tv After the Bell FOX Business August 23, 2019 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
bill, eric, steve, chris, guys, thank you to all of you. [closing bell rings] we have 10 seconds to go. the dow is closing down more than 600 points to the downside. it is about trade. that is it for me. over to "after the bell." connell: what a day. we had final hour, we're watching it. gotten down to session lows. cheryl came off them in the last few minutes. still down 600 points. all three major averages ending firmly in the red. big escalation in the trade tensions. president trump ordering companies looking to alternatives than china. the market ending 620 to the downside. funny to say 620 down. >> not the lows. connell: 682 there. the we'll see how we settle in off lows of the session. awful day, no matter how you slice it. melissa: that is weird.
i'm melissa francis this is "after the bell." there we go. s&p 500 ending in negative territory. both down 3% on the day. fox business team coverage. gerri willis is on the floor of the new york stock exchange. edward lawrence where a lot of action was in jackson hole, wyoming where fed chief jerome powell was speaking earlier. phil flynn watching action in oil and gold from the the cme. hillary vaughn is at the white house. we'll start with you. reporter: white house trade advisor peter navarro was on fox business this morning. he said that china continues to pay the price in this trade fight but he also said later on fox news that we have more bullets in our gun than they do. he says china exports over $600 billion to the u.s. we export about 100 billion. so he thinks that the u.s. still
is on top even though china has taken new action against u.s. products going into their country. the president though on twitter promising to respond to this sometime this afternoon. we haven't heard any update on what that response will be. whether it is another round of tariffs towards chinese products or what type of reaction it will be. the president in the meantime though is ordering u.s. companies to take action, signaling that the u.s. does not need china, saying quote, we do not need china. frankly would be far better off without them. the u.s. chamber of commerce chiming into the tweets, they share the president's frustration but encourage him to continue constructive talks between the two countries. trump demanding that u.s. companies move out of china, relocate manufacturing here in the saying our great american companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to china. but the national retail federation is saying that a u.s.
exodus from china would be not only unrealistic, but costly, it could take years to move supply chains out of the country. the president also calling for carriers like fedex, ups, the u.s. postal service to screen their shipments for illegal fentanyl being funneled from china here into the u.s. fedex and ups responding to this saying they follow all protocols and security measures to make sure i will is lit products do not make their way into their shipments. the president does not seem bothered by the ma market move or reaction to his comments, making a joke on twitter is because the drop on the dow is because seth mole ton dropped out of the 2020 race for president. melissa: demanding they look at alternatives? what company hasn't already looked for alternatives given everything that has gone on? hillary, thank you.
tech stocks sinking on escalating feud between the u.s. and china. go to gerri willis for more. gerri, wow, i can't even imagine, what was it like on the floor? reporter: it was amazing, so many different sectors hit today, right? one of the once people did not spend a lot of time talking about, tech stocks. they were down. big tech titans down and down hard. facebook, amazon, apple, google, netflix all doing poorly today. all about trade tensions here. as you can see these stocks down and down hard. apple among the worst of the performers today. as you can see for the week here apple down 1.8%. it has a lot to do with the fact that it is supply chain is heavily invested in china. very difficult to move. dan niles from wedbush saying there was a shot across the bow what the president had to say about companies trying, they need to get out of china dan niles saying guess what?
