tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 31, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." we begin with politics this evening, president donald trump has replaced his chief of staff reince priebus with general john kelly. this comes one day after it was reported the new communications director anthony scaramucci had called a new york reporter and unloaded on reince priebus. week forsake chaotic the administration, one that included the president undercutting the attorney general and the collapse of the republican appeal of obamacare.
joining me is jonathan karl. he is the chief white house correspondent for abc news, and i am pleased to have him on this evening. jonathan, it seems he does not care if he was pushed or fired. it seemed inevitable. jonathan: he was fired. the president made it clear. even before scaramucci, the president made it clear he was going to make a change, not necessarily on this date. scaramucci fiasco, the back-and-forth of the two of them accelerated this, but the president made it clear he was going to make a change. and charlie, this comes with the incredibly chaotic six months. not only do you have a chief of staff, one of the shortest serving in history, the shortest serving first chief of staff we have seen, you also have the
national security adviser in barely a month. you had the national press secretary who last, a communications director who last a couple of weeks. six months of turmoil, now a military man, john kelly, to impose some order on the west wing. charlie: it is that the president does not like people he considers week your did he consider right remiss week? -- reince priebus weak? jonathan: he said that as scaramucci undermined him, outrageously so with the new yorker interview. there were people close to the president urging reince priebus to take a stand, to tell the president he needed to fire scaramucci for what he said in the interview. one person close to the president said to me that what reince priebus needed to do was to call's into his office and fire him himself.
he could escort him out of the building, to force the issue. scaramucci made it clear on day one he was reporting to the president. it seems reince priebus was unwilling to force the issue to take a stand, so that is why the president decided today was the day to push him out. charlie: reince priebus has people that admire him like paul ryan, but they did not rush to his defense. jonathan: certainly not within the white house. there was absolutely nobody charlie- it struck me, him of being at the white house all week, seeing the way reince priebus was undermined, first more subtly, then finally with the new yorker interview. there was nobody in the white house who would step up and defend him publicly, nobody even privately. there was nobody on the hill. the contrast is jeff sessions, the attorney general, who has
been publicly undermined over the last several weeks. you have seen number of congress after member of congress come forward and say the president must not fire jeff sessions. you did not hear anybody say that about reince priebus. charlie: what about general kelly? jonathan: kelly is a loyalist and someone who gets things done. it describes to me that he is the m.v.p. or considered so by the president to be the envy the of the cabinet -- mvp of the cabinet and someone who has a can-do attitude, follows his orders and imposes order to get things done. but it will be interesting because the chaos in the white house has come from the top. the president has been acting as his own communications director, his own chief of staff. reince priebus did not have authority from the start.
i could not find anybody at the senior level who said they would forward to reince priebus. he was somebody who did not have the authority to make changes. the president had to sign off on everything. you ask other senior officials, they reported directly to the president not to reince priebus. will that work with kelly? if he does not get that authority, will he do any better than reince priebus at dealing with the warring factions? charlie: i was trying to think of the last general of chief of staff. maybe alexander haig under nixon, then went to become secretary of state under reagan. but the thing about general, they don't have the political experience necessary for chief of staff to the president. jonathan: that argument had been made early on, but the reason why reince priebus was chosen, he theoretically had that kind
of political savvy. he had the context on the hill -- contacts on the hill. not just the speaker by key members, senators, encouraged the president to name reince priebus because he knew how the political process worked, and look what happened. six months in, no major legislative achievement. health care went down in flames. so the president looks at that, what good did it have to have somebody with contacts? that is not a concern now. and now, what happens with jeff sessions, who is still kind of hanging, twisting in the wind? what i have heard is this consideration to moving sessions over to the department of homeland security which would take him out of the russia if you wish he has reduced himself of, do -- issue which he has refused himself -- recused
