tv Bloomberg Business Week Bloomberg December 25, 2016 4:00pm-5:01pm EST
carol: welcome. in this special issue, poland offers donald trump a blueprint for how not to drain the so-called swamp. let's and why it is always funny for goldman sachs, especially in the donald trump era. carol: and wikipedia wants to become the gold standard for diversity in the workplace. >> all of that is ahead for "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are here with the editor-in-chief megan murphy. in the opening remarks, you look at technology. if you think about the yahoo!
hacks and the samsung phones, not such great stories but overall it was not of that here. besides those two. megan: it will be one of the seminal pieces. it makes the point we could talk about the samsung phone catching on fire, hacks or some of the companies that didn't have a great 2016. but the point made in the article is underneath that we have seen things like uber make real advancements in self driving cars. we have seen sort of technology and computers ability to read speech advance at very accelerated levels. it does set up under this new presidential administration as well, how technology is really going to step forward and put itself out to come out of the politically neutral stance it has tried to take. we have had fake news and the responsibility to weed that out. is this the moment where tech has to come out on the shadows
and the politically neutral stance it has tried to take in terms of privacy and technology and come forward and make a stance. >> tell us about why you are doing that now. megan: look, 2016 has been full of surprises in many different ways. not just here but across the world. it is time to step back and say, look, we are facing a sort of unprecedented rise in economic populism and social unrest. sort of threats of terrorism and etc. we wanted to point out companies and some of the relationships, some of the parts of the world where i think people are doing things you do not know they are as good as they are giving. we want to celebrate that. we want to step back and look at business and say we should recognize and celebrate people who are fighting for sustainability and fishing regions in the south china sea and take a holistic view of business. and a much more comprehensive look at what it is doing on the
good side. carol: speaking of business, one of the features is wikipedia and what they are trying to do to make it diverse. megan: one of the great statistics is there are 2300 articles about princess leia's home planet. as a star wars fanatic, i was intrigued to read about this. and sort of no articles about sort of some diverse, whether it is writers, politicians -- this was -- this goes under the covers of wikipedia and look at what steps they are taking. whether it is recruiting more diverse editors, really having people have more access to put in these names and flesh them out. it is not easy. you know, i think it is 80% of wikipedia's current editors are white and male. many are saying this has to change and only reflective of a certain segment of society. it continues to be a challenge. but it is a real look at how
this can change and what we are seeing sort of across all areas of technology is pushed up instead of down. >> it is a great story and we spoke to a reporter. >> wikipedia, founded in 2001, is an online encyclopedia. it is free to use and free to edit. so, anyone in the world, you, me, the president could go on and start writing entries. and then there are tens of thousands of editors who look at so it ischange it, this continually self-correcting organic thing that somehow manages to be quite good. 10 years ago, people made fun of wikipedia. it was a little embarrassing to have a wikipedia page open in the newsroom. you would never admit you even looked at it. and now it is not perfect but it is good and it is about as good as comparable encyclopedias,
comparable text books. there are some areas where it is less good in terms of prescription drugs and things like that. but in general, it is good. carol: what is the infrastructure for editors? >> this is where it gets problematic. and interesting. wikipedia's original users were basically open-source software geeks. in other words, white guys who are interested in tech. that has left the encyclopedia with sort of limitations, certain areas of expertise it does not have. there is not much diversity. you have an editor base that is 90% male, mostly white, mostly in the u.s. you see gaps. the foundation that manages the encyclopedia, manage maybe a generous term. that attempts to oversee the encyclopedia is working on it.
so far, they have not accomplished tons. carol: there is no editor-in-chief. >> exactly. no one at the foundation, there is no boss that can overrule an article or commission an article or delete something. it has to come from the bottom up. there are different layers. those people are just volunteers. there are 1200 administrators. those are also volunteers. there is no overruling wikipedia editor. >> that is the filter bubble problem. >> this is what people have been talking about in other areas. we think of the internet that sort of encourages diversity of opinion. i can read cogent arguments from people on the other side. i can pretty much read endless amounts of content about anything. we pretty much just find stuff that we agree with. so, during the conversation
about misinformation, fake news during the election, one of the ideas people talked about was a filter bubble. you see an article on facebook that conference biases. if you are a hillary clinton supporter, you see donald trump just shot somebody on fifth avenue and you are likely more to share that and that kind of perpetuates this misinformation. wikipedia has kind of the same problem which is you have these group of editors that are interested in tech but don't necessarily -- are not necessarily familiar with all areas of human knowledge and so you get problems. in 2013, harper lee, one of the wastest american novelists , listed not on a page for american novelist but for american women novelists. you have things like that where there will be long entries on moons in star wars universe.
