tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 31, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with politics this evening. president donald trump has replaced his chief of staff reince priebus with general john kelly. reince priebus's exit came one day after it was reported that the new communications director anthony scaramucci had called a new york reporter and unloaded on reince priebus. he suggested the chief of staff would be asked to resign. this cap a chaotic week for the administration, one that included the president publicly undercutting the attorney general and the collapse of the republican appeal of obamacare.
joining me from the abc news studio in new york 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 it doesn't really matter if he was pushed or fired. it seemed inevitable. jonathan: there's no question. he was fired. the president made it clear. actually, even before scaramucci came in, the president made it clear internally he was getting ready to make a change. not necessarily on this exact date, the scaramucci fiasco, the back and forth between the two of them accelerated this, but the president made it clear he was ready 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 chiefs of staff in history, one of the shortest in
history, but you also have a national security adviser that lasted barely a month. you have the white house press week.ary that left last at communications director who only lasted a couple weeks. six months of turmoil, now a military man is brought in john , kelly, to impose some order on the west wing. charlie: it is said that the president doesn't like people he considers weak, and he considered reince priebus weak. jonathan: i believe reince priebus proved that over the last couple of days, as scaramucci went out and repeatedly undermined him, most outrageously so with that "new yorker," interview. there were people close to the president urging previous -- reince priebus to take a stand, saying he needed to fire scaramucci for that interview. one person close to the president even said to me that what reince priebus needed to do was to call scaramucci into his office and fire him himself, and
have the secret service take away his credentials and escort him out of the building to force the issue. scaramucci meeting clear on day one that he was reporting directly to the president, and it seemed reince priebus was simply unwilling to force the take a stand. that's why ultimately a president decided today was the day to push them out. charlie: it's interesting that reince pubis -- reince priebus e who admire him, but they did not rush to his defense. certainly not within the white house. this stuck with me, being at the white house all week, seeing the way he was undermined it first , more subtly, then finally with that "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. of have seen the member 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 considered a loyalist, and also 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 mvp of his cabinet, and somebody who has a can-do attitude for the president 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 report to reince priebus. he was somebody who did not have the authority to make changes. the president had to sign off on everything. there were other senior officials who said 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? that's the question. 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. the idea of generals is they don't have the political experience necessary for chief of staff to the president. jonathan: that argument had been made to the president early on, but the reason why reince priebus was chosen, he theoretically had that kind of political savvy. he had the contacts on the hill.
not just the speaker by key -- members of congress, send it is 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 do to have somebody with contacts? that is not a concern now. an interesting question now is 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 issue which he has recused himself. from the start, immigration was his key issue. he would be in charge of ice.
i think we will see further changes. 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 how the replace him. general 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-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 has executed that. it is an open question whether or not general kelly will go into the oval office and challenge the president and tell him he is wrong on something. that remains to be seen. also, how the president would react to it. 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 trains run on time as they say, , having superb management skills, and someone who does not tolerate disruptive behavior. jonathan: exactly. and there is no shortage of disruptive behavior in the west wing. charlie: thank 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 this week from the reaction to another north korean missile test to the late-night failure republican efforts to repeal the obamacare. then the early missteps of the new communications director, anthony scaramucci. also, there was the effort to criticize the man he appointed attorney general. all of that and more from the anchor of "face the nation," john dickerson. it has been a wild -- while.
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 d prices to go up. then you have the centrist republicans who say when you strip out all the guarantees in the affordable care act, 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. finally, they tried to move from venue to venue. to try to passas something that 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 couldn't even do that. now it has collapsed. everybody seems to be suggesting they will be moving on. charlie: the conclusion is obamacare or the affordable care act survives. john: it 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. the affordable care act democrats will concede and will have for a long time, that it has problems that need to be fixed. 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 getting people to sign up. if people don't sign up, the risk pool of people covered is filled with sicker people. people cannot afford even the subsidies of premiums and deductibles, they lose coverage. or insurance companies dropout of covering people in the exchanges in certain states. it is a life, but in a weakened condition. in part because of the actions by the trump administration, and something needs to be done, if for no other reason than to give assurances to people who are vulnerable or on the affordable care act and are worried about the future. that will cost another round of this, but it's not a priority, it seems, for the republican 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 republicans 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? he said that no one ever has. if you make a list that want to reach out to make a bipartisan agreement, you reach out to joe mansion -- manchin. he has run for romney and trump, he has voters that want to see him work with republicans. republicans on their side say we
did not negotiate fully because democrats say you have to keep the individual mandate. for republicans, the individual mandate is the central horror of obamacare. so they say there is no point in negotiating. there were little talks about negotiation and bipartisanship, but really, and 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: no. 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 promised he would take his considerable marketing skills and negotiating skills and apply them to the presidency. on this specific issue, he said he would be able to solve it like no one else could. in his mind more people would be
, covered, they would have better access to care, and it would be cheaper. anybody involved in health care those were promises that could never 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. even within president trump's base. 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 was good, but never went beyond that. as a negotiator, he put a lot of pressure on senators, more vinegar than honey. it doesn't seem to -- 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 terribly in evidence on this legislation. 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 affirmed that in one of their reports they gave on replacement legislation. they argued that basically 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, hopefully more healthy people, and their contribution with ends up 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 -- of entrance. that is one of the many ways the administration is working against the affordable care act. when it is out there, it is not as healthy. that is why you will probably see people saying that the president's idea of letting it die from this unhealthy state is really cruel to the people on it and expect to benefit from it. -- ife: this is a big if the president had started with infrastructure, where he would have been able to get democrats involved, would it have created a relationship to make things better in other congressional
fights? john: i don't know. it would require a different orientation from the president. beenrientation has not what we expect even rhetorically from presidents, at least 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 the presidency that way. so on infrastructure specifically, they felt like they could do it last, and they would get these things done and democrats would have to come along in the end on infrastructure. what we have yet to see in the trump presidency 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 before that
, is crazy, too risky. he has done plenty of things with respect to his own personal security on the job as president, but as a salesman of policy and a person engaged in ideas passed,his 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 reasons democrats want strong infrastructures. there is a union piece of this. it will be one of those great what ifs. charlie: there is this question, too. what happens in a 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 always difficult because there are so many lobbyists engaged in the code for their clients. since money is such an important and big part of politics, those lobbyists are often conduits 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 that is susceptible and receptive to lobbying. there are lobbyists working in the administration. they have been in touch with lobbyists 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 that 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 as well. this is something that has a more personal feel to it. he can also speak to the public with more facility about tax rates and has standing, because he can say he was a business guy. -- points to the market and success when he was they were quite good. he can say, this is what we need for the economy. there was a real strong push in 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: this republican president appointed a republican senator from alabama, jeff
sessions, as his attorney general. he spent a good part of this week criticizing him, saying he's not doing well, saying if he had known where he stood on recusing himself, he would never have appointed him. you now have republican senators standing up and saying, watch out. we like jeff sessions. hands off. is that enhancing 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? almost every morning, the president has woken up and criticized his attorney general, often using the kind of manipulation of the truth we would expect of a political campaign. blaming him for things he does not deserve blame for.