himself. he would be in charge of ice. i don't know if they can pull that one off because he can only appoint sessions as an acting department of homeland security secretary, and we have a problem with who we replace him with. charlie: will john kelly be able to contain scaramucci? jonathan: that is a great question. scaramucci has learned a lesson this week, and we will see a much more low price on -- low-profile anthony scaramucci. that will be happening under any circumstance. charlie: the fact the president respects general kelly so much, does that mean he will be able to rely on general kelly? answer the question, who can say no to the president? jonathan: that is a great question, because general kelly is a military man. one of the things the president
likes is that when he says he wants to go in a direction, general kelly secured in that. it is an open question whether or not general kelly will go into the oval office and challenge the president until he is wrong on something cute -- and tell him he is wrong on something. he is somebody the president respects and somebody the president believes is the most competent member of his cabinet. charlie: he is somebody who has acknowledged for making the train run on time as they say, having superb management skills, and someone who does not tolerate the behavior. jonathan: there has been no shortage of disruptive behavior in the west wing. charlie: think you so much, it has been an incredible week. i look forward to talking to you more. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪
♪ charlie: there were fireworks in washington with the reaction to another north korean missile test to the late-night failure republican efforts to repeal the obamacare. anthony scaramucci as well. there was the effort to criticize the man he appointed attorney general. more from the anchor of face the nation, jen dickerson -- john dickerson. i will knew with great enthusiasm. john: i am happy to be back,
charlie. charlie: let me begin with health care. help us understand what happened. john: i think what happens is essentially you have an insoluble problem within the republican ranks. the problem in democrats is worse, but how they do this, you have conservatives who say any vestiges of the affordable care act left in the federal health care program, increased premiums, deductibles, insurance pressure, the mandates cause prices to go up. then you have the centrist republicans who say when you strip out the guarantees, you hurt the most vulnerable in the country, the people in a private insurance market and the people who benefit from the medicaid expansion. anytime negotiators in the house or senate try to fix problems of one group, they exacerbate problems of the other group. they cannot find a balance.
in the senate they could only afford to lose two votes. that is a hard thing to do. then they tried to move from venue to venue. this was so minimal it had nothing in it, specifically objectionable to senators and moved to conference committee where the house and senate would work together. they could not do that. it has collapsed, and everybody seems to be suggesting they will be moving on. charlie: the conclusion is obamacare or the affordable care act survives. john: if survives but in a weakened state. this is what will inspire the next round of health care discussions which will take place in some kind of a behind-the-scenes fashion, republicans and democrats and governors weighing in. they will concede for a long time, even president obama conceded it has problems. making it worse is the fact the trump administration is not interested in supporting the
affordable care act. they are in some cases actively working against people to sign up. if you don't sign up, the risk pool of people covered is told with sicker people -- filled with sicker people. people cannot afford even the subsidies of premiums and adoptable, they lose coverage. or insurance companies dropout of covering people in the exchanges in certain states. it is alive but in a weekend ed condition.weaken something needs to be done if for no other reason that gives assurances to people who are vulnerable or on the affordable care act and are worried about the future. round of cost another this, but it is not a priority it seems for republicans running congress because they have a lot of other work to do. charlie: it was never a possibility republicans would say, we have a lot of problems,
but let's repair it and let's fix it and get democrats involved. we can do something that will be for us a victory and at the same time not destroy the people who had come to depend on it. john: there were some republicans who would have liked that. the number, it is hard to know how many in number. but the leadership of the republican in the house and senate did not want to do that. this is a republican only operation. president trump has blamed democrats. when you ask any democrat -- i talked to joe manchin on face the nation, i said, who reached out to you from the republicans? they said no one ever has. if you make a list that want to reach out to make a partisan -- bipartisan agreement, you reach out to joe manchin. he has run for romney and trump, he has voters that want to see him work with republicans. republicans say we did not negotiate really in a full
