tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 29, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with our continuing coverage of the encryption debate. on thursday, apple hit back at the fbi. microsoft, google, twitter, and yahoo! moved to throw their support behind apple. the fbi director james comey testify before congress, calling encryption the hardest problem i have seen in government. joining me now is max levchin. he is currently the cofounder and ceo of a firm at a financial and technology company. he is on the board of directors at yahoo!. thank you for coming.
rather than asking a specific question, let me ask you a broader question. let me ask a broader question. we've seen this coming? tell me more. >> consider the fbi director comey has advocated for essentially backdooring encryption software -- that is built into apple and other systems. that is easy. but that is a terrible idea. there are simple things to it, bad guys do not abide by our laws, good guys will weaken encryption which bad guys will take advantage of. good guys will have weak systems and bad guys will use the strongest thing they can get their hands on. off, it will be better off.
they will be better off. charlie: bad guys can be criminals and nationstates. >> anyone. anyone out to hurt us will have knowledge that we have weakened our systems and enacted laws to make sure everyone uses those. you can make the argument that will be safeguarded with legal protections, but we have seen what happened with the break-ins from target to the government break-ins in the last couple years. weakening security is a fundamentally terrible idea. security is either there or it is not. even if slightly weakened, it does not exist. this particular case is not exactly the same thing. this is a subtle, and different thing. here, the government has asked apple not just hand over data that they happen to have. they are saying we know you do not have this data, we want you to build software that opens the phone and gives data to us.
because we want to investigate a known terrorist to is obviously very bad guy. terrorist who was obviously a very bad guy. charlie: they say it is one time only and we are not trying to open the back door. we have a problem with how people interpret keywords. back door. one-time-only. precedent. max: unfortunately, the reality is that this is a complex issue. people very often do not understand the subtleties and conflate the two issues. this is a precedent and legal issue that apple and fbi are now duking out. charlie: why is that true? max: the software can be built. apple does not have it, they can sit down and held it. it will be complex, it may be a
burden, but they can do it. tim cook is saying, if the fbi can compel me to build software that basically opens up the phones of my customers, they will not stop. charlie: so apple says, we can build the software to open the phone. the fbi says, ok, open it but then destroy the software. we are not asking you to do anything else with it. we just want access to this one phone. i am keeping here for a moment the idea that someone else may come and say, i know that you destroyed that, but do it for us. we have a mass murderer. if we can get inside it will tell a stuff about what he did. max: right. the more scary wrinkle is they don't say open up the phone. they said we have a case with probable cause and a scary thing
going on. we need to turn on cameras on every laptop or every phone. charlie: are they saying that? max: no, but apple is saying if there is precedent for a government organization can say, build software to allow us to spy on their citizens, who is to say it will not happen again? they say you can compel us to do this but it has to be in the open. there has to be a law. to say, here is what goes down. charlie: this is the perfect case to decide a supreme court decision or a congressional law. max: right. there is one more thing. it is worth considering and understanding here. beyond legal precedent which apple is not saying, we build this tool and this exists. for a brief moment in time. it is a company with several
hundred thousand employees. there will be people involved. this tool is pretty terrifying and it will exist. not forever, but it will exist. who is to say as the world knows this tool is being built that you do not have every imaginable bad actor saying we will do what it takes to get our hands on the tool. as soon as we do, some other agent grabbing this tool while it is in existence, using for their own purposes. i think apple wants a legal hearing that says it must exist under the following framework of the law and that is how usage of this tool can and cannot happen. charlie: apple does not want the responsibility without somebody having said these are the rules and this is the way will do this? and this is the guideline and everybody understands that. max: i believe that is the purpose. i am obviously not authorized to speak on behalf of anyone.
charlie: i brought you here because you know and understand it very well and understand computer science very well. you spent your life there. a very different place than me. curiosity that's got me here. so then, back to this one phone. do we wait until it works its way through the court? that may take a year. do we wait for the national debate? we may or may not have congressional legislation. what happens in the meantime to the phone that has information because we know where these people were and what they were doing and it might have information to information that might lead to other plots
against america? max: this is where my emotional parent, husband, family person self and civil liberties self conflict. i ultimately hope that this propels its way to the supreme court quickly. that the supreme court tells apple, you are compelled to open the phone. i personally what to see this -- inn front of the of ei with every biti of evidence to have access to what they need. that is fundamentally important to me. on the other hand, it's critical that the supreme court say for this one phone you are compelled to open it and we have a 4-4 court which means that it does not set precedent. so if this ruling happens, this is a particularly curious time.
