Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Broadcom Shares Fall Amid Lingering A.I. Worries; "The Digitalist Papers" Volume Explores Benefits, Risks Of A.I.; New Photos From Epstein Estate Show Trump, Bill Clinton, Others; King Charles Reveals He Has Responded Well To Cancer Treatment, Says Regimen Can Be Reduced In The New Year; United States Sanctions More Venezuelan Shipping Companies, Vessels; Reviving India's Water; New York Restaurant Adopts Pay-What-You-Can Model. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 12, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:17]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. Harlem Globetrotters ringing the closing bell.
There you are. I think I've seen them before on the balcony, but good to see them again. And the market has been down right the way through the
session, except for that little bit of green at the start. We will get into all the details. Come on. This is going to be a good gavel.
Yes! Oh well, there we are. They were good gavels good gavels trading over, hundred-year tours and the market is off. Let me show you the triple stack
quickly before we go to our headlines. You'll see the worst of the session. It is the NASDAQ off one-and-a-half percent plus and I will tell you why as
we look at the headlines.
Broadcom shares sinking on concerns about the company's outlook and that's the wider selloff that you just saw then in the market.
King Charles has shared good news with the public. His cancer treatment will be reduced in the New Year and he is calling on many to get early
testing.
And Mark Bittman is with me, the renowned food writer has a new restaurant with tiered pricing. The more you make, the more you pay.
We are live tonight in New York. It is Friday, December the 12th, end of the week. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening.
We start with the A.I. angst that's gripped Wall Street this week. A dismal end for some of the biggest names in artificial intelligence. Today it was
Broadcom the focused. The chipmaker fell more than 11 percent after it warned in earnings of slimmer margins on its A.I. sales. AMD, Oracle and
NVIDIA also down. NVIDIA down over three percent.
And that of course as I just showed you, it took the NASDAQ lower. The broader market was off, but the NASDAQ suffered the most.
Anna Cooban is with me.
How much would this, as individual stocks rose? How much is general malaise? Canary in the mine. The usual stuff.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, Richard, I think this week has showed us, if nothing, that investors are highly nervous and
that they are really hypersensitive, I think is the better term for that. Hypersensitive to any sort of sign of weakness in the A.I. market, because
these companies, which have seen falls this week Broadcom, Oracle, they actually doing pretty well.
I mean, Broadcom today we have seen it book revenues of over $18 billion, actually beat revenue expectations in the last quarter. Oracle yesterday
slightly missed revenue expectations. The operative word here being slightly. It still booked $16 billion worth of revenue. So these are well-
performing companies in terms of their sales.
But investors are worried about what might be coming down the line. They're worried in Oracle's case about high levels of debt, a lot of that going
towards building out these A.I. data centers; worries around Broadcom, around squeezed margins. Really the word here is hypersensitivity.
QUEST: Right.
COOBAN: Investors are feeling at the moment.
QUEST: Right. But what is the fear. Is it that the profits won't arrive or that not everybody will share in them or it is going to take a great deal
longer to get there or tick all the above and more.
COOBAN: Really, it is all of the above, Richard. I mean, one of the darlings of this A.I. space, OpenAI, you may have heard of it, the maker of
ChatGPT yet to turn a profit and that's got a massive partnership with Oracle with many of these other companies. There are also concerns that
many of these deals, even though they are between a lot of these very, you know, well-performing companies, they are all very circular, all very cozy.
Essentially, many companies are investing in their customers, and so the concern is, is that in one quarter, one of them does particularly badly,
there will be a contagion and a mass selloff of all these companies.
QUEST: Right. But the phrase that we've used, you and I before is logical bubble and that there is rationality or there is irrational bubble in the
market, there is rationality behind this.
Mohamed El-Erian, amongst others, believes that, you know, yes, you could argue that it is a bubble, but that there is logic behind it. This, Anna,
as we are going to be talking in a moment, the revolution in economies is happening now.
COOBAN: This is logical in the sense that A.I. is a proven technology in many respects. You know, a good parallel is the dot-com bubble that we were
talking about yesterday. No one would tell you that the internet wasn't a revolutionary technology, that it didn't have legs in the late 90s. And I
think that's where we are with A.I. right now.
We know that it works for many people. I mean, just looking at people in my life, everyone is using all of these different chat bots. Many businesses
are incorporating it into their processes. But that doesn't mean that every company that is using it or claiming to develop systems is going to be
profitable.
QUEST: Anna -- Anna Cooban in London, thank you for staying late this evening and doing duty for us tonight.
