tv Amanpour Company PBS January 30, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. tension in venezuela, waiting to see which way the army goes after the u.s. and allies recognize the interim president, democratic senator bob menendez joins me as well as a key ally of new leader juan guaido. then, nancy pelosi one, donald trump zero. how the speaker of the house outplayed the president in this round. former republican congresswoman mia love, and one-time vice president of the trump organization barbara res join me. plus, financial guru andrew ross sorkin tells us we're overdue for a financial crisis.
uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & company." when b. tollman's 60-year culinary career began, she didn't know the recipes from her cookbook would make their way to her river cruise line. uniworld. bee's locally inspired cuisine is served while cruising through europe, asia, india, and egypt. because according to bee, to travel is to eat. bookings available through your travel adviser. for more information, visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by -- >> rosalind p. walter, bernard and irene schwartz, sue and edgar walkenheim iii, the cheryl and philip milstein family, seton melvin, judy and josh weston, the jpb foundation, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. welcome to the program,
everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in london. venezuela is firing back after the united states imposed tough sanctions. $18 billion worth on the state oil company. making the announcement, national security adviser john bolton sparked talk of an even bigger threat, because his yellow notepad there had the words "5,000 troops to colombia" scrolled and exposed for all to see. in an address, president maduro lashed out at president trump. >> translator: i make donald trump responsible for any violence that might happen in venezuela. you will be the one responsible, mr. president donald trump, responsible for this policy of regime change in venezuela and the blood that could flow in venezuela will be the blood that will be on your hands. >> well, russia's foreign minister, sergey lavrov, backs maduro. he called the u.s. sanctions illegal, while the u.s.-backed
interim president juan guaido praised them for protecting venezuelan assets. here's what he said. >> translator: for a very long time, maduro's regime stole this money, an estimated $4 billion, which is four times venezuela's gdp in losses. this would protect assets so that they can be used towards venezuelans and to attend to the humanitarian emergency that is at the center of our policies. >> there is a massive humanitarian crisis in venezuela. right now also the united nations says more than 40 venezuelans have been killed in the recent unrest and 850 have been arrested. but what happens if there is a violent crackdown? joining me now is senator bob menendez, a democratic senator from new jersey, the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee. senator menendez, welcome to the program. >> thank you, christiane. >> so, let's start first with this -- the sanctions. you heard what president maduro said, and it is par for the course. the venezuelans from chavez and
even beyond have always used as their calling card the threat that the united states is engineering a coup, and they're constantly blaming the u.s. what do you make of the effect of these sanctions? what will they do? >> well, i think the sanctions, which i support -- i wrote the first sanctions against the maduro regime back in 2014, and we've seen a growing bipartisan support for using diplomatic and economic and political efforts to try to bring democracy back to venezuela. i think the world largely recognizes maduro's not a legitimate president, and so, the sanctions at the end of the day create a real challenge to the maduro regime, particularly the ones that were just announced against the state oil company. so, i think they're very significant. and listen, as it relates to maduro's comments about the -- i heard the clip that you ran
about blood is going to be on the hands of the united states -- the blood that has already been shed by venezuelans peacefully trying to create change in their country has all been at maduro's hands and those of his leadership, so i think that's a hollow statement to make. >> so, let us switch now to this talk. i mean, i asked leading into you, what happens if. what happens if the army turns against the people? what do you know now? what sort of intelligence do you have? do you have any confidence of where the army stands? >> well, i think it's very telling that maduro has not had his army and security forces arrest juan guaido, the interim president of venezuela, under their constitution, which, by the way, is a constitution created under former venezuelan president chavez. so, it's their own constitution that they've invoked to claim
the right to be an interim president as a result of false elections. so, i think the fact that he has not called upon security forces to arrest guaido, which he has done to others in the past, is very telling. he doesn't want to risk it. and the reality is, the generals may be living very well because they're part of the kleptomatic government that maduro runs, and the corrupt government that he runs. but the average soldier, they're suffering like the venezuelan people are. and i think in that respect, i think it is highly unlikely they will turn their guns against their brothers and sisters. >> well, let's just play a quick clip. one of our reporters talked to a couple of those lower-ranked soldiers who have defected to neighboring colombia. here's what they said. trb as venezuelan soldiers, we're making a request to the u.s., he says to supporters. in logistical concerns with communication and weapons so we can realize venezuelan freedom.
