Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Trump Threatens Mass Firings If No Agreement Is Reached; Hegseth Decries "Woke Garbage" In Speech To Top Officers; Interview With Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA); Denmark Bans Civil Drone Flights Ahead Of E.U. Meeting; Wealth Tax Proposal Causing A Stir In France; Pfizer Agrees To Lower Drug Prices Amid Trump Pressure. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 30, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:16]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street and as you can see here, we eke out a little gain
right at the end of the session, so the Dow will close positive. We are going to have the gavel that will bring trading to an end and a one and a
two and a one, two, three, four. SNOWFLAKE ringing the closing bell. We end the day in the green. Put it all together, those are the markets and these
are the stories we are following today.
Eight hours to go and no deal in sight. President Trump says a U.S. government shutdown is now likely.
Denmark bans drones from its airspace after a string of mysterious sightings. I will be talking to the country's Finance Minister. He will
talk about that, and, of course, the economy.
And talking of economies, economists taxing the wealthy. In France, a fiery national debate, the billionaire's Zucman tax. We have Zucman on tonight's
program.
We are live in London tonight, on Tuesday. It is the last day, September the 30th. I am Richard Quest in London. In September, I mean business.
Good evening.
The United States appears only hours away from the first shutdown of the current Trump administration. Funding is set to run out at midnight. That's
when sort of the law says they can't spend any more and there is nearly no hope of a last-minute deal. The two sides, the Democrats and the
Republicans in Congress, because it is Congress that has the power of the purse, at least in the Constitution are locked in a bitter stalemate around
the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare and the subsidies.
President Trump has repeated his threat to fire large amounts of federal workers, as he falsely claims Democrats want to give health care to illegal
aliens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, if there is a shutdown, how many federal workers do you plan to lay off?
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, it may be a lot, and it is only because of the Democrats. As you know, they want
to be able to take care of people that are coming to our country illegally, and no system can handle that.
And so we are totally opposed on that, but we can't take -- we just can't do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: The economy, of course, is normally able to withstand the effects of a shutdown, there have been many of them, but this time could be different
because the President's threat of mass firings could worsen an already fragile labor market.
A longer shutdown would have damaging effects. Generally, the estimate is each week of a shutdown removes 0.2 percent of GDP.
Tom Foreman is in Washington.
We are familiar, Tom, with furloughs when, of course, these shutdown happens. I just want to be clear that I understand. When the President
talks about mass firings, he is not talking about furloughs, is this right?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is correct. He very specifically said today, you know, Democrats need to know, we can take steps here that cannot
be reversed, and he is talking about firings, if he were to do that, Richard.
So if you look at this, you know, these things don't -- they happen all of a sudden, the effects come a little more slowly. But you can look at what
we know about what keeps running. It is a little confusing this time. In past shutdowns, we've had a big report from the government explaining what
is going to happen. This time, it has been done more agency by agency. News folks like us are scrambling to find out.
Let's look at what would keep running -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Services would all be out there. Unemployment benefits
would continue to be paid. The National Weather Service would keep operating. So we would have warnings about the big storms out of the ocean.
Government services -- the Department of Homeland Security, for example, Border Patrol, ICE -- all of that would go on, a big favorite of the
government -- of the President at least, and other essential services, essential being those that you feel like you really can't get by without.
Now, what might be affected? Well, it could still be an awful lot here. Air travel is one big concern here because if you think about this, even though
the people who handle the air for the Federal Aviation Administration, they have to report to work, they're considered essential, but they won't be
paid. They'll be told, well, you'll wait. You'll get your check somewhere down the line. That has been a real sticking point in the past, and that
could result in, you know, not the best performance on the job by some of these folks. You could have long lines, big waits out there.
Food and Drug Administration inspections could be cut back or delayed, and then a big question about the National Parks out there, monuments and
museums. There are more than 400 of these National Parks, and by one estimate, they may all be shut down. Big deal! Its fall here. Lots of
people want to go on vacation.
[16:05:10]
They want to see these things, and when you talk about monuments, that would include the Statue of Liberty, potentially out there, and I say
potentially, Richard, because again, this administration hasn't done a great job telling us exactly what's going to happen. We are having to put
it together one piece at a time.
QUEST: Yes, but Tom, President Trump is no stranger to shutdowns. Take a look.