but then you will be missing key elements of world history or feminism or topics that are important and don't get the love they should. carol: turning good business into a good cover was the job of creative director rob fergus. rob: it is one of those covers it has to cannot size the flash -- it is one of those covers that has to encompass an entire package worth of features and like teachers and stories and things like that. carol: the stories are all over the map. it is quite a range. rob: rather than trying to cram that, we went with the overall theme of the issue which is good business. a lot of times we do stories that are critical of businesses that we cover so this is in some cases the opposite so we want to have a very positive thing overall. >> is it easier or more difficult having a thematic issue versus having one story to put on the issue?
rob: it varies a lot. good business is simple. sometimes we have to convince ourselves it is ok to embrace the simplicity as opposed to doing something a little more conceptual. if we focus on one story, we have a good photograph and put that on the cover. it can go both ways. carol: so, you have all of these pictures and symbols of things. plus, a freaky hand. that is a little bit of a freaky hand. rob: we have one have illustrator that we use as well so we had her render it. it is a slightly are looking hand. >> the good part is almost overkill. it is like great. >> exactly. if we go with something, we will do it at almost a hyperbolic
♪ carol: welcome back. i'm carol massar. oliver: and i'm oliver reddick. in the global economic section, the lessons poland can teach donald trump if he doesn't -- does intend to drain the swamp in washington. >> in poland, you had a government that came to power in october last year and they made some of the same complaints, came to power on some of the same resentments and
issues that donald trump did in the united states. the support base was out in the countryside and the smaller towns. people who felt left behind by globalization. they came to power promising to sweep away the elite. that is a different situation from the u.s. history is different. and law andsident justice party said is there is a kind of conspiracy of ex-communists and liberal allies who have run poland since the 1990's. after the collapse of communism. so, they spent a year now and they promised they would sweep these people out and they have gone about doing it. they removed 300 executives from state-run companies and put in different people.
they removed about 1600 people from the civil service. and replaced them. they removed 130 or so journalists that were either removed or resigned from public broadcasters. they put the public broadcasters and prosecutors offices under their control. they have been busy doing that. the interesting part is as they began to do that, they pushed up pretty quickly against checks and balances that are in the democratic process. and that has led to a big fight over the constitutional court. carol: talk to us about that fight. where is it going? >> we have a big moment right now because on december 19, the head of the court -- his term expired. he has a nine-year term, it expired. he has been blocking a bunch of changes that law and justice has
been trying to make for the last year. first of all, they try to put an extra three judges on to the court who they were not really entitled to be put on. there are 15. they were not the first to do this. before the previous government , tried to add an extra two. those were extinguished by the constitutional court itself. they declared it unconstitutional. and now they are trying to push five instead of the two they should be. they have resisted that. the government put through six different pieces of legislation determining how the court should run and the upshot of the legislation is it would make it much harder for the court to scrutinize legislation, declare it constitutional. so, it is essentially neutering the court.
carol: so if we look at poland and try to understand for those folks in the u.s. what might happen as our president-elect donald trump talks about draining the swamp, what are the lessons learned in poland? >> well, i think the primary lesson is that when you want to do something really radical, that is not the question whether it is right or wrong. when you want to move large numbers of people out -- in order to do that very quickly, you tend to come up fairly soon against checks and balances in the democratic process in order to make sure that a majority government does not just run roughshod over the rights of the minorities who did not vote for them, for example. that is the lesson in poland.
it is not a prediction that this is what will happen in the u.s. things have changed enough over the recent years that we can no longer say, look, those countries in eastern europe, they are completely different. they get more radical government. we are getting pretty radical government and decisions now in the west. so, the point of this sort of parable is really to understand where the pressures will come. carol: next, the seemingly midas touch goldman sachs has. no matter who wins elections. oliver: how some colleges tap into their connections on wall street to deliver top returns. ♪
carol: and i carol massar. am you can also listen to us radio channel 119 on sirius xm 99.1 fm in washington, d.c. and , am 960 in the bay area. in the markets and finance section, how goldman sachs comes out on top in the incoming donald trump administration even though candidate donald trump targeted the bank on the campaign trail. >> it has been quite remarkable. their stock is up something like 35% since donald trump won the u.s. presidential election. some of that, a lot of that has to do with donald trump's policies and the fact that a lot of people think he will roll back regulations on wall street. he said, he talked about repealing all of dodd-frank. dodd-frank is at least 10,000 -- pages. 1000 so, it is unlikely that all of that
is going to get rolled back but some things that hurt goldman will be first in line. carol: volker has to do with hedge funds and private equities. >> it is a ban on prop trading and the other is a limitation on stakes in hedge funding and private equity funds. both businesses where very big for goldman before the financial crisis and stakes in hedge funds and private equity funds remains big for goldman. they have roughly 7 billion left that they have been working to sell down but have not been sold yet. the prop trading have been subject to the ban as well. it is not clear to us how tightly that ban has been enforced in the last couple of years.
