tv Bulls Bears FOX Business June 20, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
impression of us is. terrific reporting from there. i miss you, i'm ready for you to come back and join me in the studio. that does it for us. the market is up 250 points on the day. iran made a big mistake. this drone was in international waters, clearly. we have it all documented. you'll find out. you'll find out. you'll find out. david: tensions are high as president trump warning iran that they made a quote, big mistake by shooting down a u.s. military drone in the strait of hormuz. trump, congressional leaders and intel officials are all just ending a meeting in the situation room at the white house. we are going to get you the latest from that when we have it. hi, everybody. this is "bulls & bears." i'm david asman. joining me today, kristina partsinevelos, thank you for taking over yesterday, liz peek,
jonathan hoenig and john layfield. oil spiking more than 5%, partly on the basis of the rising tensions in the midpeeeast as t president says whether it was a mistake or not, the u.s. could take some kind of action. >> i find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth. i think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it. we'll be able to report back and you'll understand exactly what happened but it was a very foolish move. that i can tell you. this is a new wrinkle, a new fly in the ointment what happened, shooting down the drone. this country will not stand for it. that i can tell you. david: let's bring in heritage foundation's jim carafano. good to see you. how should the u.s. respond? >> well, there's two things here. one is, we have to keep the straits open. we have the military capacity in the theater to do that. we don't have to respond. the second is we got to keep the
pressure on iran and what helps with that is building up international pressure. every time the iranians step over the line here, i think they make the president's case for him. i think right now, the u.s. has responded well. we should just keep up the strategy that we have. >> this has been going on really since 1979, right. since essentially that attack on the u.s. embassy. this islamic republic has been at war with the united states. help me understand, i mean, trump said earlier in the day, he tweeted that iran had made a mistake and in that clip we just watched he seemed to suggest that in fact, they had literally made a mistake. which is it? if this is truly a mistake, is he expecting an apology from the islamic republic of iran? >> i think there's two different things here. one is technical which is what exactly happened. and they have to go through all the intelligence, really kind of roll the tape, and that requires, they may have heard things from the iranians, they may have captured information and they have to process all
that to figure out exactly why they did it. did they do it by mistake or on purpose. the second is the strategic, where they made the mistake is the sense is their aggressive activities really make the u.s. case for them, they are a bad actor and they confirm the importance of the united states stack stake in keeping the waters open. >> i will at a time take it up negotiation level. the trump administration walked away from the nuclear deal. if i were iran's supreme leader, i don't think i would want to face embarrassment and have to come back to the negotiation table if the united states walked away first and doesn't seem to be providing any concessions. think that could be their mindset? >> i think what their mindset is, is why negotiate with donald trump, we don't know if he will still be president in a year and a half, but the other thing is remember, the iranians live in a tough neighborhood. if you look weak, you are on the menu. the iranians want to wait trump out but they just can't stand there and do nothing. they have to do some stuff that makes them look tough but they
don't want to be so provocative as to get into an escalation with the united states. they are looking for that middle ground. >> jim, there are -- >> sorry, it seems to me it's really important to bring our european allies around on this. they have really resisted our withdrawal from the jcpoa, they resisted the increased tensions, but now as jonathan said, iran is kind of making our case for us. what do you think will bring the europeans on board, because clearly, what trump is signaling, not that he thinks it was a mistake, but he doesn't want to close the door on negotiations. that's how i read that. i would think that's how the europeans read that. what can we do to get them in the room? >> well, i think two things. one is don't do a disproportional response. if they shoot down a drone and we bomb all their nuclear facilities, you know, people are going to see that as blatantly escalatory. the united states needs to keep the straits open. you do that and meanwhile, let the iranians make the case in that they are the bad actors.