throated way because democrats say they must keep the individual mandate. for them, it is the central horror of obamacare. so they say there is no point in negotiating. there were little talks about negotiation and bipartisanship, and really from the president, the thrust of the leadership message was we will do this on our own as republicans and just not invite democrats to this process. charlie: what about the president, did he have any impact? john: he may very well have had impact on the negative side. president trump came to office -- it is important to go back and look at what he promised. he would take considerable marketing skills and negotiating skills and apply them to the presidency. on this specific issue, he said he would solve it like no one else could. to solve it, more people would be covered, better access to
care, and it would be cheaper. anybody involved in health care debate new they could not be fulfilled, but the president brought his special skills, marketing and negotiation. on both sides, the ones that passed the house and the ones in the senate were wildly unpopular. as a marketing exercise, he did not apply his skills at the rallies or anything he did to selling a fundamental idea about the bill. he just did not do that. he would say it is good but never went beyond that. as a negotiator, he put a lot of pressure on senators, or vinegar than honey -- more vinegar than honey. looks like lisa murkowski of alaska was threatened by the interior secretary, and that closed her down completely. there doesn't seem to be anybody on the senate who thinks the
president played much of a role at all and certainly not a positive role, and nothing close to what he promised, which is that he would use his negotiating skills honed over years of tough negotiations in real estate to break the washington gridlock and move something forward. on his two key skills, they were not apparent. charlie: the president said you leave obamacare alone, it will implode under its own weight. john: that may very well happen. it depends what we mean by obamacare. liberals will rush in and say obamacare was not in a death spiral. it was ok. the congressional budget office confirmed that in one of their reports they gave on replacement legislation. obamacare was getting to a more stable place. but the stability requires the administration maintain it, or is interested in maintaining it. you need to advertise and say,
it is time to sign up for exchanges. that brings in more people, healthy people, and their contribution with premiums and filling up the insurance companies so they can spend money on sicker patients. it spreads risk. if you don't advertise or work against advertising, it changes your pool of interest here that is one of the many ways the administration is working against the affordable care act. it is not as healthy, so that is again why he will probably seek the -- you will probably see people let it die from this unhealthy state. it is cruel to the people that are on it and expect to benefit. charlie: if the president -- this is a big if question -- if the president started with infrastructure, could he have got some democrats involved? would it have created a relationship to make things
better in other congressional fights? john: i don't know. it would require another orientation. this has not been what we expect even rhetorically from presidents, which has been the rhetoric of reaching out to the other side. the rhetoric of we come together, the rhetoric of the inaugural address and everything he has done has not really worked to build bridges even in his own party. he chose globally to not approach those -- the presidency that way. so on infrastructure specifically in they thought they could do that last, get these other things done, democrats would have to come along in the end on infrastructure. but we have yet to see is the kind of innovation and razzle-dazzle play on behalf of legislation we saw the president employ when he was a campaigner on behalf of himself. he did a lot of things people
thought nobody has ever done that in a campaign, that is crazy, too risky. he has done plenty of things with respect to his own personal security, but as a salesman of policy and a person engaged in trying to get his ideas past, he has not done anything that is particularly innovative or takes advantage of his unique talents to disrupt and reorganize the political landscape when it comes to selling the ideas, health care or infrastructure. if there was a place, infrastructure might have been the place where he found agreements with democrats, because there are a lot of places they want infrastructure strong in their state. there is the union piece of this. it will be one of those great what ifs. ,harlie: what about tax reform is it more difficult or will it be a different kind of course for this administration and the republicans in congress? john: talking to members of
congress about this, you get a couple answers. one is, goodness gracious, tax reform is difficult because there is so many lobbyists engaged in the code for their clients. since money is a big part of politics, those lobbyists are condiments -- conduit to a lot of fundraising for these members were things they want. they would have a relationship -- or things they want. they have a relationship that makes it difficult to make anything big in tax reform. you have an administration susceptible to lobbying. there are lobbyists working in the administration. they have been in touch with them in respect to regulatory work they have done. for the talk of draining the swamp, there are plenty of people who are members in good standing of the swamp who are part of the administration. that lobbying access could make it a problem. the other side of this is people who say, president trump knows
