gain in dow history the next day. david: when donald trump was elected, the dow was at about 18,000, between 18-19,000. it's still up at about 23,000, so it's had quite a gain, 5,000 points since the election is not bad. >> that is one of probably the main reasons the market fell. it's not the tariff war and all this other minor stuff. when the market goes up that fast, then you get like an '87 crash. when it falls this hard and you're still higher than you were two years ago, there was a lot of air in the market. we saw a lot of near-bubble behavior in the nasdaq stocks, the tech -- >> that's right. david: i'm going to m channel
11:07 am
warren buffett for a second because, of course, he always likes it when people pan ific, and there's a lot of panic going on right now. i had one viewer call in, a trader, a person who handles wealth. i can't mention the name, but a pretty well known company. he says whatever is coming isn't worse than any other economic event that we've managed our way through. isn't that the bottom line? that has to be kept in mind when everybody's panicking, right? >> yes. and i think that's, by the way, jonathan, you're right. i was optimistic some weeks ago, but i was optimistic about the economy. the fact that retail sales for the holiday season are up over 5%, that is a good thing. david: sure it is. >> oh, wonderful. and the market's down, and we've had the worst december ever, and just keep buying, keep buying. this is a bear market. david: you know, you can pooh-pooh a lot of things, jonathan, but what about the jobs market9? i mean, the jobs market is strong, that gives tremendous power to the working class of america. that's a food thing, is it not -- a good thing, is it not? >> david, it's a wonderful
11:08 am
thing -- david: there you go. >> but we're investors. we invest in stocks. it's a bear market, and i just think you have to acknowledge that. even to the, look at the market, down, obviously, five new highs. i mean, is this something that the panel wants to be enthusiastic -- >> jonathan's making a good point that you can't buy into the job market with your investment capital. however, if you're like warren buffett who has, i think, $100 billion in cash that he kept just for this moment, this is a point where you can start buying -- david: like what, for example? >> i would favor foreign stocks, value stocks in case we go lower. to jonathan's point, it might be a bear market, and that's why you would see someone like warren buffett, he's not going to put the whole $100 billion to work tomorrow, but he's going to buy down, and an investor can do that as well. >> to liz's point, it is early to begin holding a funeral for this economic expansion. the signs are still pretty good. but stock prices, to my eye
11:09 am
with, have not come down to rock bottom levels. they've come down to sort of a square deal right here. i don't see many steals out there. >> well, i think -- sorry, go ahead. i think that, i think it depends on what sectors you look at. it seems to me, the financials -- which got completely trashed, and some of them were yielding incredibly high numbers and have incredibly good balance sheets which, by the way, secretary mnuchin really didn't have to reassure us about, some of these sectors seem pretty well priced. david: i think we all agree that was a little ill-timed at least, right? [laughter] >> you mean you don't take comfort when the treasury secretary says, hey, don't worry -- david: no, he says don't panic, don't panic. >> we don't know what he knows. there might be something to take about. david: i know. ill-timed, but it was the beginning of an incredible week. let's hope for a little calmness next week. well, president trump threatening to close down our southern border if congress
11:10 am
doesn't fund a wall, and if he does, he says the u.s. will actually bring in more money. how will he do that? is he right? we debate it coming next. ♪ ♪ ♪ the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet?
11:11 am
11:12 am
comcast business built the nation's
11:13 am
largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.
11:14 am
♪ ♪ david: so we're a week into the government shutdown, and president trump is threatening another type of shutdown, this one at the southern border, tweeting today, quote: the united states loses so much money on trade with mexico under nafta, over $75 billion a year not including drug money which would be many times that amount that i would consider closing the southern border a profit-making operation. we would build a wall or close the southern border, bring our car industry back into the united states where it wrongs, go back to pre-nafta before so many of our companies and jobs were so foolishly sent to mexico. east we build, finish the wall or we close the border. for the record, our trade deficit with mexico last year was about $71 billion, but assuming the president is serious, could you make money by shutting down the border? >> i really can't understand what he's talking about very much here. [laughter] i've got to say.