In the first term, the government funding lapse for 35 days, which is the new record for shutdowns, beating the previous by two weeks. The dispute
was also notable for his public Oval Office dispute with Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer. They are both back up in one shape or another.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You want to put that on my --
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): You said it.
TRUMP: I will take it.
SCHUMER: Okay, good.
TRUMP: You know what I will say. Yes, if we don't get what we want one way or the other, whether it is through you, through our military, through
anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.
SCHUMER: Okay, fair now!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: So on this one, the blame game is always crucial because he or she who gets the blame will carry the public's wrath. If you have to take a gut
feeling at the moment, where is it?
FOREMAN: Well, the gut feeling is right on that divide that we have in this country. If you're anybody except the hardcore Republicans who are with
Donald Trump, you're going to say, hey, Republicans, you run the House, you run the Senate, you run The White House, if there is a shutdown, it is on
you. The great dealmaker did not make a deal. That's why we have this problem.
Republicans are betting, though, that people will say, well, all we wanted to do was a Continuing Resolution, and the Democrats got in the way because
they were fighting over this matter that they couldn't win otherwise. It is all their fault.
Here is the thing, though, Richard, in this country, even with all the cuts to the federal workforce that have happened, roughly one in 50 people has a
job tied to the federal government. That's why if you shut this down, it touches every community in this country.
QUEST: Can I just ask you, sorry, forgive me going on a frolic of mowing here. But if the Republicans have the House, the Senate and the presidency,
why can they just not ram this through?
FOREMAN: Because they have to have a supermajority to pass this. They need in the Senate an additional seven Democrats to vote with them, but again,
you could make the argument that this is the problem of having such a divided government. If everything is going to be on party lines and you
don't have a supermajority, you're always going to have a giant burn down the House fight over every issue compared to if you actually tried to work
with people and talk it over.
And drawing these hard, hard lines and saying, I dare you to step across it is really proving disastrous for this country.
QUEST: What a very novel thought that you might actually compromise and do it. There we go. Thank you, Tom. Good to see you as always. Thank you.
QUEST: Now, the other big story I am watching for you out of Washington, just outside of Washington actually, President Trump has told U.S. top
military officers that U.S. cities could serve as training grounds for their troops.
The President was speaking to hundreds of generals and admirals who had been summoned to a base in Virginia. The President reiterated plans to send
National Guard to Chicago.
It followed an emphatic speech by the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF WAR SECRETARY: This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically
correct and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in
dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris.
As I've said before and will say again, we are done with that (bleep).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Well, fruity language, not the sort of language that one often hears amongst the heather, as they say.
Major General Mark MacCarley is with me. The generals sat there in silence. First of all, most of them probably were half asleep because they were jet
lagged from coming from other parts of the world. What was this all about?
MAJOR GENERAL MARK MACCARLEY (RET), U.S. ARMY: Well, the best thing I can say, Richard, on its face, you could consider it an opportunity to inspire
and an opportunity on the part of the Secretary of War to motivate.
I will say that during all my career as a general officer, I never had an opportunity to come that close to the President of the United States. So
for those who have traveled at great cost to our nation, they did have the one instance, perhaps in their entire careers, not maybe the four-star
admirals and generals, but certainly those of us who, as generals were at a lower position, they can meet the senior leadership of the Department of
War and of the United States of America.
[16:10:20]
QUEST: When he says, the Defense Secretary -- when he says the diversity is a weakness, we could arguably say one way or the other, its gone too far,
one thing or another. But is the general view amongst the upper echelons, is that a prevalent view that diversity amongst the ranks all the way up is
a weakness? Not so much, never mind how it might have been gone wrong in recent years, the core concept of diversity.
MACCARLEY: You know, when I was in the service, which perhaps about eight years ago, if I calculate correctly, we didn't really use the term
diversity or DEI, and perhaps, that is what has caused the challenges that we are facing now.
For those of us in leadership positions, the key was we wanted, the administration at that time and at any earlier time or later time to
appoint the very best and most capable warfighters, and let's just get down to brass tacks, gunfighters, who can fight and prevail in the contested
world environment, in which we see ourselves today.
And the decision and the discriminator in the appointment to these senior positions should have nothing to do -- nothing to do with somebody's race,
gender or ethnicity. It is all about whether you could get the bloody job done and do it effectively to take care of your country. That's the key.
