tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera September 16, 2014 5:00am-6:01am EDT
comment on any of our stories, cu log on to aljazeera.com/americatonight. good night. we'll have more of "america tonight," tomorrow. america is getting ready to go to war again in the middle east, i teal you which countries are part of the battle plan. also the rising death count from faulty general motors ignition switches, i'll tell you where the federal regulators went wrong. plus grover norquist talks to me about overhauling the whole system to keep
companies like burger king from leaving the country. "real money." ♪ this is "real money." you are the most important part of the show, to tell me what is on your mind by tweeting me or hitting me up on facebook. 20-plus countries gave a pledge to defeat isil. the french president said the threat by isil is global and the response must be global. today france sent two fighter jets over iraqi space to con flukt reconnaissance. australia says it will send tep aircraft and 600 personnel to help. other than that the details are still sketchy. several arab
countries have also make vague pledges help, but john kerry is working overtime to get them to do more. no one really know howes much costing. so far u.s. situations in iraq since june including air strikes and surveillance flights have run up costs topping $562 million, that's until the end of august. with pentagon estimating operational costs in the order of $7.5 million a day, the bill has probably gone up another $113 million since then. over the weekend a new isil video came out pur porting to show the deheading of a british aid worker. all of this serves to remind us
that isil is weeking havoc in syria and iraq, by neither syria, nor iran were invited to today's meeting in paris that's because the u.s. objected to them participating even though both have long borders with iraq. secretary kerry said the u.s. is open to discussing isil with iran by washington still insists on working with syrian rebels opposed to isil and not the government of bashar al-assad. for more let's get the view from washington where mike viqueira is standing by. mike is little bit complicated that you don't have two key countries involved in this. but they seem to have a lot of countries in the region supporting them. >> it really underlies the complexity. countries that are nominally allies with long-standing animosities towards one another certainly. and the policy, you have to say
still does rest on tenuous assumpti assumptions. first of all let's start with the arming of the free syrian army. supplying them with overt arms now. something that will require authorization from congress. congress looks like they are set to vote on in perhaps as early as thursday of this week. and when you ask the white house whether that will happen before air strikes take place in syria, they say that is not a precondition. we heard the chief of staff say that ground troops are going to be necessary to route isil out iraq itself. and what do we call this thing? do we call it a war? secretary kerry said it is not a war.
the white house spokesmen said, yes, we are at war. if you call it a war, you escalate the rhetoric, and people will be a lot more nervous about getting involved. >> what is the picture vis-a-vis congress right now? where is congress on this? >> first of all, a couple of things to really look for this week. president obama meets with general john allen, the former marine general, meets with him here at the white house tomorrow. he is now going to be in charge of this military operation that this coalition eventually undertakes. john kerry will reveal a lot of things namely who are the members of the coalition. when he speaks wednesday and thursday before the respectful house and senate committees, and one big thing to look at, the white house has made it clear they are not in a hurry to expand these air strikes, they
say we'll do it at a time of our choosing. next week the president will speak to the united nations, care a meeting of the security council, all indications are pointing to a major meeting there, and start to look for action after that. >> right. it will be a very busy week. organized coordinate approach is critical in the view of lee hamilton. he recently wrote that the u.s. needs to spell out who our partners are and what they are prepared to do in this fight. he represented indiana in congress for 34 years and later served as vice chairman of the 9 9/11 commission. he is now a member of president obama's homeland security
advisory council. i was a congressional fellow in your office. i learned most of what i know about politics initially from you. so you tell me, this coalition, is this the right move and will it? >> let's keep in mind, first of all what he said our objective was. our objective is to degrade isis, and destroy it. the first objective can be accomplished by largely air power. the second objective cannot. if you say you are going to destroy isis, you set the bar very, very high, and we are setting that bar high, even though we do not know what the essential components of it are,
and they can assembled. as your program reported we don't know where the troops on the ground are going to come from. everybody i think would say that if you are going to destroy isis, you are going to have to have troops on the ground. secondly, the strategy needs a component of public relations, if you will. you cannot beat an ideology, and isis is an ideology with nothing. you have to have an affirmative ideology and we better get into the idea if we are going to destroy isis. >> isis, and isil, theirs is about creating a state, and that seems to be attracting more western fighters to their ranks.
they seem to have an adeology that's attractive. >> they do indeed. their recruitment efforts have been remarkably successful, and we better understand why that is the case. but we have to counter that can a message that is better. their a ideology cannot appeal to good, moderate, peace-loving muslim people across the world. it's a brutal horrific ideology. so we have with our espousal of democracy and liberty and decent treatment of human beings, a far stronger ideology, and we better get into the game if our objective is to destroy isis. we did it with naziism and fascism, but it's very, very hard to do, and you have got to get your ducks in order.