you raise a really good point. trump said this repeatedly. when you guys want to stop being stupid and come to the table and do a deal that just doesn't make you happy but it makes europeans happy, it makes your neighborhoods in the region happy, satisfies the united states. we all benefit, we will do that. i think realistically speaking, that's not going to happen until after the election but until then, the u.s. has to focus, keep its eye on the prize, build consensus behind the u.s. position and continue to keep the straits open. >> why is that consensus not there right now? you have 20% of the world's oil goes through the strait of hormuz. these six tankers that were attacked in may and june in separate instances were both uae, norwegian, saudi arabian and others, not american. but these countries are just turning to america and saying please defend the world's shipping lanes. why is it up to us unilaterally? it's one thing i agree with president trump on. why is it up to us unilaterally to defend the world's shipping lanes? why is there not already a coalition here? >> well, i think there's two
factors. one is, look, they just don't want to be here. they wanted everything to be fine. they didn't want to have to deal with this. they just want a different world. so they are just grumpy. the other is they know the united states can do this. if you think back to the 1980s, the united states has proven it can put a sustained presence in the gulf and keep the waterways open. they know that we can carry the ball on this and so they are just being like the sixth grader that doesn't want to go back into the classroom. david: talk about sixth graders, i don't know if it applies here but u.s. senate democratic leader chuck schumer just said he's worried about the u.s. and i'm quoting here, bumbling into a war with iran. i wouldn't put it exactly -- the president, i was kind of surprised by his restraint today, suggesting that it might have been some errant general on the iranian side who pushed a button without asking the proper authorities. he seems to be constraining himself a bit. what do you make of schumer's
statement? >> well, i am shocked chuck schumer might be playing politics. david: right. >> that's unbelievable. but look, i think honestly speaking, again, because the president actually has a handle on this situation, and i think everyone knows that including the iranians, i think what everybody is doing is just continuing to play politics because they know they can do that and get away with it. david: just to follow up, there are people that are concerned, even among the republicans, that we may get into a war because of the background of iran and hezbollah, their control of terrorists around the world and how they may put them into action if not here, perhaps some place in europe, right? >> i think, the iranians know this, the administration has been very clear, the u.s. has shown restraint. if the iranians or their surrogates cross the line and go to the point where they are actually killing people, the united states is very likely to take a response but it's going to be proportional, right. so if the iranians do something,
we may shoot down the plane gor go drop a bomb on their airfield but we aren't going to start carpet bombing tehran. they know that. i don't think there is a tremendous risk of escalation here because neither side really wants it to escalate. this whole thing about bumbling into war, show me where that's really happened. nations don't bumble into war. that's just ridiculous. >> i just think -- >> i don't understand how you say not escalating. when you back autocratic regimes in a corner, they tend to do something stupid. you may say the president has control of this but the president does not have control of iran, and iran, from their very existence, talking about the regime there, they feel like they have to create something here for nationalistic fervor. there's a good chance better than 50/50 this thing escalates significantly. >> i think you've got that exactly 100% backwards. authoritarian regimes -- >> that's what they said about japan and pearl harbor.
>> no, they tend to become much more risk-averse. the other thing is, what you're seeing, you are seeing a lot of activities of the same kind. you're noteeing activities that rise to that level. i think t there you see -- >> i just don't think -- [ speaking simultaneously ] david: one at a time. i want to compare the response. >> you just torpedoed a bunch of mines that were innocent civilians. that's a pretty good escalation there. you can put your head in the sand if you want to but that's not what history tells you. >> i don't think you can minimize it -- david: one at a time. one at a time. go ahead, jonathan. >> i don't think you can minimize this, nor can the president. the president, don't worry about it, look, you got 1,000 american soldiers on their way to what is at least now, it's not a hot conflict zone but it could turn hostile. i think in deference to senator schumer, he is right.
if there's a plan here for military action, it should be a rational, well thought-out plan and the goal should be not to bring democracy to the middle east but to make this threat non-threatening. david: after everything that donald trump has said, when he was running for president, about the problem with nation building and g.w. bush, plus you have mr. pompeo in there. he's a smart dude, cia guy, formerly head of -- he's secretary of state. i would think there are enough buffers to prevent anybody from bumbling into a war. >> look, first of all, it's very clear that the mission is not nation building or overthrowing a regime, it's to keep the waters open. if you look at the force structure including the 1,000 additional troops put in there, they were put in there for that mission and to protect u.s. forces. look, i was only in the army for 25 years but i don't think you have to be a war college graduate to just look at the laydown and the operations and the forces that we have here and it's very, very clear what they're doing. they are maintaining freedom of the seas just like we did in the
1980s. there's no stein ign of any kin escalation on the part of the united states and the risk of escalation from the iranians is relatively low. >> may i just add in on that, the risk of escalation, what about the fact they keep funding, i think john brought that up, houthi, hezbollah, the piracy that's happening. i think that is a term for escalation going forward. do we say a perfect solution is one for them to stop funding that and two, to nix their nuclear capabilities like we have with our allies in south korea? >> i would redefine the mission as basically punishing iran for doing exactly those things, and for the jcpoa not having abridged any of that behavior. it seems to me that is really what we are trying to accomplish, and iran is lashing out because these sanctions are really, really hurting their economy. they have people marching and demonstrating in the streets. this is what they are doing. but i don't think that leads to war. i would think that trump, through this categorization of
it as a mistake, he isn't going to say we are villainous people. >> that goes back to my first point. why would they want to talk if trump stepped away first? david: got to leave it at that. great to see you, jim. thank you very much for being here. really appreciate it. could apple leave china? a new report saying they are considering all options but what will that mean for us consumers?
openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon!
ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate...
and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ hey! i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.
david: breaking news. apple is now exploring how to move some of its iphone assembly plants out of china in order to sidestep some trade tensions. the new report saying the company could ship up to 30% of its china production to other parts of southeast asia. although the move's not expected to happen any time soon, what will this mean for iphone consumers? >> over time, i think it probably means that prices go up somewhat, although i was looking at salaries for this kind of work around the world. you would be amazed, in eastern europe basically salaries are about the same now as in china. china has increased so rapidly over the last ten years, while everybody else has been basically flat. i think that my peeve with
american companies like apple is why didn't they think ten years ago to diversify their manufacturing sources? why get so dependent on china which we all know is a pretty erratic and unreliable company -- country. i think, you know, they need to answer some questions here. i think this is too late but they should be doing this. >> liz, i agree with you on prices going up barely but i have a slight disagreement about china because china is not the one acting erratic. they aren't the ones who started the trade war with us. we started the trade war with them. china, apple is to me, i own the stock for full disclosure, apple did not become the most profitable company in the history of the world because they can't manage global supply chains. i think they will find a way out of this. i think they are already working on it right now. what you are seeing with us and china right now is a de-coupling of the two economies. you are seeing our auto companies that have gone over there, now gm produces more cars in china than they do in the united states. they will never have to deal with tariffs because they are producing the cars there.
you will see more and more of that, supply chains breaking between us and china because of this trade war. >> i don't think it's necessarily the trade war. if you look at the retail sales growth, it's decelerating in china. you have a lot of local competitors that are much cheaper than apple products. however, on the flipside, you have ceo tim cook saying he doesn't think china will target them specifically with retaliatory tariffs and you also have iphone assembler foxcon saying if need be, they could produce all their products outside of china which is a positive for investors and possibly you, since you own the stock. >> yeah, look, this is going to hurt companies. we have already heard from companies big and small, including apple, that this is going to hurt their bottom line. cummings, the major engine maker, said the tariffs will wipe out all the benefits they enjoyed from the tax cut. i have to channel milton freedman here. there is no such thing as a free lunch. government is a gun, it is
force. however peter navarro wants to spin it, tariffs are a tax so of course the net result will be exactly the same as it was when the first president bush tried this. job losses and higher costs. david: one question i have, jonathan. in this case i'm wondering if apple can pass on that tax to the consumers because they are facing competition from google, for one. google has this new android phone that costs $400 that they claim does exactly the same stuff that the iphone does for more than twice the cost. so if they begin to pass on their extra costs from the tariffs to the consumers, they really might lose out big-time to google. >> that's part of what is so insidious about tariffs. often apple has competitors who don't import to the united states so it ends up being a tax on them specifically. either they or their consumers pay it. it's americans who pay it. that's why these tariffs are really starting to have an impact on the bottom line.
>> no question, nobody likes tariffs. i think the issue is how else do you go about -- nobody likes tariffs. john, to go back to your comment that the united states started a trade war, that's true, but that is in response to a decade plus of china plundering american companies for intellectual property. you can't really hold that china is a reliable partner when all they have done is basically strip their partners time and time again of their intellectual property, their trade secrets, et cetera, and profited thereby. i think this confrontation -- david: they didn't change the rules. the u.s. did. >> by the way, we should mention the u.s. did. david: apple was trying to diversify even before the tariffs kicked in because of exactly what liz was talking about. that's why i'm with jonathan, i think the free market might have made the changes happen anyway. they were going to do this. we got to move on. environmentalists warning that president trump's new epa rules will upend president obama's climate policies and make the air dirtier.
epa administrator andrew wheeler is here to respond, coming next. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. nice! but uh, what's up with your partner? oh! we just spend all day telling everyone how we customize car insurance because no two people are alike, so... limu gets a little confused when he sees another bird that looks exactly like him. ya... he'll figure it out. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ intand ux f sport,rst of its kind lexus ux also available in hybrid all-wheel drive.