[16:05:10]
The market's move come as investors, the whole A.I. and how it fits the economy. President Trump has made it clear, he signed an Executive Order to
block individual U.S. states from enforcing their own regulations, on A.I.
A.I. seems to be setting the stage for a change comparable to the industrial revolution. The Stanford Digital Economy Lab has published a
collection of 21 essays exploring the implications of all of this for the global economy.
Erik Brynjolfsson is the director of the lab and professor of Stanford's Institute for Human Centered A.I.
Professor, now, you can help us understand all of this stuff because we are -- yes, put the markets to one side, the markets will go up, the markets
will go down. This is really about the productivity gains, the sea change that's going to take place in economic production. And these articles are
fascinating in that they run the gamut.
ERIK BRYNJOLFSSON, DIRECTOR OF STANFORD DIGITAL ECONOMY LAB AND PROFESSOR OF STANFORD'S INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN CENTERED A.I.: That's right. We are in
the early stages of a really big revolution. I heard you talk about the internet. That is one benchmark, but I think this is going to be
significantly bigger.
There are aspects to it, but the core technology is really already beginning to have some productivity effects and over the next three to five
years, it is going to be much larger.
QUEST: Okay. What do you expect to happen and how will we witness it? You know, the Fed meeting this week, the Fed Chair was asked about productivity
gains, economic growth, but of course, the number of new jobs hadn't gone up. And he said, well, that is part of the reason. We are more productive
with fewer -- with the same or fewer.
BRYNJOLFSSON: Chairman Powell is exactly right. You know, productivity is output divided by input, and so there are two ways you can improve that.
You could have the same amount of output with fewer workers and some of that is happening, or you could have more output with the same amount of
workers and that would be a better way that we all become wealthier without having people go out of work.
But we are having some of both happen as the productivity gains come on. A.I. is already affecting some specific areas. Coding is one of the areas
that's been affected; call centers, parts of sales and over time, it is going to spread to basically every occupation in every industry.
QUEST: How did you choose who and how to write these papers? Youve got the former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt. Youve got Anthropic's chief-of-staff
Avital Balwit, MIT's economist. So, you know a wide range of authors. Some of the, dare I say it, some of the papers are more esoteric than others.
Not to say not important, but how did you decide on the range?
BRYNJOLFSSON: Well, I got together with my co-editors Ajay Agarwal, Anton Korinek, Daniel Susskind, Sandy Pentland, and we thought about who is our
wish list. We kind of made like an A Team of who we wanted, B Team and C Team, and I was amazed, we didn't have to get past the A Team.
These were the people who are the top technologists, policymakers, economists who all contributed to this. This is actually our second volume.
The last one we focused more on A.I. and democracy. We also had a dream team for that. And this one is focused on what we are calling
transformative A.I. and the economic implications of that.
And it was very gratifying, we had our launch event yesterday and they all came here to talk about their papers. And then this book. I encourage
people to go pick it up. It is available at Amazon and elsewhere. It has got the 21 essays and what separates this from some of the other work is
they are not just the explaining what is happening, but there are also whole sets of policy implications about what we can do to help make the
transition more effective.
QUEST: As you look at the way forward now, where do you think we are in the revolution? The A.I.
You know, it is an inherently stupid question because we won't know where we are until we've actually got there and been -- and we can look back. But
just from experience of these sort of technological advancements.
BRYNJOLFSSON: Yes, it is a really important question and it is hard to know for sure, but I heard you mention earlier some of the canaries in the coal
mine that are giving us clues about where we are going and what we are seeing right now is what I call the early part of the productivity J-curve.
It often looks kind of like a J, where initially even the most powerful technologies, in fact, especially the most powerful technologies like
electricity, the steam engine, early computers, they often have this lull period where not much seems to be happening or even productivity is hurt a
bit before it really takes off.
With electricity, it took over a decade, a couple decades for that to happen. It is much more compressed this time, but were still in that early
part of the J-curve where people are kind of figuring out how to use the technology effectively.
[16:10:10]
And within a few years, we will start seeing the upward swing.
QUEST: You call it "The Digitalist Papers" which is an interesting title. You know, I immediately think of The Federalist Papers from the previous --
BRYNJOLFSSON: I am glad you do. It started with a conversation I had with Frank McCourt, and we were talking about how The Federalist Papers, you
know, they were born of a period of tremendous change as well. You know, the Industrial Revolution was just gathering steam, you know, literally,
and changing the way the economy worked.