>> about ten years ago the 9/11 commission wrote the following, the u.s. government must: i'm dwelling on that last sentence, we should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help. with we doing that the right way? >> well, if the objective is to deny them a safe haven that can be accomplished probably with means far less than if your objective is to destroy. but we have gone beyond the safe haven rationale for what we are doing, that would be a strong preference for everybody. we all want to deny them a safing haven. we have gone far beyond that.
we're saying we want to destroy. and that means much longer term. much more money being spent, and a long-term effort. >> congressman you were the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and the chairman of the house intelligence committee, how would you deal with the fact that we are gathering this coalition, but both the government of syria and iran are not represented? >> i think it presents very difficult obstacles for us if we have to work with syria and iran. i don't think that is necessary in this case provided the other allies and friends step up to the plate. it's hard to judge. i know the secretary and president are working very hard to put this coalition together. so far my impression is they are dragging their feet with some amusement. i saw the story today that the arabs are going to offer air power. well that's what we're offering,
air power. what they did not offer is troops on the ground, and that's what we're going to need to accomplish our objective, which is to destroy isis. that objective can only be reached with a most formidable coalition, and we do not yet see that in place. >> from your lips to washington's ears, lee hamilton thank you so much for joining us. stay with us, we want to continue this conversation. i want to talk about how terrorists could attack america's vital infrastructure without ever stepping foot in this country, and i want to talk about tax reform. keep it right here as "real money" continues. >> my name is shaquan mcdowell i'm a 17 year old teenager. i go to a public high school outside of the city limits of atlanta. it's 99% african american
we do get a quality education. you know we have teachers that really care about us as far as the african american stereotypes, all the music they listen too is rap, they only use ebonics, they don't know how to speak proper english, they've never read a book in their life, all they do is get high, smoke weed, no... i've never been exposed to anything like that... coming from a mom who as a single mother, had her first child at 16, who is the ceo of her own company, me being someone who is about to graduate, who is the recipient of a full scholarship, the stereotype is absolutely flawed. >> did it ever cross your mind that. being a single mother that, your children may end up like the statistics say they're gonna fail >> being a single mom... raising five kids, i've always said you guys, you be 100% the best that you can be >> i would like to run for the senate in 2032. then it leads to the great big goal in life, to run for the office of the president of the united states of america >> catch more stories from edge of eighteen on al jazeera america
lines have in the middle east and eastern europe has dominated the news for months, but there's another war going on that many americans are ignoring because it doesn't involve ex-motions or body bags. i'm talking about daily cyber attacks. one of the voices calling for greater action belongs to lee hamilton, the congressman who joined us at the top of the show. he is now co-chairman of the bipartizan policy center's homeland security project, and a member of president obama's homeland security council. congressman good to have you back. you were out of congress before anything like a cyber attack became relevant, and you and your former co-chair feel this
is one of the biggest threats affecting us, but you can't feel it, and it doesn't have the immediacy of isil. >> well, tom kaine and i recognized as we talked to national security officials, present and former, how often they would bring up the cyber security challenge. they spoke of it really more than any other challenge. now america faces a lot of challenges, including isil, but the cyber security challenge is formidable. we have not hundreds but thousands of attacks every day in both the go and the private sector. we are seeing an enormous drain of intellectual property. we are seeing attacks on our security systems, like airplanes and the most advanced weapons that we have, and it is a
problem where we have in this country, enormous vulnerabilities because we're so closely tied to the network. our water systems, our electrical systems, the internet itself, elevators, airplanes, radios, television, they could all be interrupted with a very smart attacker. so we have got to up our game, and play a more aggressive defense and offense in dealing with this threat. >> what do we -- you know, how should we think about this? is there anybody out there -- i know you wrote about state-sponsored cyber terrorism. is there anybody out there who has hacked enough stuff to really be problematic to us? >> i think what we have to do is get a sense and assessment of how serious this attack is. we recommending a national cyber security center, and we also recommending a commission.