it would take five years for the company to get 50% of the production out of the country. tech taking it very, very hard indeed. now all three major indexes, guess what? negative for the week. that's right. the dow, the s&p and the nasdaq suffering mightily this week. even after beginning of the week we had great retail news. so it has been up, it has been down. but today a very tough days as we close out on a dow down 2.37%. very difficult indeed. look at that nasdaq composite for the week, down 1.83. back to you. melissa: tough day, gerri thank you. connell: let's bring in our panel. deirdre bolton with us, dan shaffer, carol roth, future file legacy planning system creator. everybody, deirdre, who run companies are trying to figure out i think how to interpret what the president tweeted about today. melissa said many companies started to move their supply chains but for the big ones like
apple, if you're tim cook at apple do you take it literally? or do you take it well, this means we'll not make a deal with china anytime soon? >> i think uncertainty is part of what pushed the markets lower. if your business head, even if you considered other options we know you can't just flick a switch move your operation from china or vietnam or another player in that region. it takes, fastest estimate i've seen anywhere is 18 months. most people say up to five years. so even if these companies have been thinking about it, they may not have put steps in place yet. long story short, no matter how long it takes, it's a big burden on these companies to now go through with the plans, be a little more serious finding alternatives. essentially also we just saw president trump eventually steel the mic from the fed chair, right? connell: yeah. >> i have to assume at some level president trump was not really liking what he heard from
fed chair jay powell. he said you know what? i'm going to ratchet all of this trade talk up a little bit more. put a little bit more emphasis clearly what is at stake for our markets, our business owners. also just want to mention, pick on something gerri alluded to, we're clearly down this week, this month, i've gone through and counted, we have seen on nasdaq particular, more than six times, just august alone, falling by 1% or more. s&p 500 and dow a little bit more, four and five times respectively. a lot of volatility. a lot is based on trade. connell: that is the kind thing, dan, you watch. coming back from headlines, what they may be on a certain day. looking in action on financial markets. what did you pick up today? >> it is interesting. it occurred on a friday. if you're watching markets this morning at 8:00, futures were up pretty strong until remarks started to come out of china. the timing between china and powell talking is very interesting. i think there is tremendous
damage that was done in the markets. as you know, i am bearish between the divergence of corporate earnings, where the stock market has been. it has been totally inflated. central banks have dislocated prices all over the world. nobody knows what the proper price levels are but when you get a day like today, you get the rattling going on, i say this all the time, i've been saying it for three years, china will not do a deal. it's a communist country. they have their own rules, their own regulations. they're not going to let trump get away with this. trump has a big road in front of him. they will wait him out. connell: some interpreted the president's tweets that he didn't want to do a deal. decoupling talk. what did you take away from what you saw today? >> this is complete chaos by
tweet. demand for investments not being held back by interest rates it is being held back by chain. whether you have a supply chain, selling into there, worried about a effect on the global economy. this is a much bigger issue. the fact we have china retaliating. the fact that trump is using language that xi is our enemy, that will not go well in china, this is not moving in the right direction and this is adding problems to the economy. melissa: jerome powell talking about as as president trump takes aim at the fed chair. edward lawrence live from jackson hole with the latest there. what was it like when the tweets started to hit the fan? reporter: things got a little more serious here in jackson hole. they have a level of independence separating from the
president, they are responsible or acted upon by congress. they have their mandate from congress. federal reserve chairman jerome powell said today that the federal reserve will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion. now he did not lay out the case for long term deep cuts. that set off president donald trump on twitter. the president saying on twitter, that they have a strong dollar and a weak fed. then asking who is a bigger enemy, jay powell or chairman xi? the president wanting rate cuts to take on china a trade dispute. powell says in the speech there is no precedent to integrate trade uncertainty into monetary policy. he is saying there is no clear path forward to incorporate cuts in the middle of so many trade disputes. powell adds that the fed is watching closely specific global events, what is happening in hong kong, germany, chinese economic slowdown and brexit. fed experts say this is a difficult time to manuever monetary policy but the fed must stay focused on the future.
>> it's a tough job right now and that's why all much more important that the central banks and central bank of the united states have that ability to make long-term judgments, deliberative process, rather than this political winds keep pushing on it to go whichever way the wind is blowing that day. it's a most difficult time. reporter: and the federal reserve chairman seeing wages rising. he also sees consumer spending is very strong and driving our economy. he is watching weakness though in manufacturing and business investment. so going forward the federal reserve now is in the middle of this trade dispute it seems and the president has put them there. back to you. melissa: no doubt. president trump posing the question who is our biggest enemy, jay powell or chairman xi? the panel is back. carol, there is a bunch of different ways to look at this. i will give you first one, is he
setting up a fall guy in case the economy turns south? we've seen a few signs. businesses cutting on spending. you see what is going on overseas, whether germany or china itself where things are slowing down, things are still good here but is he setting up a fall guy? >> i will take it one step further, melissa. it could be he is trying to take the sentiments from the public against the fed and maybe this is an art of war or "art of the deal" to make a play to get rid of the fed which would make many of us happy. otherwise he is very focused on short-term market returns, having a great market going into the next election. so i don't know, i feel like it could be one or the other. i'm not sure which it is but not giving me a lot of comfort in the mean time. melissa: no. dan, one of the other theories out there, this idea he wants powell to buy him time, lowering rates, keeping economy going, doing anything he can to keep the economy going until closer