And meanwhile, this eclectic group of thinkers were trying to lay the foundation for a new kind of democracy, a new kind of society and we sort
of, in homage to that, originally, we called it "The Digital Federalist Papers," but we decided to save a few bits and just call it "The Digitalist
Papers."
QUEST: Right. But The Federalist Papers have as their core a debate about the way in which this should be done. The strains and the possibilities,
the opportunities, but also the risks and worries. They didn't all agree in The Federalist Papers, which is the hallmark of why they are so brilliant.
BRYNJOLFSSON: Yes, and that's very much the case with this volume. We have a number of different perspectives. We intentionally got something. I wish
you could have been there yesterday for the debates. At times it got heated. I thought some of the panelists were going to break out into a
fistfight, because people sometimes have some very different perspectives, and we don't mean to have like a singular roadmap that this is what you
have to do. What we are doing is laying out some of the possibilities.
And the reality is, is that we are at a turning point right now where there are a lot of different possibilities in front of us. There is no one
inevitable future. So, we want to lay out some of those possibilities. Some of them involve more concentration of wealth and power. Some of them
involve more widely shared prosperity. And, you know, we have some choices to make.
QUEST: Professor, we will talk more and we will talk more with you as this progresses. Thank you, sir, for joining us.
Now to the saga that just won't go away for the Trump White House. We've got more pictures, new ones emerging from the very powerful figures in the
late convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. Nineteen images released on Friday by Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee
include photos of Donald Trump, obviously, before he was president, with large numbers of young ladies or young women or women, I should say.
Now, another photo shows former President Bill Clinton alongside Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently in prison, as you know, and Jeffrey Epstein, who
died by his own hand.
There are images of Bill Gates and Woody Allen and the Billionaire, Sir Richard Branson and the former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon. And let's be
clear, none of the 19 images depict any sexual misconduct or believed to depict underage girls. The U.S. Justice Department has one week left to
release the files.
Kristen Holmes joins me now from The White House.
I am sure The White House says, so what? In a sense, Jeffrey Epstein had many powerful friends. All this shows is that they were good at taking
photographs.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, essentially, yes, that is what The White House is saying and The White House is also
accusing the committee of cherry picking the photos, specifically trying to link President Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
I will note that everyone that was in those photos, everyone you mentioned there, Steve Bannon, Bill Gates, I think Larry Summers was in one of those
photos, as well as President Trump and former President Bill Clinton, those are all people who are previously known to have some association with
Jeffrey Epstein.
Again, none of them have been convicted or accused of doing anything illegal, but it is not as though there are any surprises in these photos.
So, there are going to be questions as to how the committee decided which photos to release. They only released 19 photos of 95,000 photos they got
from the estate.
We heard the head of the committee saying that some of the photos that they saw were quite disturbing. They said they were going to release more
photos, but they are protecting some of the people inside of those photos, of victims in particular, and going through and getting ready to decide
what they were going to put out.
But again, there are going to be questions about how they came to determine that these 19 photos out of these, 95,000 were the ones that they were
going to be releasing first. This is not something The White House wants to be talking about. We know that they have basically done all in their power
to get this story killed.
But now with this coming out, kind of a drip, drip fashion and of course, we know next week to be the deadline for the Department of Justice, the
story just won't go away. And as I mentioned, the committee is saying, this is just the beginning of the photos they are going to release. They do
expect to put more out there.
QUEST: I am grateful. Thank you very much indeed, Kristen Holmes at The White House. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States, the FDA
says it plans to add a warning label to COVID-19 vaccines, not just any warning label, a sort of black label, the sort of the one that they put on
edible things as well. We will get you the reaction from the medical community next. This is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. It is a Friday. I am very
glad you're with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:17:56]
QUEST: There is a nasty row brewing in Switzerland, where lawmakers are seeking a corruption investigation over gifts that were given to Donald
Trump. The President was given a gold bar and a Rolex clock by a group of Swiss businessmen.
They were in The White House as part of a meeting, gaining efforts to try to get the President to reduce the very high tariffs that he just imposed
on Switzerland. You can see the items over there on the President's desk in the days after.
Well, Mr. Trump tweeted positively about the meeting on Truth Social and indeed later did reduce the tariffs from 39 percent to 15 percent. So the
gifts, The White House says Switzerland negotiated a lower tariff rate solely because it agreed to reduce unfair trade barriers and invest in the
person. The gifts had nothing to do with it. A person close to the delegation who gave them also told Reuters the gifts were presented to the
Presidential Library in compliance with Swiss and U.S. laws, and they were cleared with The White House Ethics Council.