we're not saying we need only u.s. support, but also from brazil, colombia, peru, all brother countries that are against this dictatorship. they know me the whatsapp groups plotting rebellion they hope reaches thousands of soldiers, but they also rejected any possible military intervention by u.s. forces themselves. we don't want a foreign government invading our country, he says. if we need an incursion, it has to be by venezuelan soldiers who really want to free venezuela. now we're unifying all those military groups working towards freedom to create a really good one that could be decisive. >> senator, i know you speak fluent spanish. obviously, you could hear them in their own language and hear the translation. they were very, very clear -- no u.s. intervention, but yes, please, u.s. military support and help and logistics. do you think that they're -- well, where do you stand on this? because as i said also, john
bolton, national security adviser, sparked a whole load of questions with that yellow notepad and 5,000 troops to colombia. what do you know about what's going on in that regard? >> well, i don't know anything specifically in that regard as it relates to any potential military movement. it would be a huge mistake, and i oppose any form of military intervention in venezuela. it would undermine the very effort of the democratic movement in venezuela and the credibility of that democratic movement. the freedom of venezuela will come through the hands of venezuelans, not through the intervention of the united states or any other nation. but i think it's critically important that the 20 or so countries, including many from the western hemisphere who have traditionally shied away from speaking about human rights and democracy violations in their neighboring country, have risen their voice in this regard, and i think that's a powerful
message and joined not only by their words, but hopefully, by their actions in terms of economic consequences. i think the venezuelan people can restore democracy in their nation. >> so, let's just stay on this military intervention for the moment. you know, president trump himself at the very beginning of his administration raised sort of questions with various tweets about this. and in response to questions about the famous bolton notepad, again the administration said all options are on the table. are you concerned that there is some move afoot amongst, let's say people in the white house to potentially introduce u.s. military force to venezuela? >> well, you know, it's interesting, because that would be counter to everything else the president's inclinations are. he, you know, withdrawing troops from syria at a time when that's a challenge. supposedly, he is prepared to announce withdrawal of troops from afghanistan to some degree. so, his predilection seems to be to move american involvement
abroad away and back at home. this would be totally counter to that. now, whether it is a bluff, although i don't think you ever bluff with our military, or whether it is just to keep all the options open to suggest that all the options are open. but in reality, i cannot envision the united states, and i strongly would oppose the united states seeking intervening militarily in venezuela. >> but you could imagine them going to friendly countries like colombia next door to support, could you? i mean, could that be what's afoot potentially? >> i don't think that the colombians or any of venezuela's neighbors will want to seek its military engagement in venezuela. they have been doing a tremendous service in dealing with the humanitarian crisis and the flows of venezuelans fleeing venezuela. i think that as we ratchet up the sanctions, you know, sales to the united states from venezuela, about $28 million a
day, those monies should be used to help the humanitarian relief that is necessary to help the venezuelan people as they seek to restore democracy in their country. >> why is it, you brought it up, that president trump wants to tail back or scale back military interventions overseas? what do you think it is, why he has decided to get so active in this regard? i know it's in the hemisphere, but immediately recognizing, as we know almost sort of planning, you know, with juan guaido and with, who was president of the national assembly, and immediately sort of recognizing and getting other countries to do so as well. why is that in president trump's interests? >> well, obviously, i'm sure it has heard the voices of many, including many venezuelan americans who reside, for example, in florida, and who have experienced firsthand the
flight and the necessity to become refugees in the united states about what's happening under chavez. i think that there is a hemispheric recognition that chavez is driving one of the nations in the western hemisphere that should have amongst the greatest wealth into a humanitarian catastrophe. and i think as someone who worries about refugee flows, as we have seen, i think the last thing he wants to see is another set of refugee flows, this time from venezuela. >> i know you meant chavez's success, maduro. but let me ask you this, the united states, of course, ever since the late 1800s with the invasion of mexico, it has a record, you know, ten arms long of intervention in latin america. and of course, all the people who oppose this recognition in venezuela keep pointing to that. and what do you say to people like russia or the others, or people in the hemisphere itself
who say, you know, what business do the united states have getting involved in here? look at their record on our continent. >> well, first of all, i never rely on the russians to talk about our national interests or observance of international law or human rights and democracy. their record is dismal. they keep violating international law, so they're certainly not my litmus test. as it relates to other countries in the hemisphere, i would say that the democratic charter of the oas, which all countries of the hemisphere have signed on to, should be the guiding principle, and it is that guiding charter of the oas we are largely following in terms of the actions we are taking. so, what i do rejoice in, as someone who has spent a lot of time in western hemisphere foreign policy is that we now see a series of nations, western hemisphere nations, latin american nations, leading as well in calling for maduro to step down and recognizing why
juan guaido as the actual provisional president of venezuela. that's something that we would not have seen many years ago. it's a turn for the better in terms of promotion of democracy and human rights of the hemisphere. >> now, you mentioned all the oil and how much the venezuelans sell to the united states. with these sanctions, do you think they will keep selling? and do you also believe, is it the general or a general who's in charge of the state oil company? >> well, certainly, i believe that they will need an outlet. you know, refineries in the united states are doing a lot of this work. so i think that they will continue to sail, and they will have a need to do so. they will need time to try to divert their sales and to find other markets and refineries to be able to do that, so that cannot be turned on a dime. now, one of the reasons that the generals should start rethinking the reality is because their pathway to the type of money
they've received through maduro is less likely to be realized now, and i think that may affect their thinking as well. >> so, just to go back to the oil question and john bolton. he was on fox business recently, and he basically specifically cited the oil and the economic benefit that it could bring to the united states. he said it would make a big difference to the u.s. economically if we could have american oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in venezuela. also, it would be good for the people of venezuela. so, he said it would be a win-win situation. so, that might be, but have you heard from the administration whether there is a plan "b" if things don't turn out the way you hope, if maduro holds on to power, if he appoints somebody else who's equally unpalatable, or in the worst-case scenario, if there is a violent crackdown? what is the plan "b," as far as you know? >> well, i'm not sure what is the plan "b."