to the election. at which point he could at anytime take, you know, take this trade off with china. oh, we won, we made a deal. it's over. call it a victory no matter what the deal looks like. you watch the market and economy expand. he wants that to happen as close as to the election as possible. so beating the fed is part of buying more time before he declares victory. what do you think of that theory? >> that is an interesting theory. it is almost like make it worse before he makes it better into the election. that could happen. it could happen. i don't think the federal reserve will have a choice. they will have to lower rates. they're behind the eight-ball according to the two-year treasury. trump, i'm not a big believer in the federal reserve having control of interest rates. i think they should float the way the market is. but global pressure will put it on the fed. donald trump doesn't have to say anything and fed will have to lower rates. no question about it. the problem will he use the fed to make the dark clouds come now
in this period of time, maybe next three to six months and like you said, coming into the election time, lift that weight off the markets by pulling back on the tariffs, pulling back on the fed? look anything is possible now. we've seen things that we've never seen before. we have never seen interest rates this low. we have never seen the yield curve like this. in 10 years we have not seen producer manufacturing index so low. i'm telling you, the world is in a major, major economic slowdown and powell has been behind the eight ball. trump knows that. he is a businessman. whether that is going to help the economy with the lowest rates, that is the big if question that i have. melissa, so, deirdre, building on that, there is this idea, you heard it from larry kudlow and others who come out that the fed should not be setting rates. they should be responding to what they're seeing in the bond market. when you see the yield curve invert, that they are doing the wrong thing and he is behind the
eight ball? >> we did not stay there very long, where the yield curve on the shorter end was inverted, i thought, president trump in his comments did essentially increase the chances of either a larger rate cut or more rates cuts. melissa: right. >> i feel like in his own way the president is doing, pushing limits. i wasn't kidding, even for our industry, he grabbed the mic from jay powell. this was supposed to be the fed chairman's day. we're talking about it now, but the majority of the day we spent talking about the markets, china, trade and the president's strategy. i think that is exactly as intended. i think he meant to have the fed look slightly irrelevant. and he has. melissa: there you go. connell? connell: look to oil, down for the third straight day. oil fell by more than 2% in the floor session. phil flynn joins us from chicago. take us through the day. it is interesting. it started with tariffs from
china, right? >> it really did. all of a sudden oil prices were trying to recover. we got the report of the 5% tariff on u.s. oil exports and oil prices really got beat up. the traders are trying to bring the oil market back up. they started to realize u.s. exports are not even at 3 million barrels a day. because the u.s. market is so much cheaper than the rest of the world, maybe the u.s. exports wouldn't get hurt too bad by this. jerome powell gave it a little more after boost. he seemed to be more dovish. he seemed to suggest he was ready to act if need be to step in front of the economy. then came the tweets. my goodness, all bets are off. all of sudden donald trump's reaction sent oil prices back down again. on the other hand, connell, look what it did to gold today. incredible day. safe haven buying like crazy in gold closed at highest level
since 2013. it was the a real rush into the metal. gold is up this month, 7%. if you want to buy gold for christmas, this is the time to do it. put those things over the weekend, it will be very hairy. gold if you see more headlines that could explode this week. that looks like the safe haven play. oil on the other hand may be bad because they will worry about demand. connell: it will be interesting weekend. we'll talk about g7 coming up as well. phil, thank you. melissa: i like idea of gold for christmas. i like idea of gold for christmas. taking on china, federal reserve, president trump upping pressure on jerome powell amid escalation of trade fight with china. here is steve forbes. forbes media chairman. i've been dying to hear your thoughts on this whole thing, what do you think? >> wars are not easy to win, traditional wars, combat wars, or trade wars. they take paths you never
anticipated. everyone pays a price for it and what's happening today, people realize this will be overhanging for a while. maybe the president can end it with a 2003 this afternoon. we hope so. until these uncertainties are resolved you will have increasingly her economy as investment slows up. this stock market is giving us a warning, get this thing resolved. there are better ways to deal with chinese abuses, going after specific companies, specific industries, specific banks, bringing those entities to their knees, not hurting the u.s. economy. china is hurt more but we're hurt too. let's get a deal and move forward. melissa: that is interesting. you are saying at that the market say get this thing resolved. does it matter what the what the solution looks like short term? or the economy and markets expand no matter, the president says it is over, we won? let's put all this behind us? >> there are ways to deal with
specific abuses. i think that is going to happen regardless what happens in these negotiations. the market would certainly be happy if they promised to buy more, china bought more of our agricultural goods, did a natural gas deal which would be a natural for hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, markets would love it but the key thing is removing barriers, not putting in barriers. the other thing that will be weighing on the markets, are we putting auto tariffs on autos and imports from europe? that would devastate europe and put that in recession? we're not isolated in this world. we're doing better than the world, if the world hurts we'll eventually be hurt. melissa: steve, this is my question, so normally we sat here before in other election cycles, we looked at, oh, my goodness, the economy will make-or-break this incumbent president. we need the economy to go up, not down, can't go into recession. this is the first time i can remember where the president actually has the power to turn the whole thing around almost
overnight. that is my point. that makes me cynical where we are right now. he really could turn things around by saying it's over. we haven't seen that before with somebody who is running for re-election. >> he put in some good policies. real deregulation, fantastic things going on there moving agencies outside of washington to the real country. tax cut and the like, all good stuff. on this thing, better you do it now. don't try the idea you can time it just before the election. economy is like a freighter. not like changing a relief pitcher in a baseball game. let's get it done now, get this thing moving and we'll all be better off for it. melissa: you could see where i was going. steve forbes, thank you. connell: the president tweeted today, about a lot of different things. one of them was this order to companies, not just the post office but private u.s. shipping carriers to search for and refuse all deliveries of fentanyl coming in from china