Eliminate the term "diversity."
QUEST: So when you hear -- I mean, there will have been people in that room who agree and those who don't agree with the overall tenor of what the
Secretary or the President was saying, but when they say -- he said, in good conscience, be honorable, leave the room and quit. Will that have put
a chill of fear into these men and women?
MACCARLEY: A quick answer to an appropriate question is yes, heck yes. On the other hand, I just wanted to add, this is not the first administration
which has taken aggressive stance toward its senior military leaders. Now, I don't like to dwell in history, but just to touch upon one President who
is uniquely admired, that's Abraham Lincoln, during his tenure as commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces during the Civil War, he fired for
both political reasons and operational reasons, basically incompetence. He fired seven different senior officers who at that time leading the Army of
the Republic.
He fired again, both because they didn't know what they were doing. They lost battles. They didn't have enthusiasm or the war fighting enthusiasm,
or with a gentleman by the name of John Kay, they fired him because of his political views. So this isn't the first time.
QUEST: I am grateful to you, General.
We will talk more about this, particularly as it proceeds. I need to hear your forthright, robust views, I think is a good way to put them. Thank
you, sir. Good to have you on the program on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
MACCARLEY: You bet. Thank you.
QUEST: Congressman Scott Peters is the Democrat on the House Budget Committee. More robust views, Congressman, from yourself.
Well, before we get on to budgetary matters, what do you make of this idea of a male persona for the military Department of War, diversity out. As the
Secretary said, diversity is a weakness. Before we talk matters of money, matters of defense. What do you make of it?
REP. SCOTT PETERS (D-CA): Well, I think that the gentleman you just had on, the General had it right. We want the people who are best for the job. And,
we -- you know, we had a situation where in the past, maybe everyone wasn't able to compete, so we want to make sure we had a wide competition for
those positions and I am not sure that's what Secretary Hegseth is after, but certainly we want the best people in job and his obsession with getting
rid of talking about diversity, I think, is a distraction from the job, which is a military that keeps us all safe.
QUEST: Let's talk matters of money. Its highly likely now that a shutdown is going to happen and it is possible that the Democrats are going to get
the blame for it. You're going to have to be -- you're shaking your head already. You're going to have to be nimble if the blame game parcel is not
to end up in your hands.
[16:15:10]
PETERS: Richard, Donald Trump was quoted in 2003 saying about President Obama, "a shutdown falls on the president's lack of leadership. He can't
even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the President is weak."
This is Trump's shutdown. Until yesterday, he did not -- the supposed dealmaker, he touts his ability as a dealmaker, he didn't even reach out to
Democrats to talk about what might get us an agreement? I have been here now -- this is my seventh term. We've been through these times before.
The President and the leaders of the opposite party always sit down in the past and make a deal. If Donald Trump is such a dealmaker, what is going
on, President Trump? I mean, this is on Donald Trump, by his own words.
QUEST: But at some point, do Democrats -- I know you don't want a shutdown, but taking a firm line, taking a firm line on the principles you stand for.
I mean, the last time this came up and the Senate then and Chuck Schumer sort of gave in, he was roundly criticized. Do you think now you have to
stand firm, even if there is a shutdown?
PETERS: We were all elected in the House of Representatives on the same day as Donald Trump. We have a role in Congress, and he needs our votes. You
know, typically that would drive someone who understands leverage to the negotiating table. That's all we are asking from Donald Trump. we are
really concerned. Tomorrow, Richard, people are going to start getting notices that their insurance premiums are going up for health care because
of the failure of Republicans to agree to extend certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act under President Obama. We don't want that to happen.
That's also why we can't wait.
We can't wait -- just to kick this off for another few weeks until Thanksgiving. We've got to deal with this now, and we have a job to do as
Democrats. We are -- you know, we are a part of this government, too. And I think President Trump needs to come to the table.
QUEST: Does it worry you that there a perception -- I've been traveling around Europe this week, and there is certainly a perception that Democrats
are still lost in the wilderness. They still haven't fully worked out the way forward after the electoral drubbing, and who the leader is that is
going to be the standard bearer, and I don't mean presidential candidate per se. I mean who is at the front? Who are you following over the hill?