on the economic side, i believe the administration believes that both the production in the united states of oil and global oil supplies would not be affected by the situation in venezuela. as it relates to if maduro steps down and appoints someone who is not only unpalatable but illegal, you know, at the end of the day, if you follow the constitution, the venezuelan constitution, the only democratically elected person at this point in venezuela is juan guaido, as the president of the national assembly and members of the national assembly. so, outside of that, they'd be violating their own constitution. >> all right. senator bob menendez, thank you so much for joining us from >> thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. and of course, full disclosure, senator menendez's daughter, elisa menendez, is a contributor to this program. now we get the venezuelan side
of the story, and i am joined by francisco sucrate, a member of the venezuelan national assembly and supporter of juan guaido. in fact, tomorrow, he is off to brussels to get to eu to formally recognize guaido as interim venezuelan president. francisco sucre, welcome from the grid. you heard -- >> thank you. thank you for this interview, the possibility, uh huh. >> no, it's okay. i interrupted you, but you heard senator bob menendez, a powerful member of the united states senate, fully backing your president, certainly the president of the national assembly, juan guaido. we were talking about you trying to get more recognition for him. what are you going to be doing in brussels tomorrow? >> yes. at this point, already more than 25 countries has recognized mr. guaido as the president of venezuela, the interim
president. we hope that the european union is going to do the same. already germany, spain, france, many countries of the european union have said that juan guaido is the president. we have to remember the reason of this crisis. the problem was the election that we had last year, the presidential election. we had a fraudulent presidential election, and out of that, mr. maduro wants to be in power for six more years. when we had this election, the european union, the u.s., canada, all of the democratic world said that that election was fraudulent election. so, at this point, we are conducting a very fierce
struggle for recovering democracy, the constitutional law, the constitutional rule in venezuela. >> let me just ask you this, then, because the constitutional point that you're following by taking this move says that now the interim president, juan guaido, has to call new elections within 30 days of making that move. is that even possible? will you be able to actually abide by that part of the constitutional provision? >> no, no. at this point, it's not possible in venezuela. the article 333 of the national constitution of venezuela clearly says that we have to -- every citizen of venezuela, with authority or not, has the responsibility of work to restore the constitutional rule.
at this point, we don't have institutions in venezuela that can go ahead with those elections. first, we have to choose a new electoral consconsulate. right now we have one that is full of political members of maduro's party. so, we have first to call elections to have a very independent body that can conduct those elections. we have to bring back the constitutional rule in order to apply the article 233 that ayes in 30 days we have to convene elections. but at this point we can't do that because we don't have institutionals to do that. so, that's why from the national assembly, we have clear rules for the next day. first, we have to aim to bring
an end to the operation of mr. maduro. second, we have to have transitional government. the transitional government is the one that is going to conduct those elections. once we have a new independent powers in venezuela. and then we have to convey those free elections. elections like mexico have in the past, brazil, et cetera. >> okay, so let me ask you this, then. a lot of this is going to depend on, i assume, cooperation from maduro and the government. right now you have one country, two presidents, and he's claiming that he's still president and that it will be on your head and on the u.s.'s head if there is any violence or any trouble in the country. what is the state of discussion between juan guaido and president maduro or between juan guaido and the leader of the
venezuelan armed forces? >> so, first, in venezuela, we don't have two presidents. we have one president. and maduro is claiming to be our president. regarding the armed forces, at this point, maduro only has that support. that's the only support that maduro has at this point. we approve at the national assembly a law, a new law, last week to convey all the civilians and the military officers to turn away from the dictatorship and hand, give their hands to the democracy and the respect of the human rights. so, that law is to guarantee immunity to apply guarantees for those military officers that
work with us in order to restore democracy. at this point, mr. maduro has also responsibility of what's going on in venezuela. i heard what matuduro said last day, address, i think, blaming the u.s. for any violent scene that can happen in venezuela. but the only responsibility in venezuela is going to be from maduro. >> senator menendez said he found it interesting and very indicative that maduro has not ordered the arrest of juan guaido. as you know better than i do, many opposition leaders have been arrested, but juan guaido remains free. he is calling guaido for more street protests tomorrow. again, are you concerned that the head of the armed forces who say they will die to protect
their country -- are you concerned that there might be a military crackdown? >> but they are a minority. you know, the higher ranked officials, of course, they are supporting maduro at this point, because they are generally involved in these crime economy that we have in venezuela. but the medium and the lower ranks of the armed forces aren't with a democracy. and we are sure within the next weeks, days, there is going to be a breakdown in the channel of -- inside the -- >> chain of command. >> -- military of venezuela. they are going to have to choose. they have to choose between the constitution, democracy, the well-being of the venezuelan people. as you know, the world knows, we are facing the worst humanitarian crisis in venezuela. more than 3.5 million