11:15 am
look, i'm sort of disgusted by everything that's being discussed relative to this shutdown. everyone is spending all their time blaming the other party for initiating it instead of getting together and actually trying to solve the problem. we to have a problem. we do have a problem. the democrats say that they favor border security: no one has called them out on that and said what exactly are you willing to do, what are you willing to spend. the idea that we could actually get around the whole thing by talking about a barrier or a fence instead of a wall makes my if head explode. look, there is room for negotiation here. it would be an unbelievable christmas present, new year's present to the country if president trump could actually make a compromise deal for daca, reel status and -- legal status and getting the wall built and possibly ending the diversity visa. something that was on the table before, and the democrats walked away. >> how could if he could just make sense? is. [laughter] >> yeah, i don't know what he's talking about. >> it's incoherent. i mean, this is incoherent just
11:16 am
ramblings. close the border, i don't know, what about people who are going on vacation, what about all the trade that goes by? this is fundamentally, i think, the issue here, david. the president chemos saying that we're losing -- keeps saying we're losing money on trade. trade is win/win. we buy from mexico, we send them dollars, and we get stuff in return. things like this, if you want to know why the market has been so volatile, i have to think it is some of the elements of the trade threats just who wants to invest in an environment like this. >> what about the caravaners who just want to walk across the border? i don't think it had much impact on the market, or you would have seen it when it happened. the concept, though, and you can't read this into a tweet. it's a tweet, it's not a policy. of monetizing your borders and using immigration to grow america is not crazy. and we don't approach it this way, even the things you were just referring to, liz, have nothing to do with the kind of things you'd want to do. not just visa revenue, not just
11:17 am
tourist revenue. we have a whole system that requires a growing population, a higher tax base. your immigration system can -- other countries give you citizenship if you have a certain amount of income. we do a little of this with immigrants who invest in america, but you can really monetize the growth of our population. america is -- said dave wow, you're explaining this tweet. [laughter] >> you can't just have an open door, you'll ruin the nightclub. you need to have someone working the door and let in the right people who earn money, want to work, want to start a business -- david: that's a good point. >> a good plan to finance the growth -- david a merit-based immigration, which is what the president's talked about before. that makes a lot more sense. in fact, the canadians do it to their benefit. >> most of the people who are here illegally have flown in on tourist visas and overstay their welcome, so it can't be the beginning and end to some kind of approach to immigration. i don't know what a wall has to do with trade with mexico.
11:18 am
[laughter] and by the way, the u.s. has a booming car industry, and one of the reasons is we've been able to outsource low, you know, low margin activity to cheaper countries and keep higher margin activities at home. we're doing very well in cars in the u.s. david: but there is a very specific purpose to the president advocating a policy where we take in people that we can use, not just anybody, but people that have skill sets whether it's manual skill sets like bricklayers or something more sophisticated for silicon valley. i mean, what is wrong with changing from this crazy lottery system now that we have, to me, makes no sense and doesn't benefit our economy to one that is based on merit. >> if we snapped our fingers today and got rid of people in the country that we couldn't prove had certain skill sets, our crops would rot in the field -- david: that's a skill set that i'm talking about. that is a skill set. >> fair enough. [inaudible conversations] >> and we have programs which allow in agricultural workers. really what we're talking about here is just a rational
11:19 am
immigration program or system where we attract and keep the people we want, and we don't let in everybody on the basis of some whimsical diversity visa. i mean, honestly, i think logic tells you -- and, by the way, to jack's point, e-verify goes a long way. it's a free program, it works. that could help us also in terms of those overstayed visas. >> specific to the president -- >> there's an -- let me just say there's an unlimited -- david: quickly. >> to jonas' point, only a few slots, there's an unlimited amount of wealth that can be created, there's an unlimited amount of jobs that can be created, and we should fear the day that -- >> actually, i would put no limits on qualified people, to be very clear. i'm concerned about unlimited people aren't going to grow -- david: but saying qualified, you're putting limits on it -- >> well, no. david: some limits need to be put -- we saw that police officer killed by an illegal immigrant who clearly should not have been here.