the purpose of the commission would be to bring together the top people in the country, go and private, who really know what is happening to our testimonies here, and get an assessment of how serious this threat really is. we think it's quite serious. maybe more serious than we know. then we need to move into an operational mode, and we're doing that to a considerable degree now but not enough. our response to this threat has been to lag. we're too far behind the curve here, and the purpose of our article in the journal the other day, was to increase awareness of the threat. and get us moving. >> here -- i read it with great interest, but i'll tell you what struck me. we are dealing with a government that didn't do the best job with obamacare, we are now -- the white house is now
on its third chief technology officer. i was with you all the way through the article until the part of it being a private public partnership. do we have confidence where the government can be involved in this, and by the way we're talking about a congress that couldn't agree that today it actually monday. >> well, we better get the government reacting, but we also need to get the private sector reacting, because much of the infrastructure, far more than half f out is in hands of the private sector. so we have to get the dialogue between the private sector and the government seemingly moving ahead. this is a national security threat, and it could even be an
existential threat, i doubt very much if the isis threat could amount to that, but we could have terrific interruptions in our systems. >> that's interest. to say this is existential, this is yet bigger that's -- that's saying something coming from you having studied 9/11 and al-qaeda more than most. >> well, it could be localized, but it could be very widespread, and it could bring our systems down. all you need is one fella working in one laboratory, he can let lose biological weapons that would have devastating effects, and you can go on and on with the examples. we have been very fortunate, we haven't had an attack like 9/11 since 9/11. our record is good so far in
protecting the homeland security. now we have to get ourselves in a position that we have a good security. >> lee hamilton, good to see you, sir. us. >> thank you. voters in scotland have a chance to vote on a new independent country this week, we'll talk about the financial impacts coming up. ♪ >> on tech know, fire, devastating and out of control >> what's at stake here? >> there's approximately 360 homes... >> but now experts say they can predict how a blaze might spread >> this has been in a fire,
it's decision week for scott lank on thursday scots age 16 and older go to the polls to vote yes or no the question, should scotland be an independent country. polls showing the out come too close to call. at the heart of the questions lies a theme that is very familiar to americans, growing wealthy inequality. patricia sabga has the story. ♪
>> reporter: scots hip hop artist released their latest track, son, i voted yes. a song that captures the issue at the heart of this week's referendum. can a independent scotland create a more equal society? >> scots really feel they have an interest in equality, and that westminster has not allowed them to pursue it in their social policies. >> reporter: the acts of union that merged scotland and england into one country, guaranteed scots continued sovereignty over many of their internal affairs. a sense of autonomy that began to erode under prime margaret thatcher, who's shakeup chipped away at benefits, and destroyed
thousands of skilled middle income jobs thatcher's policies gutted support for the conservative party in scotland and left a legacy of distrust that would fuel scot land to take control of its own affairs. in '2010 the coalition government under david cameron announced the biggest state spending cut since world war ii, including reductions to social security benefits and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of government jobs. by 2011, the oecd determined that income inequality among working-age persons had risen faster in the united kingdom than any other developed country since the mid-1970s. >>
the austerity and social programs revealed how great the divide had gotten to be. >> reporter: national services have been hotly debated in the run up to the referendum with the yes and no camps both claiming to be superior guardians of scotland's social safety net. but whichever way scots vote, creating a equal society is likely to remain a hot button issue. so the social and wealth inequality is important. it's not the full story. frustration with centralized government isn't just isolated to people in scotland there are people across the globe that feel frustrated. ben barber says we would be
better if we looked closer to your home. if his book, if mayors ruled the world, barber proposes a global parliament of mayors that would enable cities to have a stronger voice in global affairs. if it were up to you, you would probably propose a third way, a way that devolving power to a place where people can be greater effect of their own governments. >> that's right. don't break up great britain. you can't make smaller independence. we need interdefensance to deal with inequality. scotland has a more progressive labor party, but by themselves they are going to find it even more difficult to meet their ends. moreover scotland by itself is
going to find it becomes a hub of people who need welfare, and their policies and the burdens fall on it. so we need collaboration. and when you look at the modern world where you find collaboration is in cities working with one another. >> why don't you find it in larger entities? because they are too big and unwielding? and cities -- the people that run for mayor know you need your garbage collected, and you need your police? >> as you say, cities are closer to people's real problems. it's about collecting garbage, keeping open the schools -- >> not necessarily about ideology. >> no. nation states were invented 400 years ago in an age when within the jurisdiction of britain, america, france, germany, japan, you could deal with most problems.