apple to can compel open this one phone, but it still goes in front of congress and we will still have a public debate. bad guy's phone opened by the supreme court? it is a little bit burdensome but that would ensure civil liberties. charlie: look at apple doing this. it has been reported that they are developing devices, iphones and future iphones that will even be harder to crack. max: yes. charlie: net will make it more difficult. max: yes. charlie: they say almost impossible. you would know more about that than i would. what happens in the future to the need of law enforcement to have access to critical data? the civil liberties cases have
often to do with an individual's right to privacy. it was raised after edward snowden. people who may not have known their phones were collecting metadata or what have you. law enforcement has a legitimate purpose in america. now, there are constitutional restrictions on that. it has to do with due process. the 14th amendment and everything like that. but, law enforcement has the responsibility to do as much as it could. shouldn't there be a way for society to develop laws that will say, yes, we know long to see, but they
have to check off your and here and here. and say under no circumstances can they do it because we can develop ways to can never do it. max: i think apple plans to build something that is effectively unbreakable is actually the right ring to do. i think it is most certainly the case that people trying to safeguard themselves have access berry, anyft, black , someone who is keen on protecting data knows how to do so and will do so. the fbi and the cia have used exploitations and bugs in that practice will remain. that is not something we need to worry about.
that is the spy craft of the agencies. the notion of compelling the company to do something that fundamentally puts them into a conflicted situation that apple sees himself in right now is conveniently sidestepped by not allowing this weakness to happen. charlie: apple does not want this decision. max: correct. they do not want to have to access the privacy they give their users. i think what is really important is this point that if you weaken the system the bad guys will not be affected and the good guys will be weaker. apple says the same strength applies to everyone. and here we are, exactly telling you what it is it is generally a better outcome. everyone was beating the drum saying we will not read the bad guy's mail.
it appears that we have not been --t much weaker, even though sorry, i think the clipper chip is a debate i'm referring to. the clipper chip was this notion of a backdoor chip and all the computers that the nsa would have access to. eventually, it's got blown out because civil liberties folks were protesting it. our civilhat about liberties when the fbi goes to a bank and says we have a court order to look at the financial records of this person and have gone through appropriate procedure to get it. here is the search warrant. show it to us. in the past they have done it. there's also this problem that they may not have control of it. max: i think that is unlikely to change.
i think that is both lawful and good. certainly, during the paypal years, we had government agencies who said, we need to see records of certain transactions because -- they say during the paypal situation, there were agencies who said, we need to see records of certain because there is real risk here. if apple can be told, you need to do that -- charlie: that's the problem of being asked to build something. to create something. max: or hand over what they have.
if apple was in possession of a bunch of data, there are plenty of precedents where a court order is given to an agency in the data must be handed over. apple has worked with law enforcement agencies plenty in the past. this is very new. this is a fundamentally new way of doing this. charlie: james comey said yesterday, the code the judge has directed apple to write works only on this one phone so the idea of it getting to the wild the experts tell me is not a real thing. that was james comey. the director of the fbi. max: with all due respect to the director of the fbi, between him and the judge, there are probably many layers of indirection or explanation of how the code actually works. it is certainly possible to write code that works on one phone. is it closer to writing code that works on any phone?
yes. it is fundamentally a check in the code that says, is this the right phone? work here. charlie: there are a lot of smart hackers in the world. could the smartest hacker in the world break into this phone without damaging the data? max: the knee-jerk reaction is no. but it might not be so. it is plausible there is a bug that to even apple does not know about that a smart hacker might already know about. they could do this by passing apple's involvement. the straightforward is, we build a new version of ios and eliminate the need for the key -- apple could do this. but apple which has all kinds of resources and abilities, they
could eliminate the temper protections from the chip, but that doesn't require anybody's help. they could get in and get the key. charlie: it says something to me that almost everybody in the major companies and players are supportive of apple to one degree or another. max: i think all of tim cook peers -- charlie: we're talking google, the ceo of microsoft and others. max: these are companies that deal in data. what they are fundamentally saying it is that this is a hugely important matter. it is uncharted legal territory. we support tim cook in asking congress to create a law that draws a clear line in the sand.