11:20 am
the survival of an iconic american company now happening in the balance. the deadline for anyone to come forward with a bid to save sears has just come and gone. is anyone throwing out a lifeline? will they extend the deadline? we are live in chicago with more on this developing story. that's coming next. ♪ expedia introduces add on advantage, a new way to save on travel. now when you book a flight you unlock discounts on select hotels that you can use up until your trip starts. so whether you want to go out, stay in, or be in the middle of it all... add the perfect hotel when you're ready, and save. add on advantage. only with expedia.
11:21 am
11:22 am
11:23 am
11:24 am
david: breaking news, sears is close to closing for good. its former ceo, eddie lampert, had proposed buying the retailer, but the 4 p.m. deadline has passed. unless the deadline is extended -- and there are some indications it will be -- the company is going to be moving into liquidating its assets. following this trail of tear is the is our own jeff flock on a cold and windy sears location just outside of chicago. jeff, any signs of life in the store you're covering? >> reporter: well, just a little bit.
11:25 am
you know, the board has the ability to, if they want to, extend this deadline. we have no indication that anybody has made a bid. the sec, there's no filing with the sec. we just checked that. but bloomberg is reporting that bam pert is -- lampert is seeking to have the deadline extended because, apparently, he hasn't lined up the financing that he needs. he's not putting very much of his own money into this at all, he's just offering to forgive some debt. so if they extend it, then, you know, it lives another day. but they just closed 80 more stores today independent of all of this deadline stuff. so major life support, david. >> hi, jeff, jack howe with barron's. sears, i feel, ought to change its name to weekend at bernie's, because it seems like it's been dead for ten years. retailers have inventory, they can call on something to raise liquidity when they need to. can you envision any kind of, you know, continued existence
11:26 am
for sears that is relevant in a world where, you know, of someone trying to make a profit, like a smaller store that does more of a niche thing? is there any talk about out there about what sears can do to have a continued life in retail? >> reporter: nobody has put forth -- i mean, lampert had a plan, and he implemented the plan. unfortunately, it didn't include investing in the stores at all, you know? it was shop your way, sears plan. it hasn't worked. and he hasn't said -- if he's got a new plan, he hasn't outlined what it is that would make the company, he's basically just said we'll keep the, you know, we'll keep the best performing stores, we'll keep 50,000 jobs, and we'll continue to fight another day. but there's no indication that the war, you know, the landscape of the war has changed at all. there's no new plan. so i don't know even if they survive it where it goes from here and how it becomes relevant again. >> jeff, jonas ferris here.