and anywhere else, fedex says they are doing a lot what has been asked. talking about extensive security measures preventing their networks being used for drug delivery. jackie deangelis picks up the story live from the newsroom. reporter: connell, let's start by looking of statistic. national institute of health and deaths related to fentanyl, minus methadone, 28,466. now you talked about what the president ordered today. let me give you company reaction to that that fedex came back with a statement, fedex supported passage of the stop act, encourages accelerated i am play mentation of enforcement of provisions to protect the health and safety of the american people. ups came back saying something similar. ups take as multilayered approach to security and compliance to identify, and prevent delivery of illegal fentanyl and other illicit substances. these companies are firing back
at the president saying we already do this. trump -- judge andrew napolitano, fox news judicial analyst gave us a statement on this the president lacks authority to issue such an order. if he asked the doj, if lawyers would have told him of the administrative procedures act whereby the fda can impose regulations on drug imports with 30 days notice. you and i were having conversation before, there is a lot of criticism that the president takes to twitter order this, ordering that. it is not necessarily something that he can really do in an official way. connell: we'll talk about that right now. jackie, thanks. it wasn't just that order, the fentanyl order that the president talked about in terms of direction at corporate america. he was ordering american companies to i am male look for alternatives to china. make their products at least one of those alternatives back here in the u.s. on the legal question surrounding that,
attorney dominic romano joins us. with all the caveats, we've seen similar tweets from the president, well, do you take it literally, do you not but assuming the tweet is a presidential statement, what are the legal questions it raises from your end? >> sure, quite frankly he has no authority. we're not living in a monarchy. it is called private enterprise for a reason. the president has no authority to order private companies abroad to do anything. u.s. companies for that matter, without congressional action, without some other directive. barring the declaration of emergency powers for a very specific reason, the president can't make that blanket declaration. he can say anything he wants but he won't be able to enforce it. connell: interesting you bring up emergency powers which we had a debate during immigration back and force. nothing applies in this case or could be used? >> correct. if china were to do something extreme, perhaps. connell: what would that mean,
doing something legally, doing something extreme? >> if there was specific urgent emergency, the president could invoke ieepa legislation that would give him certain powers. like he tried to invoke with mexico. but this blanket, i hereby declare u.s. companies should stop having a presence in china or pull out of china, that is completely unenforceable. he can say what he wants but it has no teeth. connell: couldn't do it. we've been flashing up a number of statistics while you've been speaking, gdp growth in the two countries, specifically looking where products are made, where countries are made in, some numbers are a couple years old, maybe some supply chains have started to shift but china is a huge number there. you know, it would be difficult for many of these companies to make changes quickly as those pointed out in the past. those that haven't started to makeshifts but the president if legally can't demand it, dominic, he can make it, already
is something more difficult to try to change incentives. perhaps that is what he is referring to, in the trade wars or try to do? >> he has influence. obviously the market reacted to his tweeting but very impractical. what he's asking for is very impractical as we heard, some reactions from ceos and some of the companies. there are some u.s. retailers doing business. there are stores, there are leases in china. what, everyone will pull out now because the president tweeted this morning? unlikely. connell: some do, because costs go up, it makes more sense for them to and uncertainty is there, but we've established, we've gone through it a number of times, bigger companies have a harder time doing that. final point on bigger question, on a day like this, president has power on issue of trade versus years and years ago, people say have we down this
road before, great depression days, smoot-hawley, those were members of congress. the president has a lot of unilateral power when it comes to trade decisions right? >> you're right the president has certain amount of power with regard to trade delegated by congress, but ultimately congress has the power to regulate international trade. congress might pass a law that could limit u.s. companies doing business abroad but the president can't unilaterally declare companies to pull out of china. he is not a king. he is a president. connell: dominic, thanks for your analysis today. we appreciate it. melissa. melissa: all right, back to the markets. the dow plummeting more than 600 points today. joining me now on the phone, liz ann sonders, senior vice president at charles schwab. let me ask you first are there a lot of investors waiting for another shoe to drop? the president said later today he would have a response later
on. is there still a lot of buzz waiting for that in your mind? >> who knows. i think we've gone past the point where days like today, some tweets, rumors gone both directions. deal is imminent. we're meeting again, we're off the rails with retaliatory tariffs announced by china. i think we're past the point this represents deflation in animal spirit i think was the initial story. you saw it in dent to business confidence and capital spending plans and actual capital spending. i think we're at now a point to some degree of paralysis. it is hard to envision a scenario, apsent a comprehensive trade deal, which seems less and less likely, there is anything, even much looser fed monetary policy will ease paralysis, reignite animal spirits. that is the rub. manufacturing weakness has been contained. it has not morphed to any significant degree to the
consume side of the economy. michigan consumer sentiment had pretty dire internal deterioration. that is what we have to keep an eye on, leading indicators that will potentially morphing of malaise, and bucking recession become as more difficult task. melissa: you don't think if this ended we would see reviving of animal spirits? that the president said we made a deal, that wouldn't bring the energy back to both the market and economy? >> a true comprehensive deal? melissa: what would that look like and how would you evaluate it? we have agreed not to cheat or agreed to do this, and we know proof is in the pudding over the long run. you say a true comprehensive deal would be great, even if that is spelled out you don't know if they would follow it? >> i think it would have to have some key tenets.