this is how the data is discoverable. sopletely out in the public it is clear to american people when they are subscribing and buying their service what will and up or not end up in the hands of the government. i think everyone is on the right side of this debate and what is important as private citizens, but they understand the long-term implications are very profound and we know it to charlie: there is not question that the iphone 6, i assume the iphone seven is around the corner. [laughter] max: probably. charlie: tim cook makes the point that if there is a precedent here, a lot of people trusted apple, believing they were buying an encrypted phone. and in fact, it goes to the
heart of apple's credibility if they are not getting a phone free of encryption or encrypt it? do they have a point? especially in china, which has become their big market. max: right. a piece ofrtainly this that is very relevant internationally, china in particular. where there is an entirely different type of due process and legal framework applies. apple has to be an international company, the have to cater to everyone in the world. they need clear standards. i suspect that plays into it. my guess is that in this case tim cook is fundamentally concerned with the u.s. side, but it cannot escape their attention it will have repercussions worldwide. charlie: you said you believe there is a way to not have a master key, and do this one time.
and you supported that enforcement, but you have changed your mind. was there one particular thing? the cause you to change her mind? that caused you to change your mind? was it tim cook's argument, that precedent was involved here and it would do damage to the idea of privacy? max: there was a thing that he said in the interview which set off my mind on a path from black and white, bad guys phones need to be open, to my view today. he mentioned congress. this notion of checks and balances. this notion of accountability in law enforcement is something our congress is in charge of. not having them involved is what made me think, this is fundamental.
this is something where a brand-new level, a brand-new type of access is being discussed and we have no law, no framework. we have no law around. that got me thinking about. charlie: ted olson made the point. we need a dialogue and the conversation. we need decision-making. this is one of those issues where maybe all the amount of law enforcement and the fbi working with apple would not have got to a solution. you really needed congress to come to grips with it representing the people, and you need the supreme court representing another branch of government to do it. this help or idea -- because they have been talking about encryption. the conversation has been going on for several years between apple and the government. especially when apple announced how successfully their encrypted devices were. finally, in terms of technology and where we are going, and what
is taking place in the marketplace, from your sense as a computer scientist, what is next? i mean, we have seen the dominance of mobile devices. we have seen the prevalence of the cloud. max: it is certainly going to get a lot more interesting. madeis an easily statement. i think that we are going to have lots of debates. i think this is certainly not the last fight. charlie: in terms of the role of society? max: the role of law in the newly changed software infrastructure. -- but it very specifically, it just means your
data lives not on the computer that you currently have. there is a copy on a server. a more complete copy exists on a server in somebody else's hands. what used to be the link between you, law enforcement, and your data -- there is now a third party. that is unprecedented. we are going to find out exactly what it means. charlie: here is what is interesting. those servers are owned by amazon, microsoft, apple. other major companies. that is where the cloud is. max: exactly. charlie: my impression is, tim cook would have no problem if they accessed the cloud to get this information. max: right, because the data would already be there.
clearly ad be very precedent which everyone in this country is already comfortable with. there's a copy that exists. it does not need to be broken. there is an item that apple has in their possession and they have been compelled by court order to hand it over. that would not be difficult. the difficulty in this case it is the government compelling apple to build software that can be used for good today, but tomorrow can be used for all kinds of surveillance that does not need to be announced or debated if the president is established that it is doable. -- if the precedent is established that it is just doable. they are asking to establish the precedent, tell us what it means. can we be forced to write software that is used to spy on our citizens by our government and other governments? by third parties? i think that is fundamentally what this is about. charlie: it ought to be said that this country has survived and prevailed in the kind of
nation it has been because of its respect. for constitutional principles. max: precisely. there is a great factoid. jackson and adams in the days of the founding fathers communicated with each other after the u.s. was established, in encrypted form, because they were afraid of the postmaster general reading it and using it to blackmail them. so that is a great precedent for being concerned about the government's role. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment. levchin with us. ♪
♪ >> terry mcauliffe is the 72nd governor of the great commonwealth of virginia. a former national party chair and prodigious fundraiser. no one is closer in politics to bill and hillary clinton than terry mcauliffe. we will talk about virginia in a minute, but let's start with national politics. handicap the bernie-hillary race. what is it so tight? gov. mcauliffe: he is promising a lot of things that cannot happen. he is promising everybody free college education. as governor of virginia, would