So Raphael Mahaim is a Swiss lawmaker with the Green Party. He is one of those calling for an investigation. He joins me now. Yes, they were above
the limit, sir. Yes, they were above the limit. But The White House says no connection. The delegation says part of diplomatic niceties, a bit more
expensive than usual. So why are you getting all hot under the collar?
RAPHAEL MAHAIM, SWISS LAWMAKER WITH THE GREEN PARTY: Well, hello. Thanks for having me. You know, Donald Trump has made acceptable what was
unthinkable some time ago and, this way, the way he behaves that forces other countries, other people to change their standards to also sometimes
break the law.
Here, we are talking about Swiss law, about corruption -- on corruption. So at some point we have to say, no, this has crossed a line. This has gone
too far.
[16:20:10]
And I believe here in Switzerland, we have reached this point. So this is why we sent a criminal complaint, a letter to the federal prosecutor asking
him to investigate and to try to determine whether, yes, this is admissible under Swiss law or whether this is not admissible, and I do have doubts
about this despite the fact that they said that was going to the National Library, because Donald Trump is well known for keeping those gifts for
himself, and not declaring them legitimately.
QUEST: Right. The clock is worth about 20,000. The gold was worth about 100,000 and the interesting thing here is it was all done in broad
daylight, in a sense. It is not corruption -- if it is any alleged corruption at all, if envelopes under the table or Swiss, pardon the
phrase, Swiss bank accounts. So I am just concerned that you're not being sort of puritanical here when, you know, at the end of the day, Switzerland
did get lower tariffs.
MAHAIM: Yes and indeed, that is true. That has been a turning point in the discussion about tariffs and this is exactly why it could be a problem
under corruption law, because bribery offenses are meant to prohibit such behaviors and we are exactly in that situation where that has been a
turning point.
But coming back to your question now, yes, it has been made you know, public and everybody saw those images. I am not so sure about that. I am
not sure, first of all, that they communicated to the Swiss government that they were making those gifts, that's the first thing. And second of all, I
am not sure they are feeling very comfortable with this, because when we launched that discussion in Switzerland, you can believe me, the Swiss
government said, we have never confirmed that this was lawful. We have never accepted this way, the way this approach, we have never accepted this
approach, because at the end of the day, what happened here is that is the normal diplomacy failed.
Our President was treated quite poorly, to say diplomatically by President Trump, and then the business leaders came and solved everything with the
gold bar and with a Rolex watch. So yes, it is quite a difficult question.
QUEST: So if I was to put you in a really difficult position, would you? Here is the toughie. Would you rather they hadn't gone and done this with
the gold bar and the clock and tariffs had remained at 39 percent, or done what they've done, and the entire country gains the benefit?
I am not suggesting, sir, that there is any corruption at all, but I am saying life is tough and if those gifts made the difference, wouldn't you
welcome that?
MAHAIM: Well, what would really make a difference would be a ruling of the federal Supreme Court in the U.S. so we are -- I mean, I am hoping that the
Supreme Court will rule on those tariffs in the coming days or weeks that would make our life much easier. That's the first comment I wanted to make.
And second, you know, Switzerland has much more to offer than gold. I mean, we have chocolates, we have cheese, we have Roger Federer.
I mean, we could have imagined other gifts than coming -- you know, I am thinking of -- those images make me think of the Middle Age. You know,
lords that are trying to obtain something from the King and they come with gold and that's not acceptable.
QUEST: Can I just turn a subject slightly? Just to ask about the Swiss economy at the moment.
How do you think it is now faring, having been -- more generally regardless -- now you've got some normal tariffs or more reasonable tariffs? Has it
recovered, the economy, you think?
MAHAIM: Well, that's a good question, a difficult question. I mean Swiss is -- the Swiss prosperity is rather good. I think we are in a rather good
position also compared to the other countries around us in the European Union, but we are worried. We are worried because of the world situation,
geopolitical situation and such trade wars as Donald Trump launched it are causing us difficulties. This is something I do not dispute.
So indeed there is -- I mean, it is a legitimate question to say what should we do to try to lower those tariffs? This is a very important
political discussion here in Switzerland. What I am saying simply is that there is a red line we should not cross and this red line has, in my
opinion, been crossed as it has been crossed. You have seen that some days ago with, with the FIFA president offering the so-called Peace Prize to
Donald Trump. I mean, this is not acceptable. At some point, we have to say this has gone too far.
[16:25:09]
QUEST: All right, well, I don't know whether you'll be in Davos in January, but if you are, I would look forward to catching up with you there and
having a hot chocolate. Thank you, sir, for joining us, very kind tonight from Switzerland.