11:27 am
i'm not surprised that financial engineering didn't save sears, but i will say you're out there where the store is, and there's other stores often attached, how is the foot traffic in the available retail space in the rest of the malls? is there a domino effect not to maybe just banks who made loans to these retailers, but commercial real estate because now they're not going to hit the store next door? do you see a lot of empty parking lots around these sears, it isn't even just the sears? >> exactly. this is called the gulf mills shopping center, it was state of the art in its day back in the 1950s. it was the cuneo family that owned this. it's funny you bring it up, because the next one down is jcpenney. i don't know, maybe we can't move the camera around so well, mike, but sears is right in the middle of this massachusetts it goes this way and that way -- middle of this mall, it goes this way and that way, and you had to walk right through sears to get from one end to another. they had the most favored spot
11:28 am
in this mall, and now people have to walk outside to get to the other side of the mall, but that doesn't help them either. there's just not a lot of traffic in this mall. it's an old one and, you know, in retail everything that's new is cool, and this is right out of the '50s, and it hasn't been updated. so the traffic at this mall, you know, i mean, they spub off, as you know, 250 of the choicest mall locations and properties. the ones that they're left in, not exactly top drawer. >> jeff, it does seem that one of the problems is, in fact, the 1950s sort of approach to retailing. is there any, any indication at all that there is a plan to revamp the stores, to get in a new merchandise person who really knows what they're doing? i mean, this has sort of been a long, slow train wreck where i don't feel like there's been any added value anywhere along the way. >> reporter: well, you remember the optimism. when lampert took over, number one, he had this great
11:29 am
reputation, he was the next warren buffett, and he was combining sears and kmart, and there was going to be that, you know, that synergy there. that never worked. and, no, in answer to your question, liz, there is no -- i mean, i think it's gone too long. when we look at some of these stores, i was just at one, the last surviving store in chicago which is now close closed as well, and that store looks like it's in the '50s. and not in a good way. i mean, you know, retro kind of can be cool, but this wasn't in a cool way, this was crumbling bricks and, you know, just weirdness. and how they let it get to that point, i know, you know, he obviously invested a lot of his own money into the store, but it didn't, it didn't materialize in the actual bricks and mortar. david: jonathan, make et short, quickly, please. >> sure, very quickly. jeff, if sears survives, what is the value? i mean, toys r us, a lot of retail bankruptcies this year. is sears associated with any
11:30 am
prestige or cache as it once was? >> reporter: well, there's the real estate and then there's the kenmore appliances and diehard batteries. right now it's sears that's dying hard -- [laughter] still dying. those are the three things that we've got. david: there are so many jokes you can make but, again, there are real people that are suffering as a result of this closing, and we wish them all -- terrible time to be out of work. no matter how much we hear about the jobs, there's never a good time to be out of work. jeff, good to see you. thank you very much. >> reporter: yes, sir. david: terribly sad news coming in the us, a frequent guest on fox business and fox news bree payton has paced away after suddenly getting hit by the h1n1 flu virus. she was just 26 years old. she was very bright. we were so pleased to have her here. payton rushed to the hospital after her friend found her
11:31 am
unresponsive, barely breathing. a real star has been lost in the night. bre payton dead at the age of 26. we'll be right back.
11:32 am
11:33 am
but when i started seeing things, i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's may experience hallucinations or delusions.
11:34 am
but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference. ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid.
11:35 am
♪ ♪ david: house speaker designate nancy pelosi has just created a committee for the new congress that begins next week, the subcommittee on climate crisis is the name of it. it's going to have democrat congresswoman kathy castor as its first chair and some more radical members are already complaining that she is not far enough to the left for the job. just using the phrase crisis inside the beltway is usually shorthand for a problem that requires a lot more of your money. so should we be concerned about this new crisis committee on the climate? what do you think? >> there is no -- david, crisis, there is no climate crisis. look, the ecological movement was something that the liberals
11:36 am
came up with after the vietnam war. of this is completely manufactured. the more carbon that we've burned, the better man's life has become and the whole basis of the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, it's really anti-man and anti-industry. so you can bet at the end of this, you know, climate czar, whatever it's going to be, is higher taxes on fuel and higher costs for americans who simply want to live their own lives. >> your question, david, are we going to have to take a lot of money from taxpayers, you have to take money from taxpayers for things like building a wall. what they're going to ask for are miles per gallon restrictions of carmakers and, you know -- david: which in some ways can add up to more money than an out and out tax. >> it can, but i always wonder why republicans don't seek more of a middle ground on this issue, why republicans don't want to have any kind of ownership at all over the environmental issue. it seems like they should. at the very least, if money is the objection, why aren't