love to give everybody a free education. there is zero chance it will be put into law. you can't afford it. it will never happen. he's talking about even taking the hard work that president obama did and promising everybody free health care. for a lot of folks, they hear that and it sounds great. but the reality is, you and i al: young people like barack obama am a they like bill clinton, and they love bernie sanders. they don't like hillary clinton. they voted overwhelmingly for bernie sanders. you have five kids. why are young people turned off by hillary? gov. mcauliffe: i don't know if it is turned off by hillary as much as bernie sanders promising free college education. that is exciting. if you go back to 2004, we had governor dean with all the young folks. everyone had the orange hats. we are just in the beginning of
the process. we only had two contests. al: you think that she could wrap this up by march 15? gov. mcauliffe: there is a real likelihood that we can announced statistically that he cannot win. this is exactly what president obama did -- al: exactly. how is this campaign different from the 2008 campaign? gov. mcauliffe: well robbie is the campaign manager, i am very biased, he was mine. they are a talented team. they know the mechanics. last time there was not even a delegate operation. robbie put together an operation to win delegates. to become the democratic nominee, you must win delegates. that is the plan he has put forward. this is the long haul. we are running for president. al: there are some people who want to replace robbie, you
think that would be a mistake? gov. mcauliffe: i have been in the clinton world a longtime. it is not the easiest place to survive. it is a big conversation and everyone has an opinion. when you are up it is great, when you are not everyone has an idea. robbie has the mechanics in place. al: you talked about the sanders program agenda message being unrealistic. what is the hillary message? remember 1992, it is about the economy, what can hillary put on a bumper sticker? gov. mcauliffe: she is a progressive that gets results. she has been in the battle on children's health care and other issues -- her whole. life she has fought on these issues she got out of yelp and went -- he got out of yale and went to arkansas.
she went to china as a first lady to talk about women's issues. her voice has always been out there. al: do you think that is getting across? gov. mcauliffe: i wish it would get across more. but it is early in the process. on the republican side, there has been a lot of static up in the air. it has been an interesting year. she gets results. president obama ran against hillary and made her his secretary of state. that tells you something. she has said i will continue the policies of president obama. senator sanders has been critical and called him weak and indecisive. which he is neither. she wants to build on it, but
once to protect her left flank so someone does not get in and tear down these things. al: will she win virginia easily? gov. mcauliffe: it is never easy. she will win virginia. i give senator sanders from a discredit. al: how big she wins matters? gov. mcauliffe: of course it does. and it matters where you win in virginia. al: how big of a victory do you anticipate? gov. mcauliffe: i will take one vote. a win is a win. i don't care if it is half a vote. al: let me ask you to put your expert hat on and look at the republican party. what do you make of the donald trump phenomena? gov. mcauliffe: it has been a circus to watch these debates. you watch senator sanders, secretary clinton, it is a different debate. with governor martin o'malley it was a substantive debate.
it has been embarrassing to watch these debates go on. i never attack our country. i think we are the greatest nation on earth. can we make it better? of course. but all of this that china is killing us and japan is taking -- forget that. al: it seems to be working for donald trump. gov. mcauliffe: for a certain segment. he would have a tough time winning the general. al: he would. who would be the toughest to run against hillary? gov. mcauliffe: i think that cruz would have a tough time. i see the attraction with senator marco rubio. al: john kasich? gov. mcauliffe: i know governor kasich. he would be formidable in virginia. sen. rubio could because, joe young. they have to worry about their left and right flanks. al: they would be much stronger in the general in your view then
ted cruz or donald trump? gov. mcauliffe: 270 electoral votes. you look at how many the democrats start with and the republicans. we have a huge lead. how do you grow it? you have to go to states like new mexico, colorado, the fatah with large -- nevada with large hispanic populations. they have watched these attacks on the hispanic community, this is such a turnoff. we generally get made 60% of the hispanic vote. with what donald trump has said, it could be an historic high for hillary. with the rhetoric that has gone on, there is a real possibility there could be an historic turnout. people are angry, closing our borders.
the issue with refugees, the idea of no muslims in our country. there are one billion muslims in the world. we go to them today to ask them to help support us fight isis. al: we said we would talk about virginia issues. one of them is political. whether the redistricting controversy will go to the supreme court. with the death of justice scalia, some people say it makes it very likely that what you have done in virginia would be overturned. gov. mcauliffe: we have just gone to the process in virginia and now we have one new democratic seat. the lines were very unfair. all five state lines in virginia are democrat. gone to the process in virginia we have gone through the process and they have redrawn some lines. al: can you pick up other democratic seats? gov. mcauliffe: we have created just one.