QUEST: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration intends to put its most serious warning on COVID-19 vaccine. Its known as a black box warning, and
it is designed to list risks such as death or disabling reactions.
Opioids, for instance, they have black box warnings of abuse, addiction, overdose and death. Accutane has a warning about the risk of birth defects
if used during pregnancy.
Meg Tirrell now walks us through the implications of the COVID black box.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've learned that the FDA is finalizing plans to put its most serious warning on COVID-19 vaccines. It
is called a black box warning, and it shows up really at the top of prescribing information, outlined in a black box so that prescribers and
patients are aware of really serious risks that can be associated with products.
Typically, this is reserved for situations where a medical product might be associated with the risk of death or life threatening or disabling
reactions and really, it is there so that prescribers and patients can weigh these potential risks against the benefits of any intervention that
they are considering.
Now, we've learned that this is in the process, it is not finalized and could still change, but it comes after a memo was issued in late November
by the FDA's vaccine chief, Dr. Vinay Prasad, which claimed that the COVID- 19 vaccine has been linked to the deaths of at least 10 children.
Now, this is a claim that outside experts say they haven't seen data to support and questioned if that is part of the impetus for adding this label
to the vaccines, whether that is an appropriate course of action.
Typically, also, the procedure for something like this involves a really public process. The FDA typically, experts tell us, would let the public
know that it is weighing this safety risk, sometimes call an outside panel of advisers to meet -- to discuss the safety data and whether to add this
to the labels of a medical product. And so far, of course, we haven't seen any of that take place.
Now, we have reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which tells us in a statement, "Unless the FDA announces it, any claim
about what it will do is pure speculation. The FDA takes very seriously any death that is attributed to a regulated medical product."
We should also point out this is just the latest in a series of efforts under the Trump administration's health officials during this
administration to weaken confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been a longtime critic of the COVID vaccines
safety and efficacy, but we should also note that these vaccines were developed, tested and greenlit under the first Trump administration,
really, in a scientific feat that was so monumental that many Republicans now are calling for the President to win the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
COVID-19 vaccines are still recommended, especially for more vulnerable groups, including the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, and
also for children and babies under the age of two. All who are at a higher risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19. So there is a lot of concern that
a warning like this placed on these vaccines could weaken confidence in them when vaccination rates are already low, potentially making those
trends even worse.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: Britain's King Charles has offered a rare update on his recovery from cancer after nearly two years after the diagnosis. What he told us
that things are going well and I will tell you more after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:31:57]
QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. Together, we'll have a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
King Charles tells the public he is recovering well, and his cancer treatment is moving into a precautionary stage.
I'll speak to the good writer, Mark Bittman, on his restaurant where you pay what you can. But we'll only get to it after you have the headlines,
because this is CNN, and here, the news always comes first.
Donald Trump has announced Thailand and Cambodia have agreed to end all shooting effective this evening, he said. U.S. president wrote on Truth
Social, he spoke to leaders of both countries.
Now, Thailand's prime minister has told reporters a new cease fire has not been reached, and according to him, the fighting is ongoing.
Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi has reportedly been arrested by Iranian authorities. She was violently detained by security and police forces,
according to her foundation. Mohammadi won the Peace Prize in 2023 for her work as a human rights activist.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is back onto the front lines today, or kilometer away from Russian positions. When this photograph was taken in
this video, he thanked Ukrainian soldiers by saying, every gain they made on the battlefield is a gain for Ukraine at the negotiating table.
When King Charles has opened up for the first time about his experience recovering from cancer, the king released a video message in the last hour
as part of the U.K.'s Stand Up to Cancer 2025 campaign, and His Majesty revealed he is responding well to treatment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III, KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Today, I am able to share with you the good news that thanks to early diagnosis, effective
intervention and adherence to doctors' orders, my own schedule of cancer treatment can be reduced in the new year.
This milestone is both a personal blessing and a testimony to the remarkable advances that have been made in cancer care in recent years,
testimony that I hope may give encouragement to the 50 percent of us who will be diagnosed with the illness at some point in our lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Max Foster is with me now. Max, the king announced it was back in February, it was -- this -- he got cancer, and the treatment has been
fairly intensive. But what's your understanding of what happens next?
MAX FOSTER, CNN LONDON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the treatment continues. It's not over yet. It's just the -- according to a palace spokesman, saying His
Majesty has responded exceptionally well to the treatment, and his doctors advised that ongoing measures will now move into a precautionary phase, and
this position will be continually monitored and reviewed to protect and prioritize his continued recovery.