it would have to have more promise than boying loose so i bones at some point in the future. we're past the point that being viewed as a deal. i don't think either side is amenable to that. they're digging their heels in in terms of willing to compromise. if we get comprehensive deal, what economists be what pundits would be looking for does it truly address egregious practices that started at the heart of this in the first place? are there effective monitoring capabilities there? how do we judge this looking forward? then you would have to start to hear from business leaders directly this is sufficient for them to maybe lift their capital spending intention plans. it is not a deal in of itself, business community reaction. we feel confident now, that the playing field is clear enough that we can reconsider these long-term capital invests. right now they are just frozen. melissa: what if both sides just took the tariffs off that have
been added? >> what the market reaction would be? melissa: yeah. >> i would surprised if that would happen that both sides, okay, never mind we'll take the tariffs off. melissa: not quite that but i guess what i'm getting at is, if there isn't -- if there is a deal of some type, the tariffs go away that is not enough? you're paying looking at quality of the deal, yes that makes the most sense. market is not that logical. if we say both sides put down their weapons, come together with a deal, mainly they are not going back and forth with adding new tariffs and adding new tariffs and take off once that have been added most recently, would that be enough to see the market rebound? >> the way you reignite confidence regardless what a deal looks like, there is
elimination of tariffs put in place on both sides. especially if a deal, whatever it looks like, occurs following the december and september implementation by the united states and china. as it relates to the united states economy, if you add the impact of the september and december tariffs, even at the 10% point, yet alone would go up to 25%, you go off 10% gdp growth. that is through direct impact, not the confidence channels. that doesn't count for what china announced today. so the hit starts to become pretty meaningful. particularly given that, any deal would also have to represent an elimination of the tariffs that are in place by both sides. and i just think, maybe it's a stretch to say that's a pipe-dream at this point but there is no indication from either side that's something that we should be holding our breath about. melissa: liz: ann sonders. great analysis. we appreciate it. connell: the idea of this weekend should be to seek common ground. we'll see if that actually
happens as president trump is leaving the white house tonight heading over to the g7 summit in france. this amid the escalating trade war we've been covering with china. michael o'hanlon joins us from brookings, brookings institution foreign policy senior fellow. does all of this today, change the dynamic? if so, how, michael? >> it does. there are times we all earn learned that president trump is a different kind of president. he says some things. buying greenland is sort of thing that you can laugh off, not totally crazy idea but mostly unusual. you can get through that. all of sudden when we talk about cutting off u.s.-china economic relationship, making demands on companies they do so, american companies they come home, almost sounds like the president is unsteady. not just that he is eccentric. that kind of a comment i think will make people wonder where does he go next? it will have to be a weekend of sort of walking back to sanity
frankly where president trump had an interesting idea that could have been at the heart of the g7, when do we re-engage with russia? trump said definitely we should have them back. most other people don't agree with that but still a valid question, under what circumstances could we have them back. that would be a useful topic but hard to see how that strong conversation will happen. connell: that seems like a comment to be made six weeks ago. the interesting thing about this weekend is, we've been covering how the united states interacts with chinese companies, particularly huawei all the time. i wonder whether the president upping the ante today, saying as you said essentially, hey, you can't do business with china, we don't want you to do business with china. does he take the show on the road, bring argument to the g7 leaders? try to argue they shouldn't be doing business with a company like huawei? many countries do, or even if they don't approve of everything
huwai has done, they're open to operating with companies like that? >> he may try. here is my sense. those of us not big up trump supporters have to acknowledge his style sort of works. doing something unusual creates opportunities. "art of the deal," et cetera, going in with the first big bid. this is not one of those cases. he is saying things about american companies, demanding they change their operations that he is not really empowered to say, also suggests autocratic tendencies. when he gets into that realm he will not win people over. connell: you make interesting point from analytical perspective a lot of people that support the president, they're quick to write those things off, say, he certainly wasn't serious there, he didn't mean it there but you're saying in foreign policy circles, diplomatic encounters and the like we say words matter but you're saying tweet matter, way you say it, how you phrase it matters? >> yeah. i think distinguish from one