PETERS: Look, I believe that will shake out over time. I don't think, you know, we have a presidential candidate a couple of years, that person will
be dubbed our leader. But right now, we are leading with our values and our priorities. Health care is one. The cost of energy is one. And we are all
working to make sure that we get good answers for the American people.
So we will let that be our leadership. It will come -- it will come in numbers, and we will worry about elections later. But right now, we've got
to save health care for a lot of people who face losing it.
QUEST: I've got -- you can't see, but I have got on the screen in front of me seven hours, 42 minutes to the shutdown. It is going to be very
difficult to avoid it now, isn't it?
PETERS: I agree, unfortunately, I think people are going to feel the effects of it and I do believe that as people start to feel the effects of
it, not get paychecks, see disruptions in service, that we will be called to the negotiating table and Democrats are ready. A lot of us are in
Washington, D.C., we are ready to go, and we expect the same from the President and hopefully soon.
QUEST: You know, as they used to say, you'll know the phrase, Congressman, it is no way to run a railroad, as they used to say in previous days.
Thank you for joining us tonight. I am grateful for you for your time. Thank you, sir.
PETERS: Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: Thank you.
Now we have a great drinking game on this program. It is called the Draghi Report, every time you say the word the Draghi Report, you have to take a
drink. Well we've mentioned Draghi so many times on this program, the idea is getting people to invest in Europe. I will discuss the E.U.'s plan with
the Danish Finance Minister who is there. He doesn't have to take a drink every time we say Draghi, just those of us here, but he will be with us
after the break. Exactly how far are we to the Draghi Report?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:07]
QUEST: The Danish government is worried that something is rattling over the skies of Denmark. The country has been rattled by mysterious UAV sightings,
which have forced airports to temporarily close. Denmark is hosting an E.U. meeting on defense on the war in Ukraine tomorrow, so the government has
banned civil drone flights until Friday.
Europe, on the whole, is on high alert because of the string of drone sightings. Poland and Romania say Russian drones recently violated their
airspace, which the Kremlin denies.
European leaders are also working on spurring investment in the E.U. It is considered a key to making the bloc more economically competitive. Brussels
has unveiled the next stage in its Savings and Investments Union. Part of that is financial literacy, and the E.U. is proposing tax incentives to get
people to invest their savings.
Part of the E.U. presidency and the Danish presidency of the E.U. is underway at the moment. Nicolai Wammen is the Danish Finance Minister. He
joins me now from Copenhagen.
Minister, grateful for your time tonight. Thank you, sir. Let's talk -- we will do the drones a little bit later.
NICOLAI WAMMEN, DANISH FINANCE MINISTER: Glad to be on your show, Richard.
QUEST: Let's just talk about the changes that have taken place. The simplicity, if you will. The market accessibility, the general public
market access and the changes that are now being put in place. In other words, the implementation of Draghi. How far are we moving in that
direction?
WAMMEN: Seen from my point of view, not fast enough. The Draghi Report was a significant wake up call for Europe and for the E.U., and it sends a very
clear message. We have a lot to build on, but we do not have a lot of time to do so and therefore we have to get more investments in the E.U. We need
to cut red tape. We need to increase our competitiveness because we are in fierce competition with the rest of the world.
So when we are to invest in Europe in the coming years and also the E.U. budget, we need to make a budget for the future, not for the past if we are
to deliver on many of Draghi's recommendations.
QUEST: You see, the problem is that even in previous times, the E.U. would be almost sclerotic and slow at moving. But you've now got an
administration in Washington that's making it up as they go along, and they are making it up so fast, and the E.U. with its try this and this council
and that meeting simply isn't responding fast enough.
[16:25:00]
WAMMEN: Well, the Danish presidency have competitiveness as one of our main objectives during our tenure. And I also know that the E.U. Commission
President, Ursula von der Leyen is very engaged on this subject, and so is the rest of the E.U. institutions. So there is a lot to build on, but we
need to increase speed because time is not our friend here and we see a Europe where of course, the decision making is much more difficult than in
many other countries.
On the other hand, we also have a huge potential that we just need to unfold, and that goes for public investments. But as Draghi also
recommends, it especially goes for private investment, so we need to make it more interesting not only for European companies to invest in Europe,
but for the rest of the world as well.
QUEST: But can I give you an example? Just reading about the things in the new $2 trillion budget, which is for the next few years. Youve got, for
example, the Horizon Europe, the Innovation Fund, the Connecting Europe Facility. You have the ETS, you've got the CBAM-based resources, the
Corporate Resource for Europe, the core -- and on and on and page after page.