[16:35:05]
So, it was an update really, for the nation, but I think also in response to this outpouring of positivity he's had since he announced that
diagnosis.
QUEST: This is all about early detection, getting tested, screened for it, and it's all tied up, in a sense, with why they won't tell us what sort of
cancer he has, or criticism. You tell me.
FOSTER: Well, you know, as you know, Richard, it was very unusual to hear the king and the princess earlier talking earlier in the year that they had
cancer, because they feel they have a right to medical privacy like anyone else. But they decided to do it because they wanted to support the cancer
community, if you like, and encourage early diagnosis.
So, of course, he has the best possible medical care. He's got his own doctor with him, pretty much 24/7. And he references that he calls it a
blessing, this early diagnosis, and he accepts that he is in this unusual position, but he's trying to use it to encourage other people to go for
screenings and get early diagnosis when they are eligible, and enough people are not coming forward to do that.
In terms of why he is not talking about the specific cancer, we did get some clarity on that today from a spokesperson, saying the advice from
cancer experts is that his -- community. In that regard, it's preferable that His Majesty does not address his own specific condition, rather speaks
to those affected by all forms of the disease.
QUEST: All right. Max, I'm grateful. Thank you, Max Foster.
The Trump administration is stepping up its months long campaign on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Washington's imposed new sanctions on
shipping companies and vessels, it says, helps move Venezuelan oil. The U.S. Treasury says six sanctioned vessels have engaged in deceptive and
unsafe shipping practices that provide money to Caracas.
The, you know, of course, about the one that was sanctioned, sanctioned tanker that's already been seized just a couple of days ago. Stefano is
with us in Caracas. I can't work out where this is going. I don't mean the tankers. I mean, are we having going to have more tankers seized? Are we
going to have land action? What's the feeling in Caracas?
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN JOURNALIST: Well, yes, Richard, actually, the only thing we do know is that, that tanker is actually going to Houston. It's
going back to Texas. And we understand that the oil only to all the 1,900,000 barrels of crude oil that were on board of it will be seized by
U.S. authorities, following a legal process.
Here, one image that I've -- that I've used is that there are three different chess games being played at the same time between these two
opponents, Donald Trump and the Maduro -- the authoritarian leader in Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. We are talking about narco-trafficking and the
strategy of stopping drug trafficking using kinetic strikes in the Caribbean.
We are talking about migration. And for example, today, Venezuela is denouncing that the U.S. has unilaterally posed deportation flights back
from the United States.
The White House has denied it. We don't really understand what is going on there, but it seems like that some level of communication, perhaps, has
broken the communication that allowed in the last few weeks that despite all the rhetoric and deployment of military assets, Caracas was still
receiving about 200, 300 migrant every week coming back from the United States after a deportation process.
And then, the third issue which is at stake here, which is probably the most important of them all is oil. It's important for two main reasons. The
number one is that it's very hard to differentiate between the oil issue and the general economic issue in Venezuela when more than 90 percent of
this country's income as a whole comes from oil. It's also important to point out that if indeed the Donald Trump would block exports from
Venezuela, you can imagine that the price of the pump will grow significantly across the holiday season.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right. OK. If you go to the -- what would you say in Britain, the man on the Clapham omnibus, the man or woman on the Caracas omnibus. Are
they worried that a war is about to break out to met -- you know, actually fighting on the ground in Venezuela itself?
POZZEBON: Yes, they are worried, but they are not taking precaution to the level that you would imagine if this was happening to a country that had
not had an incredible roller coaster of political tensions and economic crisis over the last 15 years. So, one of the main questions that many
people from our audience, people commenting on my social media feed, but also our own editors, is, why don't the Venezuelans stock up on food? Why
don't the Venezuelans -- why haven't we seen people trying to get out of the country even more?
[16:40:01]
One of the main reasons is, number one, that this country is still in a deep economic crisis where more than 80 percent of population lives below
the poverty line and where the inflation is between 40 and 50 percent every month. So, people are already struggling in putting food on the table, and
don't have the capacity to print -- to prepare any action in order to avoid a -- you know, if indeed this invasion of conflict happens.
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right. Grateful to have you with us. Looks like a lovely day there, whatever the politics and geopolitics may be, at the moment.
POZZEBON: Thank you.
QUEST: I'm grateful for you. Thank you always, Stefano.
A restaurant on the Lower East Side is putting community first. It's doing so, in part, you pay what you want. Well, sort of. I'm going to speak to
the founder of the community kitchen next. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: The Indian Ocean contains the second largest concentration of plastic waste on the planet. Exactly a rousing endorsement.