oliver: this has got to be one of the most interesting stories of the year. you have after the donald trump election, all these financial companies leading the market but then leading into the election, they were portrayed in -- they were not portrayed the best light not only by the public but donald trump specifically. they endorsed hillary clinton. they came out and said she would be a good president. specifically at goldman, there is a relationship between clinton speaking at places that trump supporters put out in the limelight. how often does this happen that the other guy gets elected? carol: trump did an ad where he specifically targeted goldman sachs and said how terrible they all are. oliver: did wall street want donald trump to win on the long? -- all along? what happened here? >> that is a good question. i wish i had all the answers for you. are, assurprised as you a lot of our viewers and
listeners are. i think some of it has to do with the fact that a lot of trump supporters are not that closely monitoring who his appointments are. my suspicion is -- i just had a conversation with somebody at -- d.c. who has been watching this closely. the point is the goldman guys at the top of the administration creates jobs, brings manufacturing back, nobody will care they are goldman guys. they just want their economic livelihoods restored and brought back. you have a president-elect making appointments, it is during the holiday season. maybe the people who voted for him who really got behind donald trump are not watching really closely and then, come january into february, the rubber will hit the road and then we will a couple of goldman
guys, let's see what they can do for me. oliver: as a reporter, i cannot think of anyone more ingrained with your sources. you have been on this beat for a while. when you talked to people on the wall street, what was their reaction to the way their own sector has been so favorable two investors the past couple of weeks? what has been amazingly facile. it was hours after the donald trump election and the election results came in and we were already talking to people who were saying this could be good for us. we could get behind this guy. the ability for them to quickly switch and get behind the winner, even though i have been doing it a while, was pretty remarkable. oliver: in the markets and finance section, they may not be ivy league but small liberal arts colleges in the northeast have big wall street connections.
>> they are this unofficial designation that a lot of people have given to the northeast liberal arts schools that are the ones if you and the--have not been able to get into harvard, maybe you will go to colby instead or something like that. still a great school. [laughter] >> but, they don't have that same intensely competitive application process. you know, they have double-digit acceptance rates. not single-digit acceptance rates, right? oliver: how does notoriety and the acceptance rate translate into endowment? how much money they have to operate with? >> on a very simple basis, it is funny because if you have more republicans, you will probably have a larger class. for these schools, they are much smaller.
kind of in a tangential way, what their base well eventually look like. carol: endowment returns. we have seen that from a lot of universities. it has not been an easy year. or so, or two. how about for the little ivies? >> we need to look at a national average which was a bad year objective. for the little ivies, it was even worse. it was -3.5%. it is about 18 schools we looked at so it was worse than the national average which is why we really wanted to look into it because it defined what you would think. you have these pet prestigious institutions with these investment committees that are full of these wall streeters. yet, they were not able to cash in on that to produce the same returns as the ivies because the other interesting thing is the
ivy leagues, who have a similar type of alumni base -- wealthy, wall street, a lot of investment expertise -- they returned a - 0.8%. big difference between the national average and little ivies. carol: do you usually track the same in terms of performance? >> i think we were the first people to ever track the ivies. typically, they do if you look at the numbers. they do track pretty similarly and that is because this push yale model mail -- of investing, the diversified funds, instead of doing stocks and bonds, they do hedge funds, private equity. they do all sorts of, almost
oliver: welcome back. i'm oliver renick. carol: and i'm carol massar. still ahead, the men behind gucci doubling down on being environmentally friendly. oliver: investors are lining up to get behind green infrastructure products. we will tell you about the man behind the trend. carol: also, the company making robot babies. oliver: all of that is ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ oliver: we are with businessweek editor-in-chief megan murphy to talk about some more important issues in the magazine. must-reads. let's talk about the markets and the finance section which is about litigating in germany.