there are other seats that are competitive. northern virginia, there is always an opportunity. a very rich vote area to pick up democratic seats. i think we net one seat. florida has added two. we have three new seats in the democratic column. al: i'm glad you did not walk away from the table. thank you all for watching. ♪
anything he has ever written. i am pleased to have roger angell back. roger: i am supposed to be up. [laughter] charlie: we will talk old in a minute. your health is good? roger: i am good. charlie: your lovely wife died and then you remarry. roger: i remarried. charlie: that's one of the things that you talk about. loneliness. roger: unbearable things happen to us. loss. the weight of loss seems a marable, and you gallant -- seems unbearable, and then you go on. charlie: here is what you said. i wrote this whole piece. this is a collection of all the
things you have written here. i wrote this whole piece in pieces. i did not know what to do with it. there is a lot in there about loss. i lost my older daughter, i lost my wife of 48 years. in between there, we lost a dog who jumped out of the window during a thunderstorm. there are wounds in and out and they are wound in and out. often interrupted with change in tone. there are jokes, jokes about death. it sounds like me. i love good jokes. tell us about aging beyond what you just said and what i just said. roger: aside from the arrival of sex, it is the second biggest surprise in your life. suddenly you are old and you do not feel old. you see how old you are. i think that almost all old
people feel about the same. it is the great misconception. maybe since we are bowed and look gray and move slowly, that we have given up. i'll think that is true. life keeps happening. charlie: did this resonate with people your age? roger: enormously. charlie: life keeps happening? roger: i say there is a phenomena that old people notice. if you're at a dinner party among friends, the moment comes and you think of something and you speak. everyone looks at you and nods and the conversation goes on as if you had not said anything. and you think, didn't i just say something?
it is the invisibility of age. it is unconscious. he is old and has had his turn. now it is our turn. this book has in some way helped it feel less invisible. charlie: recognized but not expressed. that is what good writers do. roger: since this essay got a lot of responses, i am trying not to become a spokesman for people my age. that is just what happens to me. it has been surprising. the other thing that is really surprising is, a lot of younger people have been reading the book and saying, now i see. my parents and grandparents. they also think, it's not going to be so bad when i get there. charlie: is that what you are saying? roger: i don't know. sometimes it is horrible. bad times. losses are unbearable.
charlie: how do you bear them? roger: i say i have been going to the same therapist for years. it is not therapy anymore, just scheduled conversations. after my wife died i said i do not know how i can stand this. she said, neither do i, but you will. that was the perfect thing to say. charlie: neither do i, but you will. roger: yeah. charlie: you love baseball more than anything. roger: more than anything? charlie: more than any sport. roger: sure, i guess so. charlie: the hall of fame is pretty good, too. roger: i don't look for deeper meanings in baseball. i never tried to connect it to america. my main job has always been as a fiction editor.
the thing that connects baseball and writing is that both of them look easy, and they are really hard to do. it's hard for almost everybody. it is hard to write well. much harder to play ball than it looks. that is part of why you keep going. charlie: you see baseball in the major leagues, you are looking at the best of the best. roger: it is hard for them too, but there is a difference between the top level and the low level. charlie: it is still hard for them? roger: i'm not so sure it is hard for hank aaron. somebody once said, how does it feel to come to the ballpark and get two hits? he said, i never think that. if i don't get them tonight, i will get them tomorrow night. the wonderful manager of the royals said, the hitter to think about is the .240 hitter just barely going along and what he would like is one extra base hit
per week. one extra base hit per week will make him a .270 hitter. charlie: and two would make him a .300 hitter? roger: i don't know about per week -- but the struggle is endless. the writing struggle, what i really love is sitting down with the writer i have worked with for years, william trevor -- you each have a copy and are dealing with a sense that there is something wrong in the tone, something is a little off. not the actual writing. you try to think, what will we do about this? john updike would do this over and over again.
