Published January 24, 2017
DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.
Was Donald Trump right about China?
Dagen McDowell: Donald Trump repeatedly warning America about being tied to China. Now that we're seeing worries about China wreaking havoc on our markets, is he right? Hi, everybody . I'm Dagen McDowell in for Neil Cavuto. To Ben Stein, Charlie Gasparino, Adam Lashinsky, along with Katie Halve Lich and Scott Martin. Neil and Charles will be back next week. Scott, right here, right now. Trump right about china?
Scott Martin: So far it looks like he is, Dagen. If you've been watching any of the volatility in your 401(k) this past week or in your investments, is directly related to some of the issues going on in China. This isn't out of the blue, though if you look at commodities, of which China is the world's largest commoditizer or least the buyer of, guess what? They have tanked in the last year or so because demand is falling, china's economy is in big trouble. They have benefited, though, from a peg to the U.S. dollar. So while their currency should have been appreciating all this time, it's even lower
Ben Stein: You're being kind, Dagen. We love China. They sell us quality goods at low prices. We get the best of electronics with their low-wage labor and low prices. They buy our bonds with their surplus in trade. They support the dollar in every way. They are the best friend of the American consumer and they have free markets. Those markets have done incredibly well in the last several years. Recently they've done a significant correction, but overall they've been a great boom to U.S. investors. I think China is our friend. We don't want them waging war. We don't want them seizing territory. But economically china has been an incredible boom to the United States of America.
Charlie Gasparino: Ben is right on all the economic issues. Let's get back to the original thing. Donald Trump called this. Donald Trump called nothing. Donald Trump didn't predict the Chinese stock market collapsing. Donald Trump did not predict the Chinese GDP would go from 8 percent to maybe 5 percent depending who you speak to and if you believe the numbers coming out of the country because they don't use generally accepted accounting principles. All Donald Trump did was say let's fete into a trade war, Chinese leaders are more cunning than our leaders, and, you know, let’s slap some sanctions on them.
Katie Pavlich: I think that if people are concerned whether you're pro-China or anti-China, if you're concerned about the way China is affecting your own 401(k), we have to look at the bigger picture as a country. The fact is we do owe a lot of our debt to china and have no plans to really pay it off anytime soon.
Adam Lashinsky: What I will say about the statements that Donald Trump is making and where I totally a free with Charlie is they are ignorant. They are ignorant statements by somebody who is trying to be a populist who probably doesn't even believe what he is saying; because we take money from China and we use it to fund our economy. It's a very good deal for us. We should be very pleased that they're investing in the United States.
Iran nuclear deal
Charlie Gasparino: You know, listen, every Democrat from New York -- almost every Democrat is against this deal. This deal looks increasingly suspicious. I don't have a problem in a theoretical sense engaging with Iranians. It’s a very secular country aside from the minority of the mullahs who run it, you know, but it is the mullahs. And here's the thing I have a problem with. This is the Obama administration. Can you trust the Obama administration to make sure a deal gets enforced right? And now we hear that the U.S. taxpayer -- I mean $10 million is not a lot of money in the scheme of things in our budget, $18 trillion economy, but, you know, it's the thought that counts here.
Katie Pavlich: And to Charlie’s point, you know, the president, when he announced this deal, specifically said this deal is not based on trust, it's based on verification. As we go through the deal and look at the detail, it's actually the exact opposite of what the president says. It's all based on trust and not verification. The Iranians will be doing their own sampling. We won't have 24/7 inspections like promised earlier this year by the White House. And the Americans, paying for this, the majority are against the deal. Earlier this week we had 200 admirals and generals sending a letter directly to President Obama saying this is a bad deal, you had just a couple weeks ago veterans against the deal coming out with these powerful advertisements showing American soldiers who are over in Iraq who are blown up or killed by Iranian bombs. So, you know, the verdict is in on the deal. It's bad one. Now people will be paying for it with their wallet.
Ben Stein: Obama in terms of the Iran deal disgust me, frightens me, terrifies me. No redress. $10.3 million as Charlie said is a drop in the bucket. Real cost is going to be when the first nuclear bomb, god forbid, falls on Tel Aviv. That will be the real problem. God help us with this deal.
Adam Lashinsky: $10 million is nothing to pay for something that is going to work if it's going to work. I personally am glad that the founding fathers set up a system that didn't take into account if what 58 percent of the American people said in a poll. We'll go to Congress on this and Congress will decide whether or not to pass it.
Scott Martin: Here's the big point, guys. We already fund 25 percent of the IAEA's budget. They want another $10 million today, might want another $10 million tomorrow, the next day, the day after. We can't send Americans to the inspections. We can't even be there when they take the freaking photographs of the enrichment or non-enrichment, so to speak. This is a terrible deal, it won't be enforced right. We're saying let's just get It through congress so Iran is happy with us because they'll make a deal with us.
Moving Gitmo prisoners to US soil
Katie Pavlich: We shouldn't bring terrorist whose are foreign enemy combatants into the United States. Why aren't we putting them in Nancy Pelosi’s backyard? We should be expanding Gitmo and be using enhanced interrogation techniques to protect people here at home. By the way, if they're going to put them into our prison systems here on our homeland, put them in general population. Let's see how it goes.
Charlie Gasparino: It boggles the mind why we need to bring them here.
Ben Stein: Well, this is another like Iran. Why does president Obama want it so badly? Because at least in my view he wants to get Guantanamo Bay naval base back. One socialist to another.
Adam Lashinsky: If the governors of South Carolina and politicians in Kansas, South Carolina, don't want military bases in their states, we can always defund them.
Scott Martin: That's exactly what the left does. You dangle money and you take it away if they don't agree without. You don't want these prisoners, these detainees, their infrastructure, and their families and certainly, look, going forward Gitmo should be expanded. Katie is right. It was a success. We got good information out of it.
Scott Martin: In times like these you got to stick with businesses that have a lot of cash in their balance sheets and tried and true businesses. That's Google.
Adam Lashinsky: Vanguard small cap value. One advantage to this primarily focused on the U.S. not internationally.
Ben Stein: Spyders we love them they are safe.