megan: this is quite common across western europe and the difficulty of pushing forward and it goes into the impediment that you face and run that kind of litigation in germany. it is getting consumers and emissions. this guy running this case and trying to generate more money, one of the biggest impediments actually in germany is that the lawyers do not get a cut. so, there is no incentive for them to get this huge slice of the settlement fees. we saw the lawyers take 175 million cut. that is not to say they are profiteering, it is just that our system incentivizes consumer harm. that incentivizes large class-action lawyers to address
consumer harm. the system is not the same in germany and it is not the same across europe. carol: and if you lose, you have to pay the court costs. megan: yes. it is a big deal. carol: the currency has collapsed and created problems in the country. megan: there is a nice chart that talks about hyperinflation in venezuela. and how much the currency has depreciated and ranked against other. venezuela is the 23rd most severe period of how the contest of related. carroll: that chart goes all the way back to 1795. oliver: that is incredible. you can see trends within it as well. ok, let's talk about the story in the business section which is focused on industry not having good sustainability. megan: we take a look at what has been done a cost high super luxury brands and there is a section that talks about they pythons and how they are looking
to make high fonts in their fashion more sustainable, and part of that is because pythons consume rats. if you're going to grow and maintain sustainable house you need a sustainable -- wes is one of the industry really look at. we look tip detail across these brands. and really look at where you can change this, where you can make an impact, from driving workers wages up to make sure you are leaving a less permanent environmental damage is something that really is important. >> we talked with a reporter about his conversation with the ceo. >> i don't know for they really go forward with enough changes to what they are doing on the back and on the supply change. carol: you have talk about what caring is because i didn't
realize they changed the name. it is a very well-known company. and some really extreme lux brands. >> kering's biggest brand is gucci. they also have puma, a bunch of other stuff. they are a company that runs these luxury brands. in order to get big, they have to have multiple brands. carol: formally ppr. >> francios pino is now the ceo. oliver: about four years ago, they said we will do x, y, z measures to be more sustainable. where are they now? how have they made progress on that? >> in 2012, they looked at everything in their supply chain. where they get their precious skins and furs from, from the
sources of the other raw materials. how much plastics they have going into what they are doing. and, so far they have managed to reach a lot of those targets. in those four years. carol: i love the detail you go into but you talk about they created a sustainability committee at the board level and also some of the conversation is tied into sustainability and the success of sustainability. >> everybody has targets. every brand within his company has to be on board. he forced them to be on board. if they don't do it, it will cost them a little compensation. oliver: what is it about the fashion industry in terms of where the materials come from, related to animals, related to labor. is this an industry where this is particularly in focus and sort of important to assess? >> fashion is one of the most
polluting industries in the world. people do not think of that too much because it is really opaque. the supply chains at most of these companies are really opaque. you don't know where your clothing is coming from. sometimes the companies do not know because they subcontract out to smaller factories and so on and don't even know where their own things are being made. it is about margins and a large extent. labor is very cheap and very easy to move. to move where you are creating your stuff. i mean, most clothing is made by a person sitting at a desk with a sewing machine. if we are not walking into factories in bangladesh, we do not know that. carol: in the technology section the man who pioneered the , no money down formula now wants to spread it to other high-tech industries. oliver: we spoke to chris martin about it. >> generate capital was founded about two
years ago by the founder of another company. carol: we have heard of that. >> interesting guy. he founded it with the idea that we need to work asked her to avoid the worst parts of climate change. and to wean the world off using fossil fuels that are causing the climate to warm. he sold the business, edison and that was back in 2007. he was wondering what to do next even as his company was taking off. and then, so he hooked up with a couple of buddies and they formed this company called generate which is designed to accelerate investments that will reduce use of fossil fuels. carol: smaller investments?
>> yes, what big banks do not care about because they are too small. they do not generate enough fees. and there is a lot of due diligence because these are new technologies that few people know about. carol: i love what you said in your story to wean the world off is one million-dollar projects rather than 1000 $1 billion projects. >> right. like i said, these technologies are being nor by the general banking industry. him and they started looking into what types of technologies would do the most for the least amount of money. one of the early ones was battery designer and installer. called stem inc and they had been getting some success applying this no money down leasing model.