david: the trump administration has submitted its final rule to replace the obama era clean power plant with a plan of its own. the move takes away a lot of ep ahm mandates and gives more pow to states to reconstruct power grids with non-coal fuels. critics say this will lead to dirtier air. joining us, the man who signed the new affordable clean energy plan as it's called, epa administrator andrew wheeler. administrator, thank you for coming in. why won't this move lead to dirtier air? >> it won't, and thank you for having me. what our regulation does, affordable clean energy rule, along with current market trends, will reduce co2
emissions by 34% to 35% from 2005 levels over the course of the regulation. so it will reduce co2 levels, it will make energy plants more energy efficient and it will provide a lifeline to the coal industry. this is a promise that president trump made on the campaign trail and it's a promise kept. david: let me give you a hypothetical. suppose west virginia, which of course mines a lot of coal and is a big supporter of coal, suppose they decide on their own against the old epa regulations that obama put in to start up new coal-fired plants. won't that make not only their air dirtier, but the air in states around them dirtier? >> what we are doing with this regulation is setting forward a number of different energy-efficient goals that states will have to meet, different technologies that they can employ in the new coal-fired power plants but what it does, it will allow new coal-fire technologies to be developed. what the obama administration's
regulation did is basically freeze all coal-fired technologies back in 2014. this will allow new technologies to be developed and our technologies are exported to other countries all over the world. david: that's an important point. because of course, china and india, no matter what we do, their unreliability in keeping the standards of their air clean is what causes most of the problem for the whole world. so essentially you are saying you can export that cleaner coal technology to them. >> exactly. what the obama administration did was freeze the development of any new clean coal technologies because we are the ones, the united states is the country that develops these new technologies. it froze the technologies by doing -- by putting forward the regulation that we did yesterday will allow new investments into cleaner technologies and those technologies can then be exported to countries like china and india and we get a lot of pollution from china here in the united states. in fact, we get more mercury deposited here in the united
states from coal-fired power plants in china than we do from u.s. coal-fired power plants here. david: the bottom line is no matter how clean the clean coal plants are, they are still dirtier than natural gas. right? >> well, the coal-fired power plants of today are over 90% cleaner than they were in the 1970s. david: but again, compared to natural gas which is the reason -- the reason our air is cleaner now primarily is not because of wind or solar, it's because we have switched to natural gas from coal. what happens if these new rules actually affect the development of new coal plants because people in west virginia and other states that mine coal want them? >> sure, but right now, we get about 28%, 29% of our electricity from coal. overall, our air pollution is down 73% from the 1970s. so our air is 73% cleaner than it was in the 1970s. the coal-fired power plants of today are nothing like the coal-fired power plants of 30,
40 years ago. david: very quickly, final question, some states say that they are planning on suing the epa for these new rules. it's kind of strange because they are suing because they will have more power. usually you sue when you have less power. how do you think that's going to work out in the courts? >> i think we will win in the courts. it's interesting, the new york attorney general announced yesterday that they were going to sue us even before they read the regulation. but it's also important to remember the obama regulation this replaces never took effect. because the obama regulation was held up by the supreme court. the supreme court issued an historic stay. so what we did was take a look at the clean air act, the relevant court cases, and put forward a regulation yesterday that will be upheld in the courts because it follows the law and it follows what the courts have told us. david: good luck to you. thank you for coming in, administrator. we appreciate it. >> absolutely. thank you, david, for having me. david: gang, your reaction? >> one of the worst things about the obama administration was
that it institutionalized so much of this environmentalist dogma, coal is bad, fossil fuel is bad, and that's the green movement. keep in mind the green movement is not for mankind, for the environment. they are really against mankind. the fact is, i applaud the epa administrator for joining us and for taking these actions, coal, fossil fuels, as you said, natural gas, and nuclear, that powers our modern world. that helps mankind. everyone who says oh, i got to buy a tesla to help the environment, how do you think that tesla gets charged up? oftentimes through coal and other fossil fuels. >> jonathan, for somebody that works in business, that's so narrow-minded, especially for the future. it's interesting how mr. wheeler wasn't able to answer your question when you asked comparison between coal factories and natural gas factories. david: we know the answer. >> we know the answer. he evaded it completely. let's look at the statistics that came from the epa itself. a new report very recently said that should this rule go into place and the continuous rollbacks we have seen from the obama administration, it could