issue, one approach to another. i had a colleague said it was horrible thing that president trump wanted to buy greenland. i didn't think it was serious idea or promising one. it will be news of the week and there is no obvious next step. we'll not invade greenland when denmark won't selling it. when you tell american companies, you shall do following sounds like you're abusing your powers. connell: final point, michael. there were not high expectation foss are the g7 to begin with. they threw out the communicate, after what happened last time. that is true? >> that can be the moat positive thing we can say. connell: we didn't expect much. michael o'hanlon. thank you. melissa: president trump on the world stage, how will market volatility play out, joining us on the phone, peter morici, economic professor of university of maryland. thanks for joining us. you are someone who talked about
china for a long time, wanted somebody to stand up to them. how do you think it is going? >> i don't think it is going very well. the policy is incoherent. first the tariffs are off, then they're on. we'll not do business with them. we'll do business with them, for a period of time. he extends it out, so on, so forth. he doesn't act decisively like he did this week with taxes. seems like every three hours we had different objective when it came to tax policy then today, gee whiz, i'm not a fan of chairman powell, throwing him in president xi and calling a decent human being working hard for the country an enemy of america. it was crazy. melissa: do you think, i mean you say that he doesn't act decisively although this is harder stand than anyone has taken against china a very long time? >> he talks a good game but he doesn't play as well as he should. repeatedly he let president xi
bicycle him. he acts but we can negotiate. mar-a-lago agenda, went on for a year. nothing came of it. protracted negotiations where he suspended advancing more tariffs. they came to the cusp of a agreement. chinese walked away. yeah, i put on 25% tariffs in september. what about today? melissa: you want him to do more tariffs faster and harder? there are a lot of people who think that we have too many tariffs as it is. you wanted more? >> that may be, that may be but idea here to have coherent policy, one that is understood, one he can justify to the american people. so forth. that has not happened. also it is a policy that has to have an understanding about such how supply chains work. as peter navarro run around, these jobs will come back to the united states is insane. basic assembly jobs will not come back here. they will go to vietnam.
this limits they could go to south asia, supply chains where china fits into those. he hasn't made the case to the american people they must endure some pain. and he hasn't come up with a plan b. what if china simply refuses to negotiate, what do we do then? we heard plan b today. he ordered american companies not to do business with china? how about ordering all american women to have blonde hair? melissa: peter, what he said was examine, getting out. i don't you think every single company is already doing that? i think they are examining what extent they have to continue to be in china. they have to weigh size of market, abs sessability to markets here. if we want to isolate china we're doing a terrible job of it. if we're going to decide to pick the biggest bully in the playground taking advantage of america, that is china. lashing out at the europeans and threatening germans with auto tariffs, pulling out of tpp that is not the way to do it.
he might end up isolating us than isolating china. melissa: would that group ever get on board pushing back against china? >> i don't know but if we had a free-trade agreement with them now, we were on the cusp of accomplishing, jobs and factories moved out of china into asia, they would have money to buy more stuff. we would have duty at this-free access, the chinese wouldn't. that would advantage american-based production. we don't have that now. i do not see what the strategic was pulling out of tpp anymore than strategic advantage levering steel tariffs on country nothing to do with the steel problem. like france. it was absurd. melissa: peter, thank you for your time. >> take care. connell: hong kong, don't forget about the uprising there. demonstrators hand in hand. police embracing for another weekend of violent protests possibly. ahead of that we'll take you
there next. ♪ there's a company that's talked to even more real people than me: jd power. 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
and this is me now! i got liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. and so can you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ to the wait did frowe just win-ners. prouders everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime so you only pay for what you need. it's a different kind of wireless network
there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. that was all in the announcement today. the supreme court justice will have periodic blood tests and scans. ginsberg has no desire to step down on the supreme court. plans to hold the seat as long as her health permits. melissa: no doubt. protesters in hong kong in a massive human chain and demonstrators plan more protests at the city's airport this weekend. fox business's susan li in hong kong with the latest. reporter: it was an incredible scene tonight, we saw protesters from all walks of life, young, old, students, professionals, linking up arm in arm. i was with them on the ground when they were forming a human chain that spread across 25 miles across hong kong territory. now hong kong is not a big place. 25 miles covers both sides of the harbor.