about business. and he knows about taxes, this is something in his bones. health care was never in his bones, but he has a lot of friends in the business community. this is something that has a more personal feel to it. he can speak to the public, probably with more facility, and he can say, i was a business guy. this unlocks business. this points to the market growth numbers that just came out, they were quite good. he can say, this is what we need for the economy. push ins a real strong the republican party for tax reform. there was a lot of momentum to try to do something. there was a lot of momentum to do something on health care. where i come out in the end, this will be the easier of the health care reform, and some people think that is not the case. charlie: the president appointed a republican senator from alabama, jeff sessions, and his
attorney general -- as his attorney general. he criticized in this week, saying if he had nowhere he would stand on recusing himself, he would never have appointed him. now you have republican senator's standing up and saying, watch out. we like jeff sessions. hands off. is that convincing a split within the division between the president and the republicans? john: in a sense it is, although i don't know how that plays out. i was on the hill reporting this week. you talk to republicans, this is the kind of thing they bring up. it is head scratching. why is he doing this? every morning he woke up and criticized his attorney general, often using the kind of manipulation of the troth we would expect of the political -- the truth we would expect of a political campaign. hillary clinton is one, the
president said he should be investigating hillary clinton. he can't hear the rules that recused him from the russia administration would have to reduce himself from anything with -- recuse himself with anything from hillary clinton because of the campaign. he said i don't want my attorney general to go after hillary clinton. it is not a priority. during the campaign he said, whatever we would do with hillary clinton, it would be a to my attorney general. a lot of mixed messages. every day, the president attacking sessions, anthony scaramucci saying, suggesting the president doesn't want sessions to keep the job. there is no substantive argument here in terms of the key parts of the trump agenda, whether immigration or cracking down on crime. those critiques are not being leveled at jeff sessions. it is the russia investigation or what he hasn't done in
investigating hillary clinton or the side issues. it is worth remembering there is no more loyal member of the cabinet if you measure who is out there loud and proud for donald trump when there was political risk. charlie: and first. john: and first, and at a crucial time when ted cruz was challenging him. it was very helpful to get legitimacy of someone like jeff sessions who was the validator for republican candidates reject sessions -- candidates. ted cruz used to talk about jeff sessions all the time. getting his endorsement before the southern primaries was helpful to president trump as a sign of weakness -- two president trump. as a sign of the weakness now, he says that was not important. not worthy of continued loyalty. another little tea leaf to watch is on friday, the president gave a long speech about law
enforcement, immigration, the center of jeff sessions' job and his issues, he did not mention jeff sessions once in his speech. charlie: can we best jeff sessions will be fired? or will he quit, or will he stay? john: i don't know, charlie. if you were betting on a presidency, you could use signals to suggest the parameters of the best or the table -- of the bet or the table, but in this administration you don't know if you are playing roulette or pinochle. it is hard to say what the betting should be. they are saved jeff sessions won't -- saying jeff sessions won't go anywhere, but if that is the case, how does he work in a job where they are used to being daily undermined by the president every day? charlie: does this suggest the president if pushed to 4-wood
fire bob mueller -- too far would fire bob mueller? john: he can only do so for cause. you get into a saturday night massacre problem, which if rosenstein didn't do it, they would fire rosenstein and find somebody who could. this is another curious thing, which is, let's imagine with jeff sessions gone, a new attorney would have to go through a confirmation hearing. in terms of the pushback from republicans on the hill, senator grassley of the judiciary committee treated there is no room on the docket this year for confirmations of attorneys general. they are pushing back to the president saying don't get rid of him because we will not confirm another one. even if they were confirmed, even if of sterling character, would have to make many assurances they would not fire bowler that the president -- robert mueller that they would
-- the endgame is opaque. it is hard to figure out. charlie: there is pushback from the military because the president in a tweet announced what he feels about transgender in the military. the military said, we will continue what we are doing now, and let that come up through the right channels. john: whenever you call the pentagon, and they say, go back and white -- ask the white house, you know something has not been worked out. there is a ruggedness to it. -- while theyas knew the president had this view apparently, the timing was off. there was a review in the pentagon. it was a big surprise, caught everybody flat-footed, and there have been talks of leaks. when you have leaks, it is people feel appreciative decisions are being made and there voices and process are not being respected in the white