I mean, I am interested in this sort of stuff and I am bored rigid.
WAMMEN: Well, you know the E.U. budget is a very, very complicated story, and the truth is that we need to make a budget for a seven-year period,
which in itself is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances. This time, we have to do it in a very fast moving world and what is very
important and seen from the Danish President's point of view, besides competitiveness, is also, of course, investing in security for Europe and
supporting Ukraine to take some of the main issues at hand.
So yes, you can mention a lot of programs and there are more than you can count in the E.U., but there are also some very important issues where you
need to focus and seen from our point of view, we need to focus more, and that is actually also part of the architecture presented by the new
commission.
QUEST: Can I just finally just on this, you mentioned security, the drones, we don't know where they are coming from. We know that they are causing
chaos and it is unlikely they're going to go away in some shape or form. It is just another example of the destabilizing forces that the West faces.
This must be a concern for you. I know finance is your area, but obviously, as a member of government in Denmark.
WAMMEN: Well, we have seen violations of airspaces over most of Europe in recent weeks and months. We have seen it in Poland, we have seen it in
Romania, we have seen in the Nordic countries. We have also seen it in Denmark, and this is a time where we need to stand very close together
within NATO and within the E.U. We have all E.U. leaders coming to Copenhagen tomorrow and we are grateful in Denmark that we are supported
with anti-drone capabilities from a number of nations right now, from the United States, from Britain, Germany, France, the Nordic countries, even
Ukraine, because everyone understands that this, as you mentioned, is not a challenge that will go away if we do not stand united.
QUEST: Minister, I am grateful to you. Thank you for joining us tonight. Beautiful city of Copenhagen. Thank you, sir.
WAMMEN: You're welcome.
QUEST: It is no secret that France has a debt problem. The public appears to be highly supportive of a tax the rich solution that is being put
forward.
With me after the break, Gabriel Zucman. There he is. Now, this man wants to tax billionaires. It is a fascinating idea. It is gaining popularity and
he is going to explain why it is different this time around, after the break, with you in a moment, Gabriel.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:38]
QUEST: So my next guest has offered a potential solution to France's debt crisis. He laid it out this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABRIEL ZUCMAN, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, PARIS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS: So what we propose very concretely is that each year billionaires should pay at
least the equivalent of 2 percent of their wealth in tax.
Many of them pay zero today so that would be like an extra wealth tax of 2 percent. Some of them pay already in income tax the equivalent of 2 percent
of their wealth. So for them, nothing more would be owed. But we think that this principle, that the very wealthiest people in society should be
subject to some floor is really important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: It is called the Zucman tax. That video there from I.E. Insights. And it would target as saying households worth more than 100 million euros.
Now they would pay -- I think I needed a bit of red on this, maybe a bit of green since we're talking about (INAUDIBLE). 100 million and you pay a
minimum of 2 percent tax on all assets, and you pay it each year.
So how many people are affected by this? Well, they say it's roughly 1800 people would be affected overall. It is not -- this is a classic tax the
rich idea. It is certainly not new, but it is becoming prevalent. So we're having suggestions of this in Spain. You've got obviously Switzerland and
you have Norway as well. They have tax on net wealth.
Even so, the governor of France's central bank is skeptical about it. He told France, too, last night that the Zucman tax is no panacea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCOIS VILLEROY DE GALHAU, GOVERNOR, BANK OF FRANCE (through translator): It must be said there is no such thing as a painless tax. There is no
miracle solution. We all dream. It is very human of a tax that would be paid by others, that would bring in huge revenues while not applying to all
our competitors. That doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a magic tax. That goes for the Zucman tax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: And yet the French seem to like the Zucman tax. 86 percent viewed it favorably in a poll commissioned by the Socialist Party. So perhaps we
shouldn't be surprised by the result. It was a rallying cry in demonstrations this month against proposed budget cuts, and the new prime
minister, Sebastien Lecornu, has since ruled out a wealth tax.
[16:35:10]
As for France's richest man Bernard Arnault, he says the whole Zucman idea would destroy the economy.
Gabriel Zucman, sir, honored to have you on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight. You are either about to destroy French capitalism or you are the savior of
the budget deficit and are going to put the things to right. I suspect you're somewhere in the middle.