venezuelans have left the country. >> listen, the noise behind you is very, very loud. there's a taxi driver protest in madrid, but we're listening to you very, very closely. but i want you to ask you very quickly, if maduro stays, what is your plan ballots, if he does not give up power? and do you favor a u.s. military intervention? >> listen, our plan "b" is keep fighting. keep fighting because we have a responsibility with venezuelans. we as citizens of this country have the responsibility and we are going to keep fighting. and regarding the military intervention, you know, you said in the intervention that the u.s. already said that all options are on the table. when you are talking about national security for every country, even my country, venezuela, of course, all
options always are on the table. but if that happens, if these extreme situations happens, the only one responsible for that will be mr. maduro. >> i see you keeping all options on the table, too. francisco sucre, thank you very much indeed for joining us. now, amid the venezuela showdown, at home, the showdown between the president and congress ended in the government reopening without any money for president trump's border wall, a move many have hailed as a success for the house speaker nancy pelosi early in her new leadership. now, she held the president's state of the union address as her trump card, so to speak. it was supposed to be delivered tonight. instead, pelosi has now invited him to address the nation next tuesday. to break down this tussle at the top in washington, i'm joined by the former vice president of the trump organization, barbara rez, and former republican congresswoman mia love. welcome to both of you. thank you for joining us.
i think everybody took a look at what was going on in washington. unbelievable that it took more than 35 days for this to be resolved and that it was, in the words of some observers, a 5'2" liberal congresswoman from california who simply outplayed the president of the united states. barbara rez, what did you think when you saw this power game happening and unfolding in washington? you know president trump very, very well. >> i thought he probably was very angry at what happened, but i felt he totally underestimated pelosi, and he totally did not know how the system works. he did not know -- i don't think he's even convinced as of yet -- that the power of congress is equal to the power of the president. and because of that, i think he thought he could ride over pelosi and the congress, and i think he thought he could ride over her because she was a woman. so, he made those two mistakes and they came back to haunt him.
>> before i ask congresswoman mia love, you say because she was a woman. but i mean, i'm talking to you. you were promoted to the top, top ranks of his organization. you became vice president of the organization. he has been quoted as saying -- and you quote him as saying -- that one good woman is better than ten men. you know what happened in the interim? how did he underestimate this strong woman? >> well, because he basically believes that many good women or as good as men, but men are better than women and that was the premise. men are better than women, but one good woman is better than ten good men. and in his mind, he is superior to all women. well, he is superior to everyone. but in that sense, the fact that he gave me a job and everything, i always knew my place when it came to him. i fought with him and spoke back to him and everything, which is not what they do now, but certainly, he always thought i'm
smarter than barbara, and i think he had a lot of strong women and preferred to have strong women because he did not feel there was a competition, that basically they had known he was superior to them by nature of his gender. so, where he had more weak people on the male side, his women were very strong and feisty, and they stood up to everyone, but not him. >> it's really fascinating. congresswoman mia love, i know that nancy pelosi is not a member of your party. she's now the house speaker. but how did you take this sort of showdown? >> well, i can tell you that both sides actually made some pretty big mistakes, and i can tell you, the president from the very beginning, when it comes to the campaign trail, saying that he was going to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it. i mean, that was certainly not the approach he should have taken. he should have just gone in and talked about the importance of border security and started making his case for border security from that point on. you can see there are a lot of
even democrats that are supportive of border security. determining of what kind, how that's done is completely different. the other mistake he made was to sit down with chuck schumer and say, well, i will own the shutdown if you do not give me border security. all of a sudden, myself and all of my other colleagues were like, whoa, wait a minute, what's going on here? nobody wants to own a shutdown. so that was the other mistake he made. the last mistake that he made was to betray a lot of the gop members that stood strong and talked about the importance of border security, didn't vote for a bill that didn't have anything that included the border wall or border security, and he still opened up government and allowed that to go without any concessions. and he also, i would say, betrayed the 800,000 people that went without a paycheck for absolutely nothing. now, nancy pelosi, on the other hand, speaker pelosi has a couple of things that she has to look out for also. she has to make sure that she
keeps the promises she made. she told the american people, open up government first, and then i will negotiate border security. so, that is something that she has to look at. the other mistake i think that she made, which is a grave mistake, is not getting immigration reform out of this. now, people are looking to her in terms of tps, temporary protective status, people who are working, who have families here. they are actually due to leave the country. the president is saying you've got to go. so, there are people that are waiting for her to help them. i mean, they're here, they're helping, they're contributing, and they're people that are waiting for a pathway to citizenship, they are people that are daca recipients, that life is unpredictable for them. so, she's got some work to do. she is speaker of the house, and you cannot just be a speaker of the house and completely resist and do nothing. you've got to be able to show that you can get something done. >> all right. >> i think that there's some issues there that she's going to have to come to grips with.