house or administration. you have moments that cause chaos and undermine the work you are doing, then you lose your adhesion to the president and to the overall cause. there is already some challenges in the trump administration with respect to everybody feeling they are pursuing the same course. this is even more problems on those lines and creates dater -- greater disgruntlement and more. charlie: 3.5 years to go. any reason to believe it will be different? john: it is hard to see how. the hiring of anthony scaramucci was a bold move by the president to try to reorient things. like many presidents for him, he felt communications was the thing to be fixed. they are doing everything fine, they need to communicate better. in the last week, we see a chaos
. the interview in the new yorker is quite chaotic and creates sort of more of the same, more of that unpredictable, diversionary white house behavior that is distracting and detracting from the job at hand. the alternative reality that --ld have been followed here john hart has a great piece and commentary, imagining if you are trying to l health reform -- health care -- trying to sell health care reform and you had to rebut the arguments that were predictable. we have been doing at this for seven years, arguments that would have been used against it and how a president engaged in selling a product would have anticipated those, rallied the country behind them. none of that planning can go on. senators this week, very hard to work when you have the president
here, the chief investment strategist at gml, the group he founded in 1978. numerous about financial asset bubbles. he warned against the dot-com bubble and the financial crisis. his latest letter to the shareholders, he fell gain fast evaluating equity. he is encouraged by the supporting forces propelling that rise and rights, this time seems very different. i am pleased to have jeremy grantham back at this table. jeremy: nice to be here. charlie: why does this time seemed very, very different? jeremy: well i am actually hard-pressed to find anything that isn't different. to start with the basics, the price-to-earnings ratio at the markets in the last two years has been -- 20 years has been
20% higher than the last 100 years. higherphet has been 30% at corporations -- profit at corporations have been 30% higher. you have corporate management. 30 years ago, i used to think about expansion -- they used to think about expansion. the market would get tied, they would open new mills. now they think about profit margin more than expansion. they use the extra money to buy stock back. it works out well for corporate offices and to push the price of the stock of a little bit. it tends to be a little bad for gdp growth, bad for jobs, good for the corporation itself. it works pretty well, and for the stockholder. charlie: is it good for the economy? jeremy: a little bit week for bad.conomy, a little bit it doesn't generate any extra
jobs. if you are focused on buying your stock back rather than expanding, other things being even, you will have slightly less growth. charlie: some call that financial engineering. jeremy: they do. it is a good description. charlie: is financial engineering good? jeremy: i think it is bad. i think it is understandable. it is very effective for the corporate offices running the corporation. it works well enough for stockholders that they tolerate it, but for the man in the street, you don't have such a peril -- virile economy. it shows up almost everywhere. there aren't as many new firms. the number of public companies have passed. the number of people working for firms that are one or two years old or half of what they used to be in 19 -- are half of what
they used to be in 1970. charlie: there is a disconnect between the market growth. jeremy: there is, and there has a no easy correlation between the economy doing well and -- you might think there is when you read the newspaper or hear the news. charlie: but there are a lot of people looking hard at macroeconomics. jeremy: well, good luck to them. it is very difficult. easy relationships have certainly avoided me. betweenun a correlation the countries that do well, you can't find any connection, rapid growing countries of the past slightly underperform, so you might start with japan. they have the best growth, didn't do that well overall, then south korea, china today. they outgrow everybody.
it doesn't make more money on the stock market. you run them all together over the last 100 years, you see a slightly negative correlation. the companies that have grown more slowly and -- tend to do better in the market. think of what drives return is how profitable you are, not have passed -- how fast you grow. charlie: you like emerging markets. jeremy: i slightly do. i am causing a lot of trouble a value -- amongmy my fellow value managers. but that does not mean i would not put money in the u.s. market . emerging market are usually more cheaper than the u.s. recently as early 2008, it fell in the premium price earnings ratio. by the spring of last year, amazingly it was actually cheaper than it had been after the crash of 2009.