Now, this week, "ON CALL TO EARTH", we join the conservation group, environmentalist foundation of India and the scores of volunteers working
to clean up India's coasts. It's all part of the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARUN KRISHNAMURTHY, FOUNDER, ENVIRONMENTALIST FOUNDATION OF INDIA: India's landmass opens up through its rivers into the ocean. All that we do on land
has its impact on the ocean. Pesticides, fertilizers, sewage, garbage, anything that we put in a lake or a pond goes to the river eventually ends
up in the ocean. So, wherever you are, you still have a connection to the ocean out there.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Indian environmentalist Arun Krishnamurthy has taken on the enormous task of restoring his country's
blighted waterways against a growing national water crisis fueled by shrinking lakes, polluted rivers, and diminishing groundwater. The impacts
ripple all the way out to the ocean.
[16:45:01]
KRISHNAMURTHY: We are at the Ashtalakshmi beach in Besant Nagar, Chennai, and the beautiful Bay of Bengal right behind us.
EFI focus is largely on fresh water body conservation. Is EFI an expert in marine conservation? No, but this is our backyard. This is where we live.
We are going to clean the shore to remove plastic, rubber, thermocol. You will find everything. This is almost like a dirty supermarket. Yes, we are
supremely grateful that each of you is here.
ASHER (voice over): More than 70 percent of India's landscape drains into this sea, carrying everything from industrial runoff to plastic debris,
from as far north as the headwaters of the Ganges, located nearly 2,500 kilometers away in the Himalayan Mountains.
KRISHNAMURTHY: The marine life does get affected. Indo Pacific humpback dolphin, the olive ridley sea turtles. Down south, we have the dugong and
the fishing community, whose local economy also depends on the ocean.
So, the bay is as important as the land mass of the country.
ASHER (voice over): These cleanups could not happen without the help of volunteers who stand at the heart of EFI's mission.
KRISHNAMURTHY: Our tagline is, "Volunteer for India and Her Environment with EFI."
100,000 to 125,000 volunteers every year across 19 states is a lot of work. To believe that these people came out there based on your invitation, their
interest, of course, is very rewarding.
GOWTHAMI ASHOK, VOLUNTEER, ENVIRONMENTALIST FOUNDATION OF INDIA: I joined EFI when I was 12 or 13. Arun Krishnamurthy came to our school, and he kind
of educated us on the topic of environment. It hit me like a truck, and that's the day I think a lot of our lives changed. And I used to not be
such an environmentalist before that, right? I used to litter the kind of trash that we used to accumulate, say, 10 years back, was way worse, but
there is still a long way to go, a lot more to do, and a long way to go.
KRISHNAMURTHY: Thanks everybody for coming today.
ASHER (voice over): Arun estimates they have removed between 20 to 40 kilograms of trash today.
KRISHNAMURTHY: If you can choose any one item that you thought dominated the beach today, take a photo of that and put it in your WhatsApp status,
Instagram, and this is what I found in the beach today. It will really help us.
ASHER (voice over): These routine cleanups serve as a reminder that their work is never finished. Every lake or pond they've brought back to life
also requires ongoing attention. It's this belief in renewal that fuels, Arun and his team, as they continue to restore India's ponds, rivers, and
lakes for generations to come.
KRISHNAMURTHY: I'm of the strong belief that nature conservation is no choice. It's no compulsion. It's common sense, and it's something which we
all should take as moral responsibility. And through participation, conservation is a possibility.
ASHER (voice over): For Arun, it comes down to one simple truth, if we all take care of nature, nature will take care of us.
KRISHNAMURTHY: Human beings and nature have to coexist. And if we just spend more time with nature, I'm sure each of us will be able to revive
that spirit and passion. We just have to look deep within.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: You know, the more I've heard from that chap during the course of the week, the more sense, the more important, marvelous stuff. And in fact,
you're going to want to see more from this weekend, it's the full documentary: "REVIVING INDIA'S WATER", and of course, it's here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:05]
QUEST: It's Friday night in New York. You might be tempted to have a nice meal out after a long week. How much you are going to spend? $50, $80,
$150, $200? I don't know.
Well, one restaurant on the Lower East Side has adopted a different model. It's the community kitchen, and it uses a sliding scale. Pay what you can.
Now, this is not unique, this idea, but it's unique the way they are doing it.
A multi course dinner has three price points to choose from, $15, $45, and 125. And the team behind the projects as they hope to create a space where
everyone is welcome.