ZUCMAN: Thanks so much for having me, Richard. And yes, I'm neither of these two things. You know, it's a very modest proposal which just says
that the super-rich, the billionaires, should have to pay a minimum amount of tax each year. Zero is too little. Many of them, that's what we've
discovered in recent years through research, pay very little in tax. And we have a pressing budget debt deficit problem.
And so it makes sense to ask not only those who are the wealthiest people in society, but also those who pay the least today to contribute a bit
more.
QUEST: The problem with, as you've just outlined, is really what Warren Buffett used to point out that his secretary paid more tax percentage wise
than he did. The reality is it's getting rid of the loopholes so that they would pay their proper share of tax to begin with. Then you wouldn't need
things like yours. I mean, that's really the way it goes, isn't it?
ZUCMAN: Yes. The problem is that there are so many loopholes that you can get rid of some of them. But the super-rich, they're really good at finding
new loopholes. That's why this idea of a minimum tax is powerful, because it attacks all possible forms of tax avoidance. You don't have to specify
that you're targeting this or that loophole. It just says that at the end of the day, if you're a billionaire, no matter what you do, you'll have to
pay a minimum.
QUEST: How do you prevent mission creep? So it's 100 million now. Let's drop it down to 50 million in three years' time. And before long, anybody
over five million, well, let's face it. If you're earning five million euros, you're considered rich. We better put it on you as well.
ZUCMAN: Well, most people who own five million or 10 million, they already pay more than 2 percent of their wealth in income tax. So even if we
decrease the threshold, they would not be affected. It's only people who have more than 100 million or even billionaires who pay less than 2 percent
today. And so they would be asked to contribute a bit more to reach this floor of 2 percent.
QUEST: So to -- so I understand this correctly, there's really a two-stage process here. First of all, do you meet the minimum threshold of asset
value, 100 million or whatever. And then secondly, are you currently paying less than 2 percent of your tax? Is that how it works?
ZUCMAN: Correct. And that's the small innovation relative to the wealth taxes that existed in the past. It's that this one, it would not affect
people who already pay a lot of income tax. It only targets those among the wealthiest people in society who pay very little in income tax. The other
difference with past wealth taxes are the wealth taxes that still exist today in Norway or Switzerland, is that this one starts much higher in the
wealth distribution. You need to own more than 100 million as opposed to one million in the wealth tax that France abolished in 2017.
QUEST: Right. So take off your economist hat and put on your sociologist hat, and tell me, why do you think this has really struck a chord with the
French?
ZUCMAN: Well, it's struck a chord because it's common sense idea. It's because we have this huge budget problem. And the previous prime minister
proposed to address it by getting rid of some holidays or cutting the reimbursement rate for medicine or freezing the wages of teachers.
[16:40:00]
None of that makes a lot of sense when you can get about 20 billion by taxing billionaires.
QUEST: Right. Mr. Zuckerman, when you're taxed, if your tax comes in, please come in and talk to us again about it. We're delighted to have you
on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, sir. Thank you.
Now, Pfizer has agreed to lower U.S. drug prices amid pressure from President Trump. Pfizer shares finished nearly 7 percent higher on the
deal. And there's a reason, of course, because it will give it a three-year exemption from tariffs. In exchange, Pfizer said it's investing $70 billion
more in U.S. research and manufacturing. The company agreed to sell its drugs directly to consumers on a new Web site called Trump RX.
Meg Tirrell is with us to explain this.
How does -- I live in the U.S. How does -- as you do. How does Trump RX react with Walgreens, Duane Reade, CVS and all the other sellers of
pharmaceuticals? Are they in competition with them?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't have all the details of exactly how this is going to work. But we have seen similar direct to
consumer efforts put forward by other pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly, for example. And essentially it does try to cut out the
middleman. And in this case, the insurance company and the pharmacy benefit manager. How it might involve pharmacies, you know, you typically do need
somebody to dispense the medication. Is it a mail order pharmacy? We don't know exactly how that is going to work.
But if you look at the discounts that the Trump administration is touting on these Trump RX products, and it highlighted for drugs in the
announcement today, one of which I'll draw your attention to is called Xeljanz. It's a very expensive medication for rheumatoid arthritis. And
they are saying you're going to get a 40 percent discount off the list price of this drug through Trump RX. The list price of this drug exceeds
$6,000 a month. So with that 40 percent discount, you can pay $3600 a month, presumably out of pocket.