the u.s. meanwhile price and 11 times earnings had gone to 22, and emerging had gone from 11 to 10, a huge divergence in favor of the u.s. that is usually a pretty good sign. you should pay attention, be brave.o be a little the probability of emerging over coming the u.s. in the next 10 years is very slim. charlie: who has the strongest economy, and how do you measure it? obviously china and india have been able to outgrow everybody else, and that is a wonderful definition of a strong economy. charlie: the velocity of growth. jeremy: yes. how many of your poor have you
turned into middle-class? lifestyle, average what is the average educational standard, and you have to give it to the chinese. charlie: that is one of the benefits of emerging markets. understoodeved were or read the advantage was the fact we are creating a middle class which provides a consumer for the expensive economy. -- expansive economy. jeremy: along the way, there is success, particularly the chinese, on educating the average workforce. skills with math or higher than the u.s.. not only are they one third the price or one quarter the price, but they are actually more skilled in basic quantitative methods. this should make us nervous. it makes me nervous. charlie: exactly, it makes
people in silicon valley nervous too. jeremy: it does. charlie: can you make the argument they are in for the long run, whatever the long run is, those companies -- countries that don't have a highly functioned democracy will be in the long run restraint because of their prospects? -- restrained because of their prospects? jeremy: that is a widely held aboutand i have this view capital that it does millions of other kind ofthan economic -- charlie: economic systems. jeremy: economic systems. one or two things it does badly, if it is very long-term, capitalism is not really suited for that. they have a discount rate
problem where anything that happens out 20 years doesn't seem to matter. the chinese can deal with those problems much better. today the real threat tends to be long-term issues such as population.ge or and how do you deal with the problems which are what economists called externalities mainly? how do you do with overfishing? how do you deal with protecting the quality of your soil? cane are societies i think and are handling it much better, they respond to climate change much more quickly and seriously than we do. they have much greater respect for science. so i think the pendulum that was completely -- charlie: before you say that, they have a much greater respect for science.
jeremy: yeah, they do. the chinese regime before this one had nine out of the top 10 guys had phd's. i went to trouble to find out how many we had in the whole of congress up to the presidency. be the answer came back a 1.5 depending on how you view 1.5ors -- came back depending on how you view doctors. charlie: what about deregulation and using power that trump has to get it through congress or through executive order? jeremy: the biggest risk to american business and american society is the drift to more corporate power in politics and more corporate power through monopolies and so on and less to the workers and the destruction of the unions and the income inequality where we are the 20th
out of 20 rich countries. we are unequal. also the speed you can move from one economic class to another. one thing america has been mobile with or the stickiest, we have the most difficult society in the developed 20 countries. charlie: to go from lower-class to middle-class? jeremy: this is absolutely a virile a threat to how capitalist society can be if you suppress the ordinary worker. since 1970, the average hourly pay adjusted for inflation have has not changed. i bring up rants because everest -- rants because -- france because ever since i have been here, seems like we are taking
their bottoms up your but they are up 140%. the brits are up 165%, the japanese 80%, and the u.s. hourly wage of all hours worked has not changed since 1970. this has been a tough era, and why wouldn't the workers be upset? charlie: why wouldn't politicians respond to that? jeremy: and yet wouldn't you say if you look at what is happening and what has been proposed, this is a complete flowering of corporatism. it is a complete emanation -- domination where people from a particular industry are to run the regulatory body that protects the general people from misbehavior of the drug companies or misbehavior of the fossil fuel companies. they have been taken over by the corporations. charlie: would you explain these views to your friends in the corporate community or financial
community? do they applaud? jeremy: they hate the topic, step one. step two, most people get it that things are not working quite right. charlie: and they are realistic about it? jeremy: and they are -- i won't say fully realistic, but they are beginning to realize we have overdone the move towards copper chisholm -- corporatism. they run congress, and this administration perhaps is as i wave.e flowering of that society will have these waves. you move to capitalism, you move back to the worker. capitalism was the top dog back in 1880, the gilded age, then a combination of wars and fdr and
aggression. from 1945 to 1975, we had the golden era of equality. everyone benefited from productivity, pension funds were started, the workers made huge advance, educational standards for ordinary people went up, and the gdp was handled. then 1975 to 1980 we got stickier, and after 1985, it has been corporate, corporate power increasing all the time. charlie: donald trump is the champion in many ways of the people you are talking about. he proposed that he would be the champion. that is absolutely fair. and the accepted his proposition. charlie: yes. wrote the agenda. his anti-trade, anti-globalism. jeremy: yeah.