>> yeah. i'm going to come back to you on that in a moment. i want to ask barbara, though, again, from knowing him and all the stuff you just told us. you know, the president called himself the dealmaker of the century. you know, this is one of the things people looked at when they elected him and what people have looked at throughout the world in the two years of his presidency. can he make a deal with china? can he make a better deal with iran? can he make a deal with north korea? i mean, it's not that hopeful if he cannot make a deal with the speaker of the house, and, well, some people have said fold or caved, with, azs mia love said, not a penny or a commitment for what he wanted most. what happened to the dealmaker? >> well, i think that he -- first of all, i don't think he admits that he caved, and i think he is trying to promote this idea that he is the person who came to the, you know, rose to the occasion and got the shutdown finished, and you know, that he understands that there
will be a deal and he will make it, and he is rattling the sword mightily right now, talking about shutting down again, which he's not going to do and everyone knows he's not. and then he's talking about doing the emergency declaration and taking funds away from the military. so, he is keeping that persona going, which i think is foolish on his part, but he's not really quite willing to admit that he is not the negotiator. well, he'll never admit it. and to be honest with you, there's no history of that. there's no documentation that says donald trump is a great dealmaker. he's made good deals. he's made bad deals. he's caved more often than i can tell you. and tony schwartz created the name "art of the deal" and made that, created that persona that trump ran with, but it's not really true. he's not a great dealmaker. he's a good dealmaker, as many other people are. pelosi is a better dealmaker. and by the way, i'm not worried about her committing to reforming the immigration.
i think that that has been on the table even with trump's latest offer, she can fold that in. so, pelosi knows what she's doing, and trump doesn't in this stage. >> it's really fascinating. mia love, i just want to ask you, because you know, you walked away. again, you're a republican, but you walked away from the president over the "access hollywood" tape. and he then said this about you when you lost in these midterms. listen. >> mia love gave me no love, and she lost. too bad. sorry about that, mia. >> what did you learn from your president through that comment? >> well, like i said, it's -- to me, i didn't know why he said it, but the only thing i can think of is the fact that, you know, these things are transactional. to me, we were doing our job. i had a prisoner that was from my state, in my district, that
was stuck in venezuela. and as you can see all of the issues that are happening, if he were in venezuela right now, i don't think that he'd be alive. so i felt like the president was, in that form, was saying that he was doing it and he was expecting something in return. i said thank you. i did whatever i could. but on the main aspect of this, i just want to say that i don't follow a person with a letter behind their name. i follow a set of principles. i follow a platform. and i think that one of the things that we need to do, if the republican party is going to continue to survive, we need to make sure that we're holding everyone accountable to that, including the president. and i can also say that i've been a republican a lot longer than the president has. so, i just want him to know that that's not -- my job is not to just walk into lockstep. the american people deserve washington that works for them, not washington that works for the white house.