11:37 am
republicans saying there's some low-hanging fruit here, let's do these things that cost less. all they ever say is it's not real, i don't want to look at it -- >> jack, i have to take issue with that because, in fact, republicans have addressed system of these issues. but the reason they don't want to go further down that road is the united states is doing very well in terms of controlling and, in fact, rolling back our carbon footprint. we've done that not because of rules and regulations, not because of the a car ban tax -- carbon tax, mainly because natural gas has taken the place of coal over the past ten years. natural gas is pretty much a clean fuel, and we've done a very good job. i think the issue for me is you look at competitive positioning, the united states whenever we talk about a carbon tax or rolling back our use of fossil fuels, we are giving ground to countries like china that are not, do not have abundant sources of energy. and the united states doesn't want to do that. >> we actually have abundant,
11:38 am
cheap coal -- >> and gas and oil. david: and gas. we're giving away gas. >> because of environmental rules, it's not cheaper to make energy out of natural gas than coal. let's just get that on the table. that said, none of these rules from the right -- i don't think there's many from the right, but from the left are anywhere in the ballpark of solving this problem. >> what problem? what problem? >> i'm going to -- david: just a minute. >> let's compare the wall cost to the trillions it would require to actually lower significantly global consumption of things that produce this. this is why it's so hard to deal with. on the other hand, it can be dealt with. you know, even if there was a 5% chance that this was true, if you live in florida like this person on this new subcommittee, you know, it's already going underwater because of this. if there's a 5% chance that it's true and you can solve it, then let's solve it, and sort of go in this direction by a -- >> let me -- david: hold on a second. >> you didn't let me explain how to solve it. you don't have my solution.
11:39 am
david: anything inside the beltway, they do it by creating a huge new bureaucracy that takes money and doesn't solve anything. having said that, go ahead. >> we tax income, which is a good thing, to work. we don't tax fuel very high. you could completely change the tax code where people making up to $100,000 don't have to pay taxes and replace it with simple taxes on gas, electricity, everything else, and it'd be totally net neutral. maybe $8 a gallon for gas -- >> the goal itself, to liz's point of, well, we should reduce our carbon footprint, why? why should we sacrifice our own -- >> because you don't live in a place where they've had to raise the roads threepeat for $500 -- three feet like i do. >> amsterdam used to be underwater, and man adapts. man masters his environment and makes the best of it. we always have. and man's life has gotten better the more fossil fuels we've used, so -- >> no one's denying that the
11:40 am
world gets better every year, and it's wonderful that we have all these inventions -- >> yeah, but it's not better when there's another gas on tax -- tax on gas. >> first of all, about the house getting anything done. on this issue, i've got jonathan in one ear telling me, don't worry, everything's fine, and i like to believe him as often as i can. [laughter] but i have this consensus of scientists telling me i should be very worried. i try a little bit of humility and say what are the risks to being wrong. david: right. >> well, can we all -- >> ice age. we were all board about the ice age in the '70s. >> we just agree that having jobs and earning money is something you want to reward, and burning coal is maybe something you want to punish. >> why? david: only if we can all agree that politicians don't always do with our tax money what they say they're going to do -- >> it doesn't matter what they do with the tax money. david: it does! it matters to me, it's my money! >> if the taxes are high, you're
11:41 am
going to consume less of it and, therefore, less carbon-producing stuff. if you tax income less, people are going to work more. david: but to jonathan's point, do we want less -- [inaudible conversations] >> jonathan's crackpot theory that nothing's going wrong, he's not a scientist, he's an investor. david: there are scientists who agree with him. >> jonas, just, you know -- >> jonathan, i already don't have a car, what else can i to? >> last comment -- david: quickly, go ahead. >> china is the problem here and india. the united states could kill our economy by reducing emissions -- david: and china and india aren't signing on -- >> china is tice and growing -- david: not so secret anymore after thousands of pages of it were leaked. how the social media platform was using an outdated and biased manual to block your content. some alarming details coming next. ♪ the hard work you put into lowering your very high triglycerides with diet and exercise
11:42 am
deserves the hard work that went into the science behind vascepa. prescription vascepa. vascepa, along with diet and exercise, has proven results in multiple clinical trials. vascepa looks different because it is different. over a decade of extensive research and development achieved proven results. that's the prescription power of vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about what the science behind prescription vascepa can mean to you. amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated in the vascepa clinical trials.