he was the one who picked up on their frustration, and i think it is fair to say hillary did not. charlie: let's treat this hypothetical. you, youump says to understood what i did in 2016 election and how i got elected. and i have the power and i have a congress with control of my party in both the house and senate. what should i do? how would i take an election which has put me in this oval office and make the kind of changes that you believe are essential? he differs with you from environment. he differs with you on probably a lot of issues. jeremy: and i should say upfront on one issue, i would vote for who had a president
brilliant climate change agenda. charlie: because you think it is that essential. jeremy: it is that essential. , it is clearhat the current administration is not going to further income inequality were that proposal so adoptionseen taxed for the rich. -- deductions for the rich. probably heard warren buffett saying most of the proposals for health care amounted to millions of dollars of tax savings for his friends, hundreds of lossands for him, and the of 20 million people being insured. this is the exact opposite of deregulation. deregulation is a whole thing for corporations.
to in the end, the threat the well-being of a society if you really up coal miners so the can pour assets down streams in west virginia, which is what has happened. you make it easier to have methane lakes with the fracking business. etc., etc., it makes life easier for them. fewer forms to fill out. you have to ask the question, if led to their own demises, chemical hombres protect the environment, the public -- companies protect the environment or the public? charlie: you approve of the profits they make and their potential growth in stock? jeremy: it is an unfair question. if you are managing money -- charlie: we have that problem today. jeremy: absolutely.
charlie: if you manage money for institutions as we do, we are just the agent area -- agent. we cannot impose values on them. we don't have the right to vote for them. we should make up -- and they do in many cases, they make up their own mind. it is not for us to do that. it is for us to listen to what they want and make as much money as we possibly can within their constraints, not ours. having said that, there is nothing to stop me as an individual writing a quarterly letter and say, pay attention. the environment is important, and we see a play a big role in your portfolio whether you like it or not. there is a great opportunity for universities to take a leadership position on this
issue, which they have not taken. charlie: you think we could overcome, if you had the environmental views that majority of americans do have, we could not have left the paris accord? jeremy: you see with the cities and bloomberg of course does it very well here, the cities, the ,tates, a lot of corporations without intending it, president thep has galvanized environmental community in a way i would never have guessed. he has galvanized the rest of the world. it is a two-for. we have got all of the other countries pulling harder on climate, talking about it more. the thing that really disturbed me for years was how low climate
change, given its significance, given the fact it is the only threat to our existence that there is, really -- charlie: you talk to people in area, they say it is a national security issue. jeremy: that is very encouraging. i have been amazed the u.s. military and the u.k. military, who most understand not only climate but resource issues, they understand this is what will cause problems in africa and europe and the far east as you go out in decades. they should think about this, and they do. yearsnion for at least 10 , they have come to exactly the right conclusion. but how low this was on the agenda of the public and politicians was shocking. what happened with paris is it moved the issue of the agenda.
it is more -- up the agenda. it is more talk about. charlie: also an opportunity informed of tpp and paris accords and other issues. it has created a vacuum for other countries to move into global leadership. jeremy: absolutely. china is not going to miss this opportunity. china has something dish advantages -- being dish -- fiendish advantages really. we have an embarrassing lack of capital investment, and they have embarrassing surplus of savings. they are ready to invest. about makinge is this huge shift to renewable energy, and renewable energy is about capital. you build a solar plant, and that is free.
electricity is free for 30, 40 years. you build a window, it is free for 30, 40 years. if you have, your long capital, china can move in and convert from oil and gas and coal above all to wind and solar and storage and transmission. and they will. charlie: when they fix the battery, they will have it locked. jeremy: they will have the cheapest energy of a developed country and the cheap labor and well educated labor. we should start worrying about the advantages they will have. charlie: it is great to have you here. thank you for coming. jeremy: a pleasure. ♪ we check our phones 85 times a day.
so it only made sense to create a network that keeps up. introducing xfinity mobile. it combines america's largest, most reliable 4g lte with the most wifi hotspots nationwide. saving you money wherever you check your phone. yeah, even there. see how much you can save when you choose by the gig or unlimited. call, or go to xfinitymobile.com. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money.
in the more turmoil white house after just 10 days on the job. scaramucci is out. anchor: that is right. the turmoil and uncertainty in washington is hitting the dollar . the biggest retreat since january. yvonne: anchor: the fed number two says anchor: the lack of direction it's hurting growth in the u.s. and abroad. screw onhina turns a inquisitive companies.