So experts I've been talking with are saying, how is this actually going to make things more affordable for most Americans? If you have insurance, you
typically, if it's covered, would be paying a much lower co-pay.
QUEST: Meg, I'm grateful. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
TIRRELL: Thanks.
QUEST: And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Richard Quest in New York. As always, whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.
Coming up next, join me in a "World of Wonder."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:41]
QUEST: I'm Richard Quest.
We're sailing.
I love traveling the world.
Oh, that is really good.
And I'm not done yet. It's time to embrace new adventures.
This doesn't get much better than this, does it?
Seize the moment.
In this "World of Wonder."
Now look at that. Bastille Day. I love fireworks. What a brilliant, colorful, exciting (INAUDIBLE) to my visit. Now I'm ready.
It's not often I'm welcomed to a city with fireworks and the ringing of bells.
Look at that.
Of course, this hullabaloo has nothing to do with me. It is Bastille Day, a commemoration of the French Revolution. And the ringing of the bells, the
bells, the bells. Well, that's all part of the beating heart of Bordeaux.
The Grosse Cloche, the big bell. It sort of sits squat across the alleyway.
It is one of the city's most prominent landmarks. This bell tower has been standing watch over Bordeaux since the Middle Ages. It is the same bell
ringing for centuries in times of danger and celebration.
MARION BELLEVILLE, CULTURE GUIDE, CITY OF BORDEAUX: The bell is really somebody for people.
QUEST: Marion Belleville is my key to exploring this treasure.
Would you please read the inscription?
BELLEVILLE: Oh, yes. (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I call to arms.
BELLEVILLE: (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I announce the days.
BELLEVILLE: (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I give the hours.
BELLEVILLE: (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I chase away the storm.
BELLEVILLE: (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I ring for the holidays.
BELLEVILLE: (Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: I cry out against the fire. Wow.
Gosh, it's exciting, isn't it?
(Speaking in Foreign Language).
QUEST: Oh, wow.
JAMES, CAMERAMAN: What is up there?
QUEST: Well, that's where we're going.
James is with me all the way, and both of us are taking on a Medieval workout to reach the bell.
BELLEVILLE: It was built in the 13th Century where -- when they built big city walls. And we have a lot of inscriptions, you know, engraved on the
walls. There is 1711 up there.
QUEST: 1711. Today we'd call that graffiti. When it was written in 1711 suddenly it's art and history.
This tower served as an entrance to the once walled city. Oh, and it was something else.
BELLEVILLE: This is a 15th Century door, and there are two doors for the jail.
QUEST: Oh, wow.
BELLEVILLE: So the first one and then a second one.
QUEST: Look, James, look at this. So this was the jail. What would you get locked up in here for?
BELLEVILLE: Crimes. Bad crimes.
QUEST: Gosh, isn't it fascinating?
JAMES: At least they have the exit sign. That's nice.
QUEST: Thank you, James.
Jimbo, never short of the one-liners.
Needless to say, I've lost track of how many stairs.
Nearly there.
This is very, very exciting. Ah, here we are.
[16:50:02]
I see the bell. There is the bell.
JAMES: La belle?
QUEST: La belle.
This is the same bell that's been ringing since 1775.
BELLEVILLE: If you want to call her by her name, it's Armande-Louise. Yes. She has a name. The Bordeaux people were very attached to this specific
bell. It's really part of the -- of the life of the city.
QUEST: Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
All of this is exactly the sort of experience I've been hoping to find in Bordeaux.
The beauty of being here is this is a place that celebrates the quality of life. But you can translate that right the way through the life of the
region. Cookies, sugar noir, from the food to the pace of the life.
I got some cookies.
JAMES: Looks very sugary. Buttery. Look at that. Oh, my lord.
QUEST: No one is forcing you to eat it.
JAMES: Well, I did.
QUEST: The delicious art of living. The French make it seem so easy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The Miroir d'eau. The Mirror Lake. Leave it to France to turn a plaza into both an art installation and a moment to savor.
I wish I could do that.
JAMES: What's that?
QUEST: Throw caution to the wind. Roll around in it.
JAMES: Incoming.