but in the modern world the problems all cross borders. global warming, the worldwide web, and the nation's states separated by their borders, proud of their sovereignty find it harder and harder to solve problems together. we see that in the ukraine and the middle east, where cities, the hands on, realize when they can cooperate, they can find solutions that states don't. >> how much of this has do with the people involved in cities versus national politics? >> that's a good point. because cities shape majors. some mayors come in quite eye lee logical. de blasio, who i admire, he found out he couldn't just be a socialist, when bloomberg came
in he understanding he had to tale with teachers and police. so mayors notice you do it by forming groups and presidents do it by dividing, by taking sides -- >> but that's an ivory tower ideology that you can have anywhere in the world. local politicians don't luxury. >> well, they can't get away with it. you can't close philadelphia. you can close washington. they did it twice, and half of the time nobody noticed. but you can't close, new york, moscow, london. >> but they don't have a infrastructure -- the majors docket. -- don't. they don't have an infrastructure in which to compare best practices. >> they don't, and what is
missing is precisely an architecture that allows them to systematically interact. >> a parliament. >> a parliament. and this friday 32 major global cities will meet, to talk about trying to convene a pilot parliament next year in london and the idea is to create a kind of keystone in the edifice of interested cities. and there are a climate of cities, but there's no keystone or one global organization that lets that happen. >> ben, if you are nice to me i won't tell the tea party what you are suggesting. >> but they are a level back down, not a level up. >> good point.
we learned more today about debts linked to faulty general motors ignition switches. i'm taking a closer look at the federal agency that is supposed to present such tragedies. and we'll talk about specific ways to fix the tax system. ♪ >> trafficked labor on the front lines? >> they're things, they're commodities... >> we go undercover... >> it isn't easy to talk at this base >> what's happing on u.s. bases? >> the tax payer directly pays the human trafficker >> fault lines al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> they're blocking the doors... ground breaking... they killed evan dead... truth seeking... >> they don't wanna see what's really going on >> break though investigative documentary series america's war workers only on al jazeera america
ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et / 2pm pt only on al jazeera america general motors will pay compensation claims for 19 deaths tied to faulty ignition switches in its cars. that's six more deaths than the company has linked to the problem. kenneth steinberg is the high-profile lawyer that gm has granted soul discretion to find out how much the company will pay to the victims. fineberg has received 125 claims of death and is still reviewing evidence for most of the claims. the national highway safety administration
is the agency charged with keeping the public safe. it awarred its highest safety rating to the gm models. how did this happen? it's the subject of a fascinating investigation coauthored by the woman who joins me now. how did that happen? >> it's a very important question and what spurred this piece in the first place. we looked at the 2.6 million cars recalled for the ignition switch alone by gm, and the broader population of more than 16 million for ignition-related defects just this year starting in february, and we wondered to what extent was nitsa given evidence of these defects going
back more than ten years in some cases. and to a large extent we looked at complaints about these cars -- >> these very cars -- >> these very cars. these very defects, and the unexpected stalling, and it can result in -- of course it's a very dangerous scenario. >> yeah, we reached out to nitsa for a response, and they wrote: they also went on to talk about their staffing and their budgets, but the fact is, the thesis that comes out of your story is that they spending more of their time rating cars than investigating complaints. >> not necessarily time, because
we didn't get to audit that, but money certainly. you can't speak about nhts without speaking about staffing and its budget. and its budget is relatively small. 1% of the $800 million is devoted towardsing investigating defects. >> the auto makers benefit from the recommendations. so the 99 to 1% seems odd. important. >> they would argue they are important, but what is interest also is the ratings, the number of four and five stars that are given out on a five-star scale ratings. >> yeah. this is not -- what was interesting is that you started
this because of general motors, but in fact you found that this problem extends to all of the auto makers. this regulator seems to be doing similar stuff with all of the auto makers. >> correct. if you look back at the major auto safety crises of the last decade, if you look at toyota, if you look at explosions in jeep fuel tanks, explosions of air bags in hondas and other cars, by this supplier, in each of those situations, you had many serious accidents, numerous fatalities, and over the course of years, nhts was given warning signs in each of those instances the agency was slow to act and hesitant to take action. >> it reminds me of the rating agencies in the banks or even the regulators in the banks and
the financial crisis. have you had any reaction that this may change? >> the agency has indicated that it has requested six more staffers in its deflects division for next year. and tomorrow there will be a congressional hearing on this subject, at which the inspector general at the department of transportation which oversees nhtsa will be testifying. >> thank you for doing this story, because it's important it. . >> thank you for reading it. >> coming up next, tax reform. everyone agrees the tax code is broken. so why can't we fix it? probably because everybody has a different idea of what to do with it.