Obviously, if you can't afford much, out of a job, whatever, then, $25, $45 if you're doing OK. $125 et cetera -- et cetera.
Mark Bittman is the founder of the community kitchen, Mark. I'm very grateful to have you sir joining us tonight. Thank you.
It's a fascinating project. How is it going?
MARK BITTMAN, FOUNDER, COMMUNITY KITCHEN: It's going really well. We've been open for three months. We have a terrific participation from community
members. We have got coming from all over the city and even from elsewhere in the country. We are getting great press. Thank you very much.
And yes, it's been terrific.
QUEST: The -- I was surprised at the range, not that the discrepancy between 45 and 125 is quite a large range, isn't it? And I'm guessing that,
obviously, there was quite a good bit of discussion on setting the price points.
BITTMAN: Yes. You know, this is a pilot. So, we are -- we wanted the low price to be really, really low, and we wanted the high price to be pretty
high.
So, setting the middle was really a matter of where we thought our food costs would be. In fact, we underestimated our food costs are higher than
that. But this is -- it's been pretty equitable, and we have patient from all three levels, pretty much equal participation if we put it on --
QUEST: What's the purpose of the whole project?
BITTMAN: The idea is really to show what food would look like in a restaurant if well-being and equity were put before profit. So, we are a
nonprofit model. And as a result, we can do a kind of ideal -- we're sourcing great food, we are paying our workers, well, it's fantastic, and
the sliding scale is obviously the guaranteed money loser.
But the point is, it can be done with investment.
QUEST: I guess not, the sort of rain on the parade. The one thing that you don't have in that calculation is the rocky -- the return on invest -- on
capital employed, because of the nature of the -- of the project. The you know, there are not shareholders to be made for the investors to make a
profit, in a sense.
Yes, you may break even, you may make some money, but you don't have to return. And I'm wondering how one could do something similar, where you did
still have to make a return on capital employed.
BITTMAN: I don't think it's possible. I think, the food system is set up to prioritize profit, and as a result, you make money, you have to cut
corners. You have to treat workers badly or cut corners on ingredients, or overcharge. And if you do one of those things, you might make money.
But if you are trying to source grade food and treat workers and eaters well and cook great food, then, it's not a money-making proposition. I
mean, I understand that, that looks like a problem, but really that is the -- that is the model.
[16:55:07]
The model is to say you can't really make money and do all these things at the same time, and therefore, in the long run -- healthy population, if we
want to treat our environment well, if you want to reduce process and serve good food, we need investment that is -- we need investment that says, we
are prioritizing the --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Right. Finally, could you see a permanent project like this setting up?
BITTMAN: Well, this, as I said, I think, I said, this is a pilot, and we are actually closing tomorrow night.
QUEST: Oh!
BITTMAN: And our hope is that we establish a more permanent, to the extent that anything is permanent restaurant the year or so from now.
QUEST: Well, just knowing the way restaurant reservations are in this city, you better put me down for reservation now, and if I'm lucky, I'll get a
reservation -- I'll get my table in 2028. Mark, it's a good to see you --
BITTMAN: E-mail me. I'll take care of you. Thank you, Richard.
QUEST: Oh! Now, that's the way life works in New York. That's the way we do it. Good to see you, Mark. Have a great weekend.
We will take a "PROFITABLE MOMENT" after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "PROFITABLE MOMENT", I was fascinated tonight to bring you the story of the Swiss gold bar and Rolex clock, which the Swiss lawmakers,
some said, are alleging, is part of corruption to try and get lower tariffs. Well, they've got lower tariffs. And now the issue is, what was
all that clock and about, and what was the gold bar about.
Let's not waste time -- too much about this. What I want to focus on is really what everybody is now saying, or a large number of people, about the
way you do business with the United States government, with the Trump administration.
Whether it's the Qataris with a 747 jet, or it's the Saudis, or any other Gulf state with a cryptocurrency project, a stable coin, or it's a gift to
the presidential museum, it's a donation to the presidential ballroom, it is a donation for free legal advice from a major law firm likes Skadden
Arps, the reality is that what is happening in this country at the moment is not normal. It's not the usual way of doing business. It has given rise
to many people saying that it is unethical and worse.
[17:00:02]
It's not for me to say one or the other. You'll make your own mind up when you put the facts in front of people. But it comes back to this oldest
adage of all that we have said here again and again on this program. Let's not try and pretend that what's happening now is in the ordinary course of
business. it is not.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I am Richard Quest in New York.
END