QUEST: It is the world's largest reflecting pool. Though it seems at the moment to be serving a different purpose.
It's a paddling pool, James. It's a paddling pool. I mean, it makes me want to do that with leaves.
This water feature runs through a cycle. The plaza fills, it drains, and then creates a reflection.
It's definitely -- it's draining now. Look.
JAMES: Yes.
QUEST: That's starting to look like quite a good --
JAMES: That's a mirror.
QUEST: It's a mirror.
JAMES: Oh, that's the shot, Rich. Look at that.
QUEST: James, we are grown adults getting excited by some water that's been put on the pavement. And splashing around. It doesn't take much to keep us
in.
JAMES: No, it doesn't. No. To be young, yes?
QUEST: Yes, I agree.
When most people think of Bordeaux, they think of wine. Chateau after chateau dot the landscape here. There are around 6,000 of them in Bordeaux.
And it's no wonder the weather and the soil in this region of southwest France is so good they've been producing wine for millennia.
THOMAS LE GRIX DE LA SALLE, CHATEAU LE GRAND VERDUS: We are 20 kilometers from the city, and we are in the middle of nowhere. That's the beauty of
this place.
QUEST: The thing about winemaking in Bordeaux is it's not only historic, it's generational. This is Chateau Le Grand Verdus. It's been in Thomas's
family for more than 200 years.
Wow.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: This is a family house. This is the heart of everything. It's where my grandfather was born, it's where everything
happened. Nothing changed.
QUEST: This is all built, how long ago?
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: 1579.
QUEST: 1579.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Yes. Yes. It's a fairy tale place.
QUEST: Is it difficult to keep it sort of going?
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: It's difficult. Yes. We need to sell a lot of wine. We need a hard worker like my father to maintain everything.
QUEST: Fifty years.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Fifty years married. He is the main maintenance of the chateau.
[16:55:02]
He's mowing the lawn, painting things. He's tired, but he's fan of that.
QUEST: Did you ever doubt that you were going to go into the business?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never.
QUEST: You never decided? Come on.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Sorry to correct. Sorry to correct your question. It's not a business.
QUEST: It's not a business.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: It's a life.
QUEST: Yes, I knew you would --
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: It's a life.
QUEST: Way of life.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: It's a life. It's like. It really is life.
QUEST: For the Le Grix de la Salle family, owning an award winning vineyard is only part of the story. It is a way of life.
JAMES: You have to jump a bit. Up.
QUEST: Alley-oop.
I don't have the pedigree, but I am falling in love with the idea of chateau life.
You've got the shoot that comes out of the thingamajig.
JAMES: This is last year's shoot.
QUEST: How old are these vines? So what will happen to this thing next year? What grape is this?
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: This is merlot. Merlot is the essence of wine in Bordeaux. It's the most historical.
QUEST: What machinery are you allowed to use?
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: For the leafing, the best is a hand.
QUEST: You don't seriously go along this.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: It is very -- it's very precise.
QUEST: You don't go along this whole thing by hand.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Of course we do. Yes, yes, yes.
QUEST: Are you barking mad?
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: No. It's true.
QUEST: I think you know I don't drink alcohol. But they told me that's not a problem. It doesn't matter. I can still put my novice abilities to the
test. Not by tasting, but by smelling.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Bubbly from Bordeaux. This is made of black grapes. But look at the color. Go for it. Tell me what you think.
QUEST: I couldn't describe it.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: So now we go into Sauvignon Blanc. So this is a local Bordeaux grapes, born here.
QUEST: I like that.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: This is --
QUEST: (INAUDIBLE).
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Yes. Apple. Citrus. Our oldest grapes of Semillon, 80 years old.
QUEST: Yes, it smells a bit old.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Yes.
QUEST: So round one went very well. Round two gets trickier.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: I give you the three bottles and you put them in the right order, right?
QUEST: That's the sparkling.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: You would be a very good taster.
QUEST: That's the nutty.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: Nutty one is a Semillon.
QUEST: And that's the --
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: The fruity one. Yes, Sauvignon.
QUEST: The fruity one. That's what I think anyway.
LE GRIX DE LA SALLE: He is good.
QUEST: Look, the French, they are not embarrassed to say that the good things of life have to be enjoyed, savored and just lived.
Bordeaux is so much more than just the wine. It's the joy of life. Joie de vie.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