it went up all the way to the new territories where the mountains began. there's a lot of enthusiasm out there, inspired what took place 30 years ago, when we had estonia, latvia, chained together across 600 kilometers, around 300 miles. this time around, we had a lot of people joining in. calling for the same thing, which is freedom, the right to vote, democracy it was interesting to watch this, the enthusiasm they had. i want to point out this ended peacefully as we have seen this entire week. there was no tear gas. no confrontation. in a few hours we're expecting disruptions back at the airport. they're looking to jam up all the links between the roads, bridges, trains. that is something we'll definitely watch in the city. i'm sure it will cause a lot of chaos. guys? melissa: thank you. connell: susan li, steve forbes is back with us. dan shaffer, carol roth as well.
as we watch this, carol, you take it first. almost fits into the whole conversation we're having about trade, about g7, about everything that if you're president trump he is basically said already in some words there is no trade deal until this whole thing is resolved, right, in hong kong. wants to see how it plays out? >> the worry i have, it seems like china is animal backed into a corner here. you've got trade on one side. protests on one side. a major financial center. what happens when an animal is backed into a corner they end up lashing out. the u.s. may tie protest into trade, which means we could end up with all kinds of different bad outcomes here. i don't think this is good for trade individually, for the protest individually, and when you put it together it could become very explosive. connell: what do you think of the idea, steve, putting all this together, the words from enemy that is xi xinping, plus
hong kong, how he reacts to all that? >> the only way hong kong gets tied to trade. there is a crackdown, no deal comes, no matter what the deal. we couldn't do it politically and the key thing in hong kong is, when will protesters put hardee hands on the table? they want universal suffrage. they will not got that now. china is increasingly encroaching on freedoms they were promised in the with britain in '84. and turnover in 1997. they will have time to deal with it. china hope this is thing withers away. it will come back again and again. one reason china is holding off. hong kong is not tianamen square, it is not open spaces and street. if they have a fight there, it will be bloody and not easily suppressed and the chinese government knows it. connell: we'll see it all. the other big part the world is watching every single day.
we get a new image out of hong kong. what is your impression what you've been watching? >> i'm watching the fact that young people are trying to create democracy or demanding democracy. they keep waving the american flags. china certainly down like that. i think also will be pretty bad for the economy in hong kong which we've heard about, now they're trying to subsidize people. that issue i think is very concerning. but i think chinese are worried about it, but i don't think they can do anything about it. i think the movement now is a lot bigger than was anticipated and leaders of hong kong have to give the chinese the approval to come in, ask for them to come in and help which they have not done so far. the chinese go in by themselves, without that asking, that is going to be pretty debttry mental to the world economy. connell: rye. >> particularly there. it will make them look even worse, cause them more, i hate
to use the word war, we're in a peace period for long period of time. anything is possible with war. that is what i'm concerned about. connell: you as final point, steve forbes, because of that, xi xinping knows all of what dan is talking about there, the likelihood as days go on the chinese moving in is lower or higher? what do you think? >> i think he is going to try to hold off but there is no way short term he will make concessions because he knows there are plenty of opponents in beijing who he might say are gunning to bring him down. he thinks he is president for life but he knows that most roman emperors never died in their beds. he is looking over his shoulder. he will not be able to make real concessions on hong kong. he will be highly annoyed but there is nothing he can do about it, come october 1st when they celebrate the 70th anniversary of the communist take over. hong kong will be there to remind him, there are a lot of chinese want real freedom, not phony freedom of revolution of 1949. connell: steve, carol, dan,
thanks, to all three of you. >> thank you. melissa: today's selloff wiping out market gains for the week. so what happens on monday? coming next. ♪ with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
connell: breaking news, and its been a day of breaking news. we're watching many of the technology stocks and have been throughout the day as they're hit hard by the trade war, apple down 4.5%, and mobile nation senior editor and what we also saw russel, with this "order" from the president about diversifying your business out of china, is many of the chipmakers, really interesting to watch through all of this process, companies that sell chips into china, that's not a very developed business in china , or hasn't been over the years they've relied on u.s. companies, and now you're starting to see more and more people subscribe to this theory, that maybe our two countries really will decouple from each other special on technology with just two separate world's and these companies won't get to do business long term. how do you think it all plays
out? >> i think a really interesting place to look is the mobile landscape. if you look at the smartphones developed and sold outside of the united states, huawei being a perfectly good example, these are phones that if they were sold here in the united states, they would crush from a performance perspective, samsung and apple in terms of battery reliability and camera performance, we've already seen in places like the uk, where these phones sell really well because they are low cost and very high performance, so i actually wonder what that de coupling would look like from kind of a long term perspective because we've already seen that without that kind of internal regulation, performance is actually kind of vesting what is happening in the united states right now. connell: which could give china the lead in certain key technologies. >> it's possible. connell: you talk about 5g all the time especially i brought this up earlier, if we're one of the big countries, even if we're "right to do it" there are consequences to doing that so what if europe, for example, continues to do business with many of these chinese companies?