11:43 am
amarin thanks the clinicians and patients who participated unstopand it's strengthenedting place, the by xfi pods,gateway. which plug in to extend the wifi even farther, past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods.
11:44 am
simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today.
11:45 am
♪ ♪ david: troubling details out about facebook's massive secret rulebook that they had used for policing global speech. the report highlighting the rule book's inconsistencies, gaps and how facebook's 7,500 moderators who monitor facebook's 2 billion users in over 100 languages,
11:46 am
they only have a couple of seconds very often to decide who and what is acceptable and what is forbidden. despite this bombshell report, ceo mark zuckerberg posting this today: for 2018 my personal challenge has been to focus on addressing some of the most important issues facing our community whether that's preventing election interference, stopping the spread of hate speech and misinformation, making sure people have control of their information and insuring our services improve people's well-being. in each of these areas, i'm proud of the progress we've made. so, gang, first of all, does this rulebook prove facebook's bias once and for all? >> >> look, i actually think this rulebook is evidence of a very difficult situation where they are trying to act as censor, in a sense, and undoubtedly get claims of bias about that. but they're trying to prevent hate speech and other things that are unacceptable from being on their platform. it is impossible. they now have 750 moderators, as you point out, david, they've
11:47 am
got seconds to weigh in. some of them are, apparently, not trained, barely literate people. i just find this an incredibly difficult challenge. >> it is, basically, impossible. and i would like to note that their bias, i don't -- what this report seems to imply, their bias is profit growth and revenue and user growth. they want everybody in the world to use this product hours a day, and that is their goal. and the problem is when you make that sausage, it is very ugly, and the effects we're with only starting to learn, you know, being fed what you want to see and the news you want to read and them essentially pirating all this information and controlling it and sticking ads in. it's a very scary business model. and they kind of fell into it in some ways. obviously, when they started this in the college dorm, they didn't think they'd be controlling the brain of the world. that said, if they can make money, i think if they can make money phasing out all left-wing voices, they would do so. they're hurting their own brand even without regulations because
11:48 am
i think at least in the united states, if not abroad, this is a damaged company now. the stock is damaged, they've made some mistakes, and people are going to think it's not cool to work there or use it. >> what i'm hearing is bordering on think for facebook, and i'm glad to hear it because it's hard enough to publish a little magazine each week when you're working with a staff of wonderful writers. facebook is in the position of having to publish constantly this magazine where every 2 billion writers around the world, some of whom are perfectly respectable and others who are awful human beings. and when something goes wrong, we say, how dare you, facebook, even though it's really us, humanity, that is doing these things on facebook. >> i want -- >> i have to cut this company a little bit of slack. when they essentially invented social media writ large, and to jonas' point, the stock has been punished, a very difficult year for facebook. in my opinion, you know, they simply need to establish some objective standards that are clear, concise, that the community to zuckerberg's point can simply understand.