>> every saturday, al jazeera america brings you controversial... >> both parties are owned by the corporations. >> ..entertaining >> it's fun to play with ideas. >> ...thought provoking >> get your damn education. >> ...surprising >> oh, absolutely! >> ...exclusive one-on-one interviews with the most interesting people of our time. >> you're listening because you want to see what's going to happen. >> i want to know what works what do you know works? >> conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> talk to al jazeera. >> only on al jazeera america. >> oh my! vé
♪ vé companies trying to lower than tax bills by moving over seas have sparked outrage. beyond all of the headlines and anger there is a real debate about how to fix america's broken tax system, and by the way that's not partizan, everybody thinks it is broken. this goes beyond corporate tax rates to what individuals pay or don't pay. and while there is plenty of talk about tax reform, the chances of any real fix remains slim. mary snow has this report. >> both democrats and republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with
wasteful complicated loopholes. >> we all know our tax system is broken, and it gets in the way of economic growth. >> reporter: that was 2014, then months later, burger king announced plans to buy tim horton's and move the new headquarters to canada. most corporate taxes in the u.s. are 35%, but because of loopholes and tax breaks many companies don't pay anywhere near that much. still the u.s. ranks only behind the uae and chad when factoring in the highest corporation tax rate of 39%. if history is any lesson, don't hold your breath for reform. >> tax reform really only happens once in a blue moon when the stars align direct
directly -- correctly, and we're just not there. >> reporter: that last blue moon was in 1986. president ronald reagan lowered rates for corporations and individuals and eliminated tax benefits and incentives. some experts say trying to replicate what president reagan did was a mistake. when he took office there was a greater drive for reform, since the federal income tax rate was 70%, it's now 39.6%. plus following reagan's model would mean cutting popular incentives or benefits for retirement savings. there has been more of a focus on corporate taxes including one idea to cut the rate to 28%. >> i don't think the proposals being talked about in washington are dramatic enough to deal with
this problem. >> reporter: but the outlook for way. >> this is a pretty hot topic and may have some resonance with voters, but we have a fundamental problem, which is there is no consensus on what reform actually looks like. one of the biggest advocates for tax reform is grover norquist. his group americans for tax reform also has become one of washington's most influential organizations. it is famous for securing written pledges from those in office to oppose any increase in taxes. grover joins us now from washington, d.c. should we prevent these companies from going overseas or are we better off that they go? >> well, we're about ten
years late. we should have been making decisions ten years ago to make this necessary. we have the highest marginal tax rates in the world on companies both federal aaron alexis -- and state. plus we tax the business you do in ireland not just the business you do in the united states. and thirdly, because obama has been complaining about this for six years and not doing the first reforms, the american business community has decided that obama was not telling the truth when he said he wanted to fix it, and therefore, the inversions are happening now. >> but why in year six? >> well, because there was hope that he might allow what bush did.
was you are allowed to bring the money overseas back to the united states and pay a 4 or 5% tax. that would reduce the pressure for inversions and because obama kept telling people he realized there was a problem and he might fix it, but he has always put a price tag on tax reform. he and senator reid have talked about wanting between 1 and $1.4 trillion in higher taxes and if tax reform has to be a trojan horse for $1.4 trillion in higher taxes then you are never going to get an agreement. >> is that true, though? because there are so many good things that can come from tax reform, is it a given that taking a bitter pill to get a greater goal is absolutely not worth it?