the last day going to press, later that day he would phone me and read something that he had rewritten. an entire passage and he would say, how does that sound? he would say it to himself because he wanted to say how will the reader take it? it is all about the reader. does this sound better? does this sound better? this is what writers do. charlie: john updike was also competitive. you are excited about a young novelist then he went home -- roger: i would sometimes say -- we talked back-and-forth on the phone a lot and i would say, john, there is a wonderful new story with a new writer and i think you'll like it. he would say, really? in three weeks later there would be a new story from him. [laughter]
charlie: i am hesitant to do this, but or any of them that came forward and spoke to you and made you say, this is the talent of god? any writers? roger: i think that he might have enjoyed it. but he was like nobody else when he arrived. these amazing casuals and essays about indescribable combinations of things happening. full of artistic and historic references. heartbreaking and funny and completely surprising. over and over. half the people on the magazine did not understand them and were angry that we were publishing them. because bill sean the editor loved him as well and said i don't know what this is but it is something else. other people thought he was -- they said as long as he is
writing for us, we will be ok. charlie: tina brown got you to write about yourself. roger: she did. charlie: did you resist that? roger: i was surprised because i had a sense of privacy about running my family and my children. she said, you have had an interesting life. i have heard some of your stories. try to write more. that is why i wrote this book. there is a lot of personal stuff in here and i will always be grateful to her.
charlie: was it hard for you? roger: i can't remember. i don't think it was a breakthrough. there were things i wanted to write about. i wanted to write about my stepfather, eb white. he was not just a great writer but physically one of the most graceful people. just moving. walking down the road toward the pasture, there was something about him. he was very shy. a world-class hypochondriac. i would hear him every week on the comment page for the new yorker, he would lock himself in his study. you would hear -- long pauses and little bits. he would come out for lunch and not say anything. he would mail it off in the 2:00 mail and say, it isn't good enough. then you would read it and he would come back next monday and say, not bad. charlie: [laughter] roger: the amazing thing about that, that pros feels like the easiest thing in the world. dashing off a letter or talking to someone. charlie: but you knew that he
agonized over it? roger: yeah. writing for some people is easier than it is for others. charlie: it is hard for you? roger: not as hard as it used to be. it used to be very hard to start a piece. end of season baseball the world series -- all of the stuff. there are days i'd say, i cannot do this. but this is something in my conscience about performance. can i do this sort of thing? after a while i learned that i can do this sort of thing. so the start is not as hard as it used to be. i am surrounded with wonderful writers. new york is the greatest venue for writers. i have always had wonderful writers around me. i see them thinking, what is the matter, why isn't this working? if you are running on a deadline, that goes away. charlie: your mother was a fiction editor?
roger: she was the first fiction editor. charlie: then you begin fiction editor? roger: not right after. charlie: no, but you held the position that your mother held. roger: i ended up in her office. in the back of the closet, when i moved in -- she had not been there for years, and i found around thing of face powder from my mother. i told this to the therapist. he said, the greatest single act of sublimation in my experience was living in my mother's office. charlie: were you an athlete? roger: i was a boy athlete. but not great. i would throw a curveball, but -- charlie: they would hit it. what about golf or tennis? roger: i played a lot of tennis over the years. i played a lot of doubles with people my age and played with
the same people for your. after year you hit the ball and you knew where the next shot was going. charlie: you kept a diary? roger: never. charlie: why not? you are a man of letters. roger: never had daily thoughts. charlie: is that necessary to keep a diary? roger: i don't know. i never kept a diary. one thing that i did that is unusual. donald put me onto this. he said, if you want to change writing, turn the paper around. turn it this way, instead of this way, and start writing across whatever is on your mind. cross writing. you can start cross writing and say i meant that to be so-and-so, or something funny happened. or this happened tuesday -- you start going across. it is entirely different.
it is not what you write if you write this way. just do that instead of that and feel in my thoughts. sometimes i've written 10 to 12 pages about what is happening. that has happened the last few days. not as a regular thing. charlie: it seems to me that, whoever it was who said i do not know what i think until i see what i wrote, whoever said that. [laughter] roger: if i am writing, i am trying to go somewhere. charlie: you are trying to tell a story that has a beginning. roger: i am try to talk to this invisible reader -- i am trying to talk to this invisible reader. charlie: what brings you joy in life? work? roger: if i've written something good, i feel really good. if i have written some in today, i am ok. charlie: you are a great man and
angie: noon in hong kong. australia's central bank is kept interest rates unchanged at a record 2% low, but they said they could be cut again in the future. if inflation remains low, there will be scope for easing the policy further. the rba says prices are expected to remain low for the next year. today brought further signs of slowdown in china. official and private pmi figures show manufacturing contracted last month. february was a record seventh straight month of slowing numbers. earlier, the pboc's