and if we can return back to those principles and get back to government for people, then i think that this country will see some major differences in this country. and one more thing i want to say is we've consolidated way too much power in the white house, and this is why we're dealing with all of this. they should not be negotiating with the president. people should get together in the house and in the senate. the leaders should get together, draft their own deal, and then let the president either sign it or veto it. if he wants something different, people shouldn't be holding votes back in the senate or in the house waiting for the president's okay to sign it. they should just send it to him and stop giving him so much power because that's not the way the government was set up. >> you know, i want to just play this snippet that many people have seen, but it's about the issues, and that is when nancy pelosi and chuck schumer were in the white house around this shutdown. but particularly in light of what you are saying about the need for bipartisan compromise,
particularly on immigration, let's just play this sound bite. >> i think the american people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything and that you should not have a trump shutdown. you'll have them if -- >> did you say trump? oh -- >> you have a white house -- >> i also know that nancy's in a situation where it's not easy for her to talk right now, and i understand that. and i fully understand that. we're going to have a good discussion and we're going to see what happens. >> mr. president -- >> but we have to have border security. >> mr. president, please don't characterize the strength that i bring to this meeting as the leader of the house democrats who just won a big victory. >> so, i mean, she's laying her cards on the table there, saying look, i just won. don't characterize me as being in hock to anything else. but barbara, you follow all this as well. do you think that it is going to be possible to come to some kind
of resolution on what everybody wants, and that is a proper immigration reform bill? do you think that this might lead to that, with the strength of the house right now, united house, as you saw nancy pelosi commanded, and with a necessity, i guess, for the republicans to see that their president didn't win in this round? >> i do think that there is a potential resolution out there, and i totally agree that the negotiation on these bills should be between the two houses with the president making his desires known, which is always what happens, and that's proper. but i think that nancy pelosi is not going to give him money for a wall. so, he's going to have to decide, and you know, influence his people that he will not accept anything, any bill into law that does not include a wall. >> okay. >> and i don't think that that
will work. i think at the end of the day, he should backtrack, say all i ever wanted was border security. that's what they're giving me. i'll maybe imply that there could be more money in there or that the wall could come in, and make a graceful exit. >> okay. >> that's what i hope will happen. >> i have to give one word to mia love, just one. do you think that, you know, they can be, after all of this, some kind of bipartisan immigration reform put back on his desk? >> i hope so. i really do. i think there can be. i think that he could actually get the $5.7 billion. we've already lost $3 billion just in the shutdown. there is half the wall there. so, i think that there's something that should. you know, we can come out of this. but out of that, like i said, there are some great things. i'm a daughter of parents who immigrated to this country. immigration reform is long overdue. i think there's something that both of them can get out of this, and mainly, the american people will win. >> and on that note --
>> but if they continue to do that, then no one will win. >> yep. the american people to win, that would be a good thing. mia love, barbara res, thank you so much for joining us. now from washington to wall street, we continue our conversation with the best-selling author and "the new york times" financial columnist andrew ross sorkin. in part one of his discussion with our walter isaacson, amongst other things, sorkin talked about how mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring credit cards. now he's looking at the state of the financial food chain, beginning with the backlash against globalization. >> were we wrong to think that free trade would benefit everybody? >> i think we were -- i don't think that globalization in the whole is a bad idea. i think that we misunderstood its benefits and misunderstood the allocation of how those benefits would get allocated. and therefore, then you have to rethink a little bit of the system.
and then that goes to taxes and goes to where people are domicile. i mean, there's lots of ways to get at this to quote/unquote fix it. the scary part is i don't think that there's a fix, a true fix that gets you back to this 1950s-'60s american dream "leave it to beaver" idea any time soon. >> but trump thinks that tariffs and stricter trade deals will do it. do you think there's some truth to that? >> look, i actually don't disagree that we have had an unfair trade practice with china, especially when it comes to ip and other things for a very long time, and there is some interest in trying to fix that. the question, of course, is how do you fix it? what's the approach more than just let's fix it and it doesn't matter how we do it. so, i think there are real issues that you would like to solve to some degree. but the other piece of this is, it's not that, you know, nike or