>> yeah, that's something that's happening right now and as it continues to happen there are footholds for these chinese companies that are allowed to not only grow but thrive if you look at places like india and the uk, again leading on huawei as an example there, it's a booming echosystem for huawei. connell: let me bring you a piece of breaking news that relates to president trump and twitter surprise but it's not what you think. we just learned moments ago that the president is lost in a federal appeals court case, and essentially the ruling is it up holds a lower court ruling that essentially says president trump on his twitter account can't block people, so that was something that was out there that if the president i guess didn't like what you were saying to him on twitter he would block you, which is meaning that you can't see his tweets and he doesn't see yours and you're kind of dead to each other but a federal appeals court in new york just upheld the lower court ruling saying that the president engaged in what they describe as view point discrimination on twitter, and any reaction at all you don't have to have one but
any reaction? >> yeah, my understanding of the ruling previously, not this current judgment was that the president couldn't make official public statements to only part of the country and that was the defense for that, and so that has to maintain our president has one of two choices he can either continue to use his twitter account as an announcement podium for his messages or he cannot and he seems pretty happy doing things the way he's doing them right now. connell: do you think? he used to, he uses it all the time and people are critical to this too many tweets this and that but he does use it to make official declarations and he literally made a joke about the smart declining when it was down 577 some odd points today but at the end of the day it's just like going to the podium and the briefing room which is what we have to figure out. this is not just him. it's changed forever. is there any rules we need to change in terms of how these companies interact that effect public figures and politicians from here on out or are we just
adjusting to a new world? >> that's part of a really large conversation that is happening across twitter and facebook. we look at it through the lens of are these companies kind of monitoring or censoring different groups, but there are rules that are being followed on these platforms that are being enforced by other people but not being enforced by say the president. the president breaks the rules of twitter should twitter lock that account in the same way it would other things. it's really a fascinating conversation that again doesn't have a set of social norms to follow because we've never been in this position before. connell: so we said that about five or six stories just in this hour that this is something we've never seen before and we're trying to figure out how to deal with. but i guess as a final point for these companies, this pressure continues on them that you are alluding to and people coming out saying you're not fair to conservatives and all the rest and if so what do you make of the way they navigate them? >> i think trying to say that they are being kind of fair, to all sides, is something that has to be databased.
it has to be evidence-backed and a big part of that is something twitter and facebook are trying to do right now to provide the evidence of how their algorithms are doing things and these decisions are being made and it has to be viewed through the most non-party partisan lens possible. you have to look at these things from a fact you'll database not from a feelings perspective and the conversation we've seen on top of the hill don't really reflect that from my perspective connell: we'll keep talking about this issue and again the president can't block us on twitter so if he tweets about china, we'll all see it i guess. russel anyway thanks a lot good to see you. melissa? melissa: quick let's unplug the twitter machine. can you imagine the world? on a very busy day for the markets here is something to brighten your mood, super heros from the marvel and d.c. universe is coming together in aurora, colorado to cheer up young patients at a children's hospital they even showed their super skills repelling down the side of a building, the real heros behind the masks were the members of the aurora police department swat team.
we kind of needed that. connell: we needed it. melissa: can you imagine today without twitter? connell: one twitter password and all things would have been different but we were down. melissa: bulls & bears now. david: wall street rocked today 's president trump issues new orders for u.s. companies in china. the dow plunging 623 points, and response was down 745 points at the low. the president is saying he would be responding some time this afternoon to china's new tariffs on $75 billion in u.s. goods, if he speaks on camera, he hasn't yet, we will bring you his comments live. welcome, everybody what a day, ha? this is bulls & bears thank you for joining us i'm david asman joining me on the panel jonas max ferris, and adam lashinsky. so, here is what started all of the tweet storms was sparkedff