battery systems for hotel chains in california. a hotel, they helped lower their electricity bills. to a less powerful grid. another one they started with early on was this brand. it came out of m.i.t. -- a technology-using electric microbes that take water waste and convert it to basically clean it by eating what is in the wastewater and converting it to methane to produce power. oliver: what makes it advantageous i guess for them to use this sort of program instead of saying this is a technology we will buy and implement it. because they do not know how much they will get back from it? is there risk associated with it? >> a lot of reasons. the first one is cost. they are a brewing company. they don't typically have a lot of cash line around to invest in
something they don't know a lot about which is wastewater treatment plant. yet, they needed one so they agreed to set aside some money for this technology, to try this technology. in part because you know, it is a simple process. you don't have to build this wastewater treatment plant. it comes on a truck, a container. using that single container, they can expand. they can expand as the beer sales expand. oliver: what was going inside yahoo! when hackers stole information from one billion accounts. carol: european e-commerce site struggling to fight back competition from amazon. this is bloomberg. ♪
♪ oliver: welcome back. i'm oliver renick. carol: and i'm carol massar. in the technology sector, the yahoo! hack was worse than it sounded. oliver: it included victims from the fbi, cia, nsa, and white house staffers. >> back in september, as yahoo! was just announcing they were going to be acquired by verizon, yahoo! announced a really big breach. 500 million user accounts -- basically half their user base. by any standard, that is a really big deal and kicks off a round of conversations with verizon on whether that price which is $4.8 billion should be negotiated down because of the liability of that breach. so come last week, yahoo! announces an even bigger breach which is one billion user accounts. that's how many users they have.
that is basically the entire company. that kicked off a round of furious negotiations about liability basically and what should the final price to verizon be for a company that will face years of lawsuits. carol: i feel like britney spears. lips, i didn't again. -- oops, i did it again. this was another hack that was a few years ago. it was interesting it did not come out sooner. what was also interesting what it was military employees, government employees, intelligence employees. it was who got tapped into which makes this a more serious story. >> an interesting back story. yahoo! announced its first breach in september. it was from 2014. a researcher actually acquired the database. the leaked information did not match up. it included backup utility addresses they gave to the
company. the story we were preparing was how many u.s. government and military employees gave their official work addresses. wages, for criminal hackers, especially, that is a bonanza because you are able to identify people with very little work who worked for military intelligence. the nsa, cia, dob. that is the story we were preparing. in the course of asking yahoo! a bunch of questions about that discrepancy, something nobody saw coming, yahoo! disclosed the second breach of that data involving one billion accounts which is a huge deal. oliver: when we talk about the deal here between yahoo! and verizon, why did they raise the price of yahoo!? i can think of one reason people might leave. my dad might freak out. people like that, are they going to lose eyeballs and their advertising? will that drive the price down? >> one concern, of course, if
yahoo! users start fleeing in droves, that will be a problem for verizon but that is not the primary problem. what verizon is looking at our two things. data breach lawsuits could be very expensive, especially when you are talking about loss on the skill of yahoo!. there is an interesting angle. when the vast majority companies that are breached today, the first thing the general counsel tells them to do is to issue and pay for identity theft protection services for all their users. you know, this not out of the goodwill of their hearts. this is because it is an insulation, and inoculation against, you know, future lawsuits. the second reason is potentially more distressing for verizon --
if there was theft of intellectual property from yahoo!. which yahoo! is not required to disclose. that is a big deal because verizon is buying the user base and the advertising technology, client that yahoo! has for their banner ads. both of those things take a serious hit. oliver: one european e-commerce website is struggling to keep up with amazon. carol: that is not stopping them from trying. >> this company, a german -- they wanted to be like zappos. remember them from a few years ago that amazon ultimately bought? the shoe retailer. they started as that but moved very heavily into fashion and have done a really good job. they have got 6% of the market across europe. a the problem is they have amazon in the rearview mirror and it does not look pretty. amazon moved up to 5.7%. just behind them. they are both behind one slightly larger player but it is a larger older one. they will likely it ahead of
that in the next couple of quarters. carol: is it high fashion? for those of us not familiar with this online fashion site. >> it is high-ish fashion. they have got nice stuff, but not super high-end. it is not one of the luxury houses. they have good stuff. they tend to have more up-to-date fashion than amazon. we got a report from bernstein that talks about the relative kind of penetration of the brands they have got and you see they have something like half of the top
20 fashion brands on the u.k., whereas amazon has about four of them. and then also, it has quite a bit more up-to-date stuff. amazon, most of their stuff or a lot of their stuff tends to be kind of last season things so they discount it. they look more like a discounter. zolander looks more like a full-price store. carol: when i think about amazon, i think about a lot of things, but i don't think about high fashion -- is that a new area they're going into? >> they are definitely trying to get there. the head of amazon's fashion push in europe who just moved from seattle to london, she tells us she was meeting with the ceo of hugo boss, trying to help them sort through whittling the brand. they are trying to move upscale. they say they don't want to be the place you go for cheap fashion online.