apple is going to somehow leave china immediately and somehow bring all of their manufacturing back to the united states. you know, brooks sneakers is now looking to vietnam. they can still go to the lowest cost provider. it just may not be china. and when you don't think about the world in a multilateral way, but only in a bilateral way, i think you miss the other pieces of the puzzle. so, it's not so clear to me that somehow we're going to bring all of these jobs back here, and i do think that the transition cost and expense of this battle is real. >> what's happening with apple in china? and do you think it's a symptom of something larger, either for apple or for the tech industry globally? >> well, i think apple and tim cook made a bet, a real bet on china and a real bet on the relationship between the u.s. and china on a long-term basis when they really effectively built their entire supply chain in china, and not only built
their supply chain there, but an expectation that they would be able to sell their product there. they clearly have now come out publicly and said they're part because of sales estimates problems in china. and an apple product is a very -- it's as american as apple pie. i mean, it's become an iconic american piece, and it's unclear if you're chinese today whether that's a good thing, in the same way, by the way, that in the united states, i'm not so sure everyone would be running around buying wahwe -- huawei phones here, so that's an issue. on top of that, i think apple has another conundrum it faces, which is just the great topic we knew so much about, which is innovation, and how do you innovate, and how many great ideas does any one company or individual really have? you know, we're now at a point where instead of upgrading your phone every two years, it's going to push to three. maybe it will ultimately push to four. they've made a lot of money
every time you upgrade. what do you do about that? is there the next ipad or the next iwatch? you know, what's the next thing? is this car? all these things. and we haven't seen that sort of step-change innovation out of that company, so i think it's a combination of all of those issues. >> what's the next great innovation you would want? >> i think all of this is probably related to health and biotech, ultimately. i think what they're doing with the watch, i have an apple watch, i wear it with ekg i think is interesting. i actually think, by the way, that may turn out to be a big piece of all of this. but what do i want? what do i knwhantwant? i want siri to understand me. >> voice recognition would be a great thing if it really worked. >> what i can't figure out is why i can't say to the phone, hey, get in touch with walter, we want to set up lunch, and then it just figures it out. it has your calendar, it has my calendar. it should just be able to do that. it seems to me preposterous that we are in this day in age and of
great technology and that still requires a lot of handiwork. >> i remember the old days covering voice recognition 20, 30 years ago, and they said it's just around the corner. it still doesn't fully work. let me ask you about the disparity in compensation of ceos versus workers. that seems to have grown and grown and grown. why is that? and is that part of the problem our country is facing, too? >> i think it's a problem insofar as it creates a schism in this country. it creates a psychological schism amongst the haves and the have-nots and the feeling of a greater sense of inequality than ever before. so, that part is real. you'd ask why? part of it is that, i would argue, when most companies hire an employee, it is a market-based idea, right? i'm going to hire you. i'm thinking to myself, what is the least amount of money i can pay you to come do this job and
be happy and stay here, but i probably don't want to pay you much more than that, if i can avoid it, right? i'm not sure that that's actually the approach that boards take when they are hiring a ceo or trying to keep a ceo. it is based on a remarkable sort of netherworld of consultants and advisers and other people who keep creating comparables of how much one person's getting paid and comparing them to other person, and if this person is getting paid this, then this other person should get paid this. should they? ink there's an old boys' club. hopefully, some more girls and women will be part of that club. by the way, i think in terms of pay, there's still a remarkable pay disparity because one of the other problems is, yes, when an employer tries to hire a person and they say, i want to pay them basically as much as the market will bear but probably not much
more, if women start at a lower rate than men, how are they supposed to bring those wages up? how are they supposed to level things out? >> our country seems to be being torn apart. >> yeah. >> politically and in every other way. and you almost fear that capitalism itself is in the cross fire. >> oh, absolutely. >> between left and far right. >> 100%. >> what can capitalism and capitalists do to totally reform that concept of capitalism to make sure it survives another 100 years? >> well, look, i do think that the idea of capitalism is under fire, but the issue to me is about what capitalism is. it's the word capitalism that's become almost religious for certain people on both sides of this aisle. capitalism, i would argue, has done wonderful things on a global basis and brought so many people out of poverty. the numbers are staggering.
and yet, if somebody in china or africa has been a great beneficiary of capitalism, it is arguable also that there are certain people in developing countries who are not experiencing that in the same way, and so they look at that and they go, that's not me. i think that we have to redefine some of this little bit. it goes back to this profits, the idea of purpose, back to this idea of creating some kind of stability and less anxiety, but i think that's about politics. i think business has a role to play, but i think it really requires leadership across the board to get any of these things to happen. >> does elizabeth warren or alexandria ocasio-cortez, are they on to something? >> great question. you know, i think that there are ideas within what aoc is saying these days and ideas within what elizabeth warren is saying that do make some sense.