>> well, $1.4 trillion over a decade is what the president wanted as part of the 2011 budget deal. it's what he always asked for. he just wants higher taxes. he used the pain inflicted by american businesses by the tax policy he continues and endorses to force them to come to the table and give him more money. the business community has rejected that, but he keeps hoping that if they are under enough pain that maybe they'll beg for higher taxes in return for some reduction in rate, but if you try to take another $1.4 trillion out of the works. >> mary did her study on what tax reform does or doesn't look like. tell me what tax reform looks like to you. >> sure. you can take this piecemeal. step one would be to allow the
$2 trillion that american companies have earned overseas and allow them to bring it back tax free. that would bring $2 trillion saas -- cascading into the economy. two, we should take the corporate rate, 35%, down to 20%, because the european average is 25, and we have on average 5% state tax. so if we go to 20, we're in the middle of europe at 20%. you do that, and you solve many of the problems that people are concerned about, but certainly going to a territorial tax system again, removes these pressures to invert an american company if it deals with international trade is to make it more valuable. >> let me ask you this. when people tell me about this highest tax rate, one of the highest in the world, i got your
whole thing about a territorial system, but our corporate income tax rate is not paid by many major corporations in this country. nowhere close. >> well, that's -- the 35% -- or 39% is a marginal tax rate. it's the tax on the last dollar you earn. and your behavior is not about what you used to do, it's about future decisions and the decisions that you make. so marginal tax rates matter when it comes to where do you put a factory? what do you invest in? what do you buy? it affects behavior, and you can drawn walking across the river with an average depth of two inches. marginal is important. >> grover always a pleasure to talk to you. i wanted to ask you, though, you
have just come back from burning man. tell us about that. >> great funny. it's a city that arrives once a year. very few rules and it works very well. i think it's a model for other cities that work on 365 days a year. >> and we have a photo of it that we were just showing our viewers. us. >> thank you. coming up next, alley bob bah's i po. i'll tell you what happened today that is making other stay with us. ♪ i think that al jazeera helps connect people in a way they haven't been connected before. it's a new approach to journalism. this is an opportunity for americans to learn something. we need to know what's going on around the world. we need to know what's going on in our back yard and i think
al jazeera does just that. >> now available, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for survivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now
real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. >> the stream >> your digital community >> you pick the hot topics and express your thoughts the stream, it's your chance to join the conversation only on al jazeera america we're just days away from what may be the biggest initial offering or ipo in history. shares of alibi bob bah are expected start trading on the new york stock exchange. the final price willing be decided on thursday night. in
trading today, shares of u.s. internet companies were hit hard. some think that happened because investors are cashing in on winning names now so they have more money to buy shares of alibaba later. financial advisor, ned riley says that while the company will be a short-term success it doesn't necessarily mean, alibaba's stock is a good long-term bet. good to see you. this is an interesting and important distinction that lots of people don't make. a great company does not necessarily mean a great investment. china is a model people should think about. great country, but it was never market.
>> no, it wasn't, ali. and this particular stock, alibaba is creating such a fury that it probably will be successful for one day or maybe even three months. but longer term i have problems. first of all, because the chinese government won't allow foreign ownership of chinese assets, i won't own the profits. the other issue has to do with transparency, there have been a lot of things that have been allowed in china, but in the united states they would not be able to take place. high ranking government officials own some pretty significant provisions in alibaba. and the chinese economy itself. you brought up a very good point, ali that the chinese economy has been a success, but
it hasn't necessarily translated into stock prices. with this company being such a consumer company, and with a third of the gross national product being in the consumer it may have trouble generating the growth. and within chinese itself we have companies that are going to start penetrating into alibaba's so-called treasury that they have got right now. so i have reservations longer term. if i am strong short-term and the market just continues to buy up this stock, then i'll say, okay, maybe it's time to buy, but i would like to see the stock much lower. right now it's priced out at about 30 to
35% earnings. so lo and behold -- >> even if you didn't have all of those concerns, it's important for my viewers to understand as a retailer buyer of an ipo stock, you are the last person in for all intents and purposes? >> you are the last of the last. and in the first few days of trading, you will see such a frenzy, that the actual market rate will probably be closer to 50 or $10 billion on the first day, which means they are just trading, and unfortunately the public gets sucked into that vortex of speculation. >> you told me the same thing around facebook. let it settle down. if it's still a good stock after a while, you'll have an opportunity to buy it. >> exactly. and if it is that good of company, it will be good for the
next five and ten years. we have old technology companies that are now getting resurrected, but they have been successful over economic cycles. and that's what i want to see, i want to see the ability to sustain the kind of growth rates that the company has sustained over a period of time. >> yes. i want to end tonight talking about credibility. it is crucial in my business if you don't trust me you are going to change the channel. companies that sell products to the public know this or they should. there are six more deaths than gm previously admitted to. trust in our public institutions are also critical.
we talk to a coauthor that found the agency in charge of regulating those gm cars has failed miserably. the sterling 5-star saving ratings handed out to the very cars that gm would wind up recalling makes a mockery of your trust. it brings to mind the credit ratings handed out to the financial institutions at the heart of the economic collapse in 2008. on tuesday the agency tasked with your safety when you get in your car will take a seat in front of congress. my request for the senate subcommittee is simple don't grandstand, but take the time to get it right. the credibility of america's government and american safety is at stake. that's our show for today. i'm ali velshi. thank you for joining us. ♪