result in up to 1400 premature deaths by 2030, could result in 48,000 extra cases of extreme asthma and then there's a few other statistics. if that's not enough, let's look at another study. the associated press, i asked you during the commercial break whether you thought the associated press was biased, they came out with a study just very recently to fact-check what the president said at the rally about clean air and they have discovered that last year and the previous year, there was a 15% increase in unhealthy air days versus the last several years from 2013 to 2016. so you have all of these issues rolling back, what about the future, jonathan? what about trying to innovate and be, you know, moving our economy, our health, our climate, everything forward so that people aren't getting sick with asthma, people aren't having these health problems, or dying prematurely? >> well, i will quickly say this. epa administrator pointed out innovation is what has made all of that coal, for example, much cleaner, would have made nuclear more cleaner. but the environmentalists aren't
about protecting man's life. they are just about making it more expensive. >> how can you be so narrow-minded? why would anybody do that? >> for example, just try running an emergency room off of a windmill, off of solar. >> precisely. which is why you need to invest to improve that so it's not the case as we go forward. >> just for a moment changing topics a little bit, i think what's interesting, in the last two years we had about 50 more coal-fired plants close in america, another 50 are sort of planning to close. what i would have liked to have known from wheeler is what difference is this ruling going to make to those planned closures and is the population of coal-fired plants which is now i think around 240 or something, is that likely to increase or decrease. my guess is it's not going to have much impact on all those things because of exactly what you're saying. not only is natural gas cleaner, it's also cheaper. so an awful lot of the switchover that's taken place has really nothing to do with clean air, but has to do with economics.
because in some areas, coal is cheaper regionally and so those plants were being mandated to close and now they will probably -- but i don't know. david: we have to run. john, quickly. quickly. >> well, you are correct about natural gas being cheaper. that's one of the main reasons they are using natural gas right now. it's better for the environment but also right now, solar and wind are becoming economical with natural gas and with coal. that's great for the environment. there's nothing wrong with fixing the environment. it's not an either/or. we can do both. david: you may be able to do both. thank you, gang. now there are 11 dead american tourists in the dominican republic. lawmakers are demanding we send tough new warnings to travelers. a report from san toe domingo next. cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions
whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu.
and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. 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. david: well, now it's 11, at least 11 americans are dead following their visits to the dominican republic. now the fbi is doing forensic investigations of their own to
find out what really happened. lawmakers are also now calling for a travel advisory in the area. fox news' jeff paul is on the ground in santo domingo. what can you tell us? reporter: the number of tourists seemingly dying under suspicious circumstances keeps growing. the latest happening on tuesday, after a woman who was honeymooning here returned home to the u.s. and died. the state department telling us they have not seen enough suspicious deaths being reported to them. a sample was taken from a mini bar at one of the resorts where a tourist died. agents wouldn't confirm their involvement but the state department says their colleagues at the fbi are helping dominican authorities with toxicology reports. the ministry of health saying so far their tests by local health inspectors show negative results but that information alone isn't enough for some tourists who remain concerned. one other congressman has formally written to the fbi and state department, calling for more consistent updates and for
them to reassess the current travel advisories. the first and only dominican american congressman says he's going to be visiting the dominican republic next month to make sure that safety is a main priority. david? david: jeff, thank you so much. so will the fbi figure this out or do we have to do more here? >> i think one question is, how much help is the fbi being given and how much freedom to really explore these deaths. i'm struck by the fact that some people are reporting deaths that took place several months ago and now they're beginning to question how did that person die, i was told that they just had a heart attack on the beach or something, and now people are beginning to wonder. i suspect this story has a long time to go and meanwhile, if americans are shying away from going down there, it's a catastrophe for the dominican republic. >> yeah, i agree with that, liz. look, these politicians love to hop on band wagons. we have guys who are just buffoons in washington, d.c. i think the state department does a very good job but look at the actual murder rate in the
dominican republic. you normally measure homicide rates per 100,000. it's right at 15. st. louis in 2017 was 66. they're not putting a travel advisory on against st. louis. virgin islands was 49. jamaica was 47. bermuda right here was 13 and nobody's even thinking about putting a travel advisory on bermuda because of the homicide rate. these politicians love hopping on anything to get the news out there and get their name out there. they need to worry about balancing the budget. david: just a point of order here. i happen to know dominican republic very well. the statistics there are historically inaccurate. the anecdotal evidence on the street is that crime is rising very highly, very quickly. go ahead, jonathan. >> that's pretty frightening, especially to liz's point, considering how important tourism is. tourism has doubled in the dominican republic from 2005 to 2016. look, it's a free country. i'm glad the government is investigating. they should be investigating, for example, if there's an