i think that for others, they're so extreme that they're not going to be taken seriously. look, antitrust law in the united states has effectively been diminished over the last 30 or 40 years. there's less competition. you look at the biggest companies in this country and they're bigger than they've ever been. talk about too big to fail. too big to manage, by the way, is a whole other issue. so, i think there are real things that you could do to solve some of this, but i don't think any one of them individual individually. you know, i think a marginal tax rate at 70% or 80% for the very wealthy i think is a hard one to get passed. so, but i think there's lots of different levers, and it would have to be holistic. holistic is tough. >> and you talk about antitrust. >> yeah. >> this is big tech backlash. should we have let facebook buy instagram, take over whatsapp and grow? and is there an argument that
facebook, google, amazon have now spread into so many different industries that they're suppressing competition and there's got to be more antitrust enforcement? >> so, here's the great conundrum. the great conundrum is that in this day in age of technology, scale matters. by the way, you even saw this at microsoft early on. scale matters. you want integrated products. as a consumer, you enjoy products that all work together. i think that actually matters. and then in the age of ai and machine learning, data is the new oil, right? so, the people who are going to have the most success with ai and innovation on that front need lots of data running through to be able to test out their systems. so, there's an argument that you want three or four major players in a sort of pepsi/coke-like battle. but there's also an argument to be made that the kid in their garage who built some of the last great innovations in
technologies doesn't stand a chance anymore because they won't have the same type of access to that pipeline of data, that oil anymore. so, i'm very mixed about sort of where that lands and what kinds of controls you'd want to put n these companies. if you said to me, how do you break up google tomorrow? it's not like you can just, you know, write it down on a piece of paper and say this goes over here and this goes over here and this goes over here and this goes over here. so, unlike apple -- i'm sorry, unlike at&t, with the baby belts, it was very breakupable. it was very -- >> the classic case was microsoft. >> right. >> and you just mentioned microsoft. but you also said it's really good when people bundle the products. >> it is! >> because they work together better. but what happened in the microsoft case over the years was they were barred from bundling the browser into the operating system, barred from
bundling search into the operating system. and thus, google gets to be born in the garage. >> born, right. >> are we losing that now? >> i think there's probably an element that we are losing that now. and look, the question -- but again, the question is how do you do it? i mean, that's where i come down is how do you do it? is amazon too big? amazon on an actual per-business is very small. whole foods. everyone's worried about whole foods. whole foods is very small relative to other supermarkets. books. they have a huge -- i mean, that's where they probably have the monopoly. but everything else is actually tiny, but the collective, does that change it? and so, these are the issues i think we're all grappling with. >> but one of the ways to address it is the notion that if you have dominance, you can't use that to leverage -- >> exactly. >> -- into another field. >> right. >> and that's what's been happening say with facebook. >> 100%. but the question is, are you leveraging just the fact that you've made all of this money, and therefore, you have a lot of
money to go buy other things, or are you actually leveraging -- for example, one of the things i worry about with amazon is amazon has so much information about the shopper that they are now starting to create their own products to compete with the products that are on their own platform. you know, by the way, walmart and costco have done that forever. they've had white label products. but this feels like it may be at a different level. i don't know. but these are the issues that i think we need to focus on and talk about and debate. and one of the things i worry about is that there is not enough conversation about it. >> are we due for another financial crisis and are we ready for it? >> so, jamie dimon was called in 2008 in the middle of the financial crisis by his daughter, who i believe then was in high school. and said daddy, what's a financial crisis? and he said back to her, something that happens every seven or eight years. >> look at my watch. >> yeah, look at your watch. if he's right, we're way overdue. do i think we will have another
crisis of some sort? absolutely. will it look like what happened in 2008? in my mind, absolutely not. it could be better. but by the way, it also could be worse. the one thing i feel like was the lesson for me in the financial crisis and in writing "too big to fail" was that every financial crisis is really only the function of one thing. it's debt. it's leverage in the system. you can have all the bad actors you want doing all the bad things that you can imagine, whether it's credit rating agencies being conflicted or bankers being greedy or regulators not mining the store, or you name it, but unless there's leverage in the system, it doesn't matter. and so, you say to yourself, okay, where's the leverage now? well, there's corporate leverage. that's real. i don't think we have it in the banking system so much, but where's the real debt? where's the real leverage? when i wrote "too big to fail," we used to use that phrase in the context of banks. today we use it in the context of countries! and when you talk about the relationships between countries, the fact that china, for
example, owns so much of our debt, that's where all of this gets really interesting, interesting in a bad way, i hate to say. >> and so, what should we do? >> to me, the long-term thing that we need to fix way beyond the corporate system, but the corporate system is obviously a huge piece of it because it pays the taxes and it creates real revenue for the country, is we need to somehow fix the larger debt problem in the united states at a country level. that's a hard one. >> andrew, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, walter. appreciate it. >> and on that note, that is it for our program tonight. thank you for watching "amanpour & company" on pbs, and do join us again tomorrow night. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com uniworld is a proud sponsor of "ammar pour & company." when bee tollman's 60-year
culinary career began, she didn't know the recipes from her cookbook would make their way to her river cruise line. uniworld. bee's locally inspired cuisine is served while cruising through europe, asia, india, and egypt, because according to bee, to travel is to eat. bookings available through your travel adviser. for more information, visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by -- rosalind p. walter, bernard and irene schwartz, sue and edgar walkenheim iii, the cheryl and earl millstein family, seton melvin, judy and josh weston, the jpb foundation, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
>> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with bill griffeth and sue h the case for raising rates has weakened somewhat. >> hikes on hold. that's how some are interpreting the federal reserve's pledge to be patient when it comes to raising interest rates, and the dow reclaims 25,000. blowout quarter. boeing reports strong results and books $100 billion in annual sales for the first time in it's 102-year history. house hunters hibernate. a new measure of sales falls to a five-year low sending a shiver through the real estate market. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for this wednesday, january 30.
IN COLLECTIONSKQED (PBS) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on