11:49 am
until they get that, i fear that the regulatory threat -- which both sides of the aisle seem to embrace now -- is going to be a real bearish case for these stocks moving forward. >> i think aha's exactly right, jonathan. david, your producers reached out to facebook, and here's what they had to say. quote: we welcome debate on abot how we keep facebook a safe place, but that debate should be based on facts, not the mischaracterizations found in this story which rely on documents that are years old and taken out of context. so they didn't like "the new york times" report one little bit. tide david surprise. >> if a foreign country wants to run an advertisement that's made up to manipulate people in our country, that can't just be washed away. you can't run an ad in "the new york times" and not have it say advertisement and have it follow some sort of rules. the fact that you can just thousand that out there because facebook makes hundreds of billions of dollars selling those ads, that's not right as a business model. david: well, on the other hand, it is a business model, it is a business and, jonathan, you and
11:50 am
i have talked very often about how we don't want government to start regulating and managing businesses. or micromanaging. there are a lot of competitors popping up to facebook. eventually, someday, somebody's going to come out with a lot forum -- in fact, a lot of disgruntled facebook employees who are upset about the way they handle user data are now trying to come up with alternatives, competitors to facebook. that's the best way to regulate it, right? >> yeah. i mean, david, there was a time when myspace was the thing. [laughter] dating myself here. absolutely, there's competitors looking to find that secret sauce, and facebook, you know, listen, the only way they succeeded is that they've evolved. sears did not. it's a real test for them in 2019. to your point, david, the regulators are licking their chops, and that's a major negative for the entire internet sector. >> i like both of you, i don't like the idea of regulation in general. there have been instances on facebook where one sect of a country is basically planting
11:51 am
false news which has resulted in the murders of other people. i mean -- david: that's true. >> there has got to be some oversight. and if facebook can't do it, there's going to have to be some way, another way that it's approaching. >> whatever the answer is here, i can almost guarantee you it will rely heavily on algorithms as they're fond of saying in silicon valley. people don't scale. you can never hire enough people to do this job. >> that's it. david: when you have two billion users, that's absolutely true. all right, silicon valley elites are calling for universal basic income to be implemented across the united states, but many attempts across the world have ended in failure, so would these proposed plans be any different? we'll debate that coming next. ♪
11:52 am
11:53 am
11:54 am
comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget.
11:55 am
beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. david: reuters is reporting the lambert's bid for sears that he proposed in the past, he has made the bid. whether or not sears would accept that particular bid, it's undoubtedly something they will work on. but what do we think about this? is this a serious bid or did he wait until the gong clanged so he made a bid even thought it wasn't accepted. >> i call this weekend at bernie's what is the plan he has
11:56 am
for the company. this company has credi creditoro has argued this company is worth more dead than alive. he'll have to come up with something better than dead if he wants to get the deal done. >> the point all along is the value of the real estate. but what is that value if the stores aren't vibrant and functioning. >> sears isn't the only one in trouble right now in retail. there is not a huge number of bidders looking for a nationwide chain of box stores to buy into. i'm not quite sure if that will have value. but i'll wait until we get more details about this bid. >> it's almost as if eddie
11:57 am
pam'ert was the only raj cal buyer. i think that jadges earlier point, even if sears does survive this last-minute attempt, what is the value in the marketplace of a tarnished brand. >> i hope they are not trying to drive the took price down. we don't know the details so it's hard to say. david: what can he do with it. it wasn't just sears that was closed. the entire area had a bunch of stores with for rent signs on them. even if he was trying to revive the company. how do you rerife the sears
11:58 am
brand after all this? >> airlines do it general motors was a viable stock and now it's wiped out. i think the brand is pretty good. the whole concept of retail stores competing against amazon is questionable. >> there are stores like kohl's that have done quite well. i think you would have to expand fortune on reviving sears. >> sears was essentially left for dead. we talk about facebook as being the 800 pound gorilla unless they keep the innovation up. there will be another competitor knocking on their door. >> wall street doesn't innovate, they finance. we are trying to solve the
11:59 am
innovation. wall street will provide credit and do deals. >> we are all being so negative at the same time here. what can i buy at sears tonight? do they sell suits? david: they used to. i remember my dad buying a suit for $45. the bottom line is there are some retailers and walmart is a classic example that knew how to develop with the new markets and they survived quite well. i don't understand exactly why sears couldn't do what walmart did. >> i think it's too many years where they didn't try very hard to keep their stores active and modern. so the real estate value went down with it.
12:00 pm
david: quick last word, jonathan. >> don't marry a stock, many of them often go to (announcer) the following is a paid presentation for prostagenix, brought to you by (upbeat music) ♪ hi, this is larry king. over 30 million men in america have prostrate problems. i know, i was one of them. and all these natural prostate supplements like the ones i have here in front of me are everywhere. drugstores, health food stores, on the internet, and all over tv, selling millions of bottles every year.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on