infectious disease instead of course we should ban tourism. at this point it's still a free country. for my money and my vacation, america has hawaii and the cayman islands, u.s. virgin islands. if i was booking a trip, that's where i would be traveling right now as opposed to the d.r. given this string of suspicious deaths. >> when you bring up tourists, the latest number i saw seven million total, about almost half come from the united states but you did have the spokesperson for the minister of public health for the d.r. was on fox news very recently, and did say that this is fake news on behalf of the u.s. government and said people die all over the world, unfortunately, and very unfortunately for us, these toifr tourists have died here, so we are paying too much attention to these specific tourists. another report did say the fbi is investigating the mini bar, there was one particular mini bar at a resort because one woman drank from the mini bar, then died, as well as two couples -- a couple that was found in their room, and the next day, with --
>> there's enough similarities to make you think this is sort of a pattern. i think when that happens, to john's point, yeah, there are homicides everywhere but this does appear to be picking off americans. we were trying to figure out in the break, have any canadians been murdered or any europeans. the answer is it doesn't seem that way. it does seem a little bit specific to american tourists. david: the state department has an advisory out but it's a 2. they have from 1 to 4, 4 being the worst, 1 being minimal. we are now at 2. maybe we ought to put it up a tick. that seems kind of low for everything that's happening. >> there's no proof. you can't put it up until you really know the proof. the government there has said they have literally looked, the testing results are all negative on the alcohol, the food and the air. everything is normal according to the minister of public health. david: last word. we got to move on. the ceo of black stone making an almost $190 million donation to oxford university but would donations like this be possible without capitalism? that's next. ♪
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.rkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking,
with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store.
university. listen. maria: this whole idea of capitalism has been questioned. you would not be able to do what you're doing and helping so many people if not for the capitalist society. so a word on socialism versus capitalism, steve, given the fact it looks like the 2020 election is being set up as a choice. >> well, you know, capitalism is a system that has really created enormous increase in standard of living over any other system, and that doesn't mean it's perfect and there are things we need to fix, particularly education. david: so sure, capitalism's not perfect but could a donation of this size happen in a socialist country? >> clearly, right. it's happening, the money is being given in the uk to oxford which i'm sure jonathan and many others will say is a liberal college, liberal institution with only -- david: you are saying it's a socialist country? >> okay, fine, have universal
health care, if we are going to talk about all the things the new democratic party wants to bring over here, there's a lot of similarities. but here you go. you have the socialist type institution or liberal institution and capitalist man giving money, could be doing it because it's oxford and is very prestigious. it's not the only location he donated to. he has given $350 to m.i.t., $150 million to yale and $575 million in china. in china. >> where did he get all that money? where did he get all that money? because he earned it. he earned it. kristina, that's the point here. look, capitalism delivers the goods. there's no arguing with that. >> i'm not arguing with you. >> i mean, then why are so many people advocating for socialism if they really care about the poor, they should be advocating for full capitalism whether it's north korea versus south korea, whether it's cuba versus miami, anywhere it's been tried, it has succeeded to the extent it's been tried. we should try it here in the united states one of these days.
>> i do think it's an interesting topic they are going to be researching, the ethics of artificial intelligence. i suspect that five years from now, this will be a much bigger topic than it is right now because right now, we are really on the fringes of a.i. impacting our lives, our industries, et cetera. remember that one of the most brilliant people in the history of the world, stephen hawking, said artificial intelligence was the greatest threat to mankind in his opinion. that's something he said just before he died. >> he spoke at oxford before he died. >> maybe it was in that speech. but i think it's something we all should be interested in. i don't know that you have to spend $200 million to get there but hey, sounds like a good venture. right? >> i think it's a great thing for the future. >> look at elon musk feels the same way hawking does, it's the biggest threat out there. we are lucky to live now in an age -- can't get it to work --
billion billionaires. english is my second language. look at all these billionaires who are giving billions of dollars to help poverty and education around the world. george lucas sold disney for $4 billion and gave every single penny to education. we are very fortunate right now to live in an age such as that. david: not just now. look back in the so-called gilded ages in the late 1800s, early 1900s. you have carnegie hall, all kinds of institutions all over america in which these guys clearly would have been billionaires by today's money. they gave much of their wealth away. i just, again, i repeat the question, would this happen in a socialist country. i can't think of any socialist country where individuals would give money away like this. >> may i just say, would this happen anywhere around the globe, i know this is very mean to say, i'm not taking away from what he's done, but he's putting his last name on a big building at a very prestigious institute. anybody would do that anywhere if you were rich.