they are trying to be a place where you go for trendy stuff. they hired some models and booked an italian blogger. some american socialite who is in advance with her dog. they are trying to become hip and cool. carol: amazon is nipping at their heels over in europe. zalando, i assume, is not taking this lying down. >> not at all. no, they have kind of worked on shoring up the relations with the companies they have got. in a lot of the brands they have been working on for several years. they are kind of improving the quality of their photos on their website to increase the appeal of the merchandise they have got. carol: why one company thinks its robot babies will prevent teen pregnancy. oliver: this is bloomberg. ♪
♪ carol: welcome back to bloomberg businessweek. i'm carol massar. oliver: you can catch us on the radio on sirius xm channel 119. on am 1130 in new york. 1200 in boston. am 960 in the bay area. carol: in london and in asia. on the bloomberg radio plus cap. -- app. oliver: in the good business section, a company in wisconsin says it's almost the $700 robotic baby can teach kids not to be pregnant. carol: here is our reporter. >> they focus on reality works. a private company in wisconsin. they make these robotic simulators. they invented them in 1992 and has become a staple of american education. the problem for the company came in august when this prominent british medical journal put out a study that showed they
surveyed girls in australia that have taken these babies home as part of the teen pregnancy prevention curriculum. they took the babies home and what the study found was that the girls who took the babies home actually were twice as likely to get pregnant. and so for the company, there were negative headlines around the world and the media really grabbed onto that. because it shows that part of a whole idea of these babies is they will get kids out into becoming parents. they will not become parents after taking this baby home because it is so exhausting. for the study to show the exact opposite really close a real threat to the bottom line. carol: first of all, for those that might not know about these robotic babies -- i was shocked to find out they were in two thirds of schools which blew my mind. how do they work? tell us a bit about them because you tag along with one student
who was babysitting, if you will. >> i did. so, the babies, you know, it kind of looks as well as it can. like a newborn baby, it weighs seven pounds. a variety of skin tones. these babies, they cry, they need to have their diapers changed, they need to be fed. it is a very technologically advanced item. i went to south dakota and followed along a girl who was 15-years-old and she went to rapid city central high school and had to take the baby home for her child developing class. that was the assignment for the weekend. i just hung out with her as she went about her daily life. we went to her grandfather's house for dinner, we went to walmart for christmas shopping because it was just this month. just a little while ago. i went, and she just had to take care of this baby as if it were a newborn abie. -- newborn
baby. the cries are actual recordings of real babies. real infant schedules. the company tries to make it as realistic as possible. carol: when the baby cries or needs a diaper change, they have to actually do something with the baby? because all of that information goes back to the school. >> exactly. it is not as girls by the way. i followed along with a girl because it was the most relevant to the story because we are talking about teen pregnancy but boys were doing it as well. the student wears a bracelet. they cannot take it off. it has a sensor in it so they have two minutes -- and the baby starts crying and you were in the middle of walmart shopping, you have to stop what you are doing -- you have to swipe your bracelet over the baby's stomach and let them know you are responding. you have to figure out what it needs. does it just me to be held? sometimes the baby needs to be rocked like a real baby.
there is no desire for anything other than not. then, the babies are very technologically advanced. they store all the data in their bodies, in their circuit boards and at the end of the weekend, the teacher downloads the data to assess how a student did. carol: bloomberg businessweek is available on newsstands now. oliver: and also online. what is your favorite story? carol: i love the story about robot babies. they are made by a company called reality works. i had no idea how the company was doing it. they pretty much on the market and these robotic babies are used in about two thirds of school districts across the country. the whole idea is hoping to prevent teenage pregnancy. a study came out saying, maybe not so fast. they are not working. the companies are writing act. i found out a lot about the company. oliver: i liked the goldman story because i think it is one of the most interesting stories of the year surrounding the election. you obviously have very vocal support for secretary clinton from goldman but then donald trump has their stocks popping. i think it will be interesting story. more bloomberg television starts
best," the stories that shaped the year in business in the americas. >> if i do not get donald trump with change, i'm going to get hillary clinton. >> he has not been able to control himself when he is this close to the presidency. david: a presidential race like none other with a business leader in the white house. the markets wait for the fed to move, and not always patiently. >> janet, get off of this fixation of lower interest rates providing economic growth. david: plenty of reaction to the