>> not for socialist countries because you think the government's going to do it. >> fine. >> the reality is, there is not the kind of philanthropy in europe that we have in the united states, partly because of tax differences but in truth, it is somewhat particular to the united states, the amount of wealth that's been created, the amount that's given away. i think what's sort of exciting, actually, is over the next decade, all these tech people who have made billions and billions of dollars are going to be giving away a lot of that money. >> that's the point. you just missed the point. the good thing about capitalism isn't that billionaires give away the money, it's that they make the money. >> i agree, jonathan. david: they didn't build it. they didn't build it. that's what we're hearing today. >> we agree with you. >> if he wants to help education, i wouldn't be giving them millions of dollars. i would be advocating to get government out of education. make that the private free market that succeeded in technology and every other area of our lives. david: jonathan, look what happened, is happening on the other end of the scale as well as far as extreme poverty.
extreme poverty in the world has gone from the mid 30% range down to 11%. that's because of the spread of capitalism, because of opportunities that have been given to people that are out there which would not happen in a socialist country as you were saying. david: there you go. >> you know, i think frankly, to kristina's point, the reason that people do put their names on it, these buildings, because they do build things. that old statement of elizabeth warren is dead wrong. they build things and therefore, you want to put your name on things that you build, like certain people who become presidents of the united states, right? >> especially in the future, if they actually are able to stop or really focus on the ethics behind a.i. and they can change the way our future is going, why not. then it would all be because of the schwartzman institute or whatever it's called. david: then you have people who give $100 million to nyu medical school to get free tuition. another thing that some people say only the government can do, when in fact, rich americans could do it as well. >> i also do wonder, frankly, going forward, whether western
institutions like oxford university are going to be laying down the ethical guidelines for new technologies when a lot of that new technology is going to come from china and other countries. i really wonder what the role played by such organizations going forward will be. and look at what's happened with cloning, if you doubt that. >> they have major donors, even at my college because i did go there. i went to an event, there was massive amounts of money that came in from hong kong and other areas of china. david: why the treasury department is now calling on all college students to enroll in a mandatory course they say will help tackle the trillion dollar student loan crisis. details, coming next. incomparable design makes it beautiful.
now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? david: the treasury department is requiring mandatory financial literacy courses for america's college students. according to at government report only 28% of students could answer questions on inflation, risk and interest. >> i think they do need it. i think we had coming out of the financial crisis a pretty good dialogue how people didn't understand their mortgages. they certainly don't understand their student loans.
they get to the point of going to college and they don't understand this stuff they are about to be in life. they need to understand their finances. >> i'm against mandatory government schools at large. but can as long as we have schools that teach about transgender rights or environmental being dogma, you should teach people the basics. we are talking about saving, investing, the kind of stuff people's grandmother's once told us. if you make a dollar, put 10 cents or 20 cents away. >> why did i learn about the various forests in canada and i remember that, but they never went over mortgages in high school. to answer the question about whether this will solve the student debt situation, i don't think providing financial literacy will change that. you had the government that had
been involved and contributed this escalating debt rising, the higher tuition overall. i don't think financial literacy courses are going to save the day and help everybody get rid of their student debt. so we can understand how the economy works. david: government and education together? that's two car wrecks in one garage. they can't balance their own budget. we are $22 trillion in debt. how about we give congress a financial literacy course. a four-year liberal arts degree is worthless and government does not need to be involved. david: the report does also recommend more truth in lending for student loans. an itemized and subject totaled cost of attendance.
i think that would make sense considering the government is behind all the student loans. >> educating kids is important, i think. >> some basics here. david: i'm with john, give it to congress. that does it for "bulls and bears." liz: we've have got you covered on iran shooting down a u.s. drone and a clear message it's ready for war. the president said iran made a very big mistake. we have senator mitch mcconnell saying calm down. the white house is engaged in quote measured responses. what the u.s. response could be. we have top experts on what's going on inside iran. we are going to tell you what stopped the market and the oil pits from going hayway. the --