hillary clinton is one, the president said he should be investigating hillary clinton. well, he can't. the rules that cost him to recuse himself from the russia removegation would also him from anything to do with hillary clinton because of the campaign. secondly, president trump said he doesn't want his 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. there are a lot of the next messages here. 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 all about the russia investigation or what he has not
done about investigating hillary clinton are these side issues. there's no 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. ted cruz was challenging him. it was the republican primary. it was helpful to get legitimacy of someone like jeff sessions who was the validator for republican candidates. ted cruz used to talk about jeff sessions all the time. if jeff sessions and i worked on this, that means i'm a certain kind of republican. getting his endorsement before the southern primaries was helpful to president trump. as a sign of the weakness now, in the interview with "the wall street journal," the president says that relationship was not that 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. the president did not mention jeff sessions once in his speech. charlie: is the betting that jeff sessions will be fired? or will he quit, or will he stay? john: i don't know, charlie. in the past if you had asked about the betting of presidency, you could use signals to suggest the parameters of the bet or the table, but in this administration, you don't know whether you are playing roulette , poker, 21, or pinochle. it is hard to say what the betting should be. there are reports that sessions isn't going anywhere. he gave an interview think he wasn't going. but if that's the case, how can he work in his job where he is being undermined daily by the president? charlie: does this suggest the
president, if pushed too far, would fire bob mueller? john: he can only do so for cause. saideputy attorney general that. 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 -- he wants 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, tweeted there is no room on the docket this year for confirmations of attorneys general. in other words, to the president, you can't get rid of the attorney general because we will not confirm a new one. and even if they had a sterling character, the new person would have to make so many assuring statements to not file your robert -- fire robert mueller
that the endgame is opaque. it is hard to figure out. charlie: there is pushback from the military, because the president tweets 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: that's right. whenever you call the pentagon, and they say, go back and ask the white house, you know something has not been worked out. there is a raggedness to it. the military was -- while they 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. one of the reasons you have leaks, is when people feel like iousiestess -- capric
decisions are being made and 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. even more problems on those this causeseven more problems on those lines and creates greater this causes even more problems on those lines and creates 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 just 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 could have been followed here -- there is a great piece in commentary imagining if you are trying to sell health care reform and you had to rebut the arguments that were predictable. they have been going 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 arguments, rally the country behind them. none of that planning can go on. talking to senators this week, very hard to work when you have the president sending out three different messages.
here. he is chief investment the group he gtmo founded in 1978. they talk about numerous 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 writes, thisd 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. but to start with the basics, the price-to-earnings ratio at of the markets in the last 20 years has been 70% higher than the previous 100 years.
the profit margins of u.s. corporations have been 30% higher in the last 20 years, so you have had really profound shifts, also the style of corporate management. 30 years ago, they used to think about expansion. the market for paper would get a tied and 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 very well for corporate officers, tends to push the price of the stock of a little bit. it tends to be a little bad for gdp growth, a little bad for jobs, but for the corporation itself, it works pretty well, and for the stockholder. charlie: is it good for the economy? jeremy: a little bit weak for the economy, a little bit bad for the economy.
as i said, 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: some asked the question, 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 virile economy. it shows up almost everywhere. there aren't as many new firms. the number of public companies been cut in half. the number of people working for firms that are one or two years
old are half of what they used to be in 1970. it does come at a cost. charlie: there is a disconnect between the market and economic growth. jeremy: there is, and there has always been, and there is 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. if you run a correlation between the countries that do well, you can't find any connection, rapid growing countries of the past have tended to slightly underperform, so you might start with japan. it had the best growth, didn't do that well overall, then south korea, china today. they outgrow everybody.
it doesn't mean you make more money on the stock market. you run them all together over the last 100 years, you see a slightly negative correlation. the countries that have grown more slowly tend to do better in the market. the thing that drives return is how profitable you are, not how fast you grow. charlie: you like emerging markets. jeremy: i certainly do. i am causing a lot of trouble among my fellow value managers. the market is not about to blowout, but that does not mean i would not put money in the u.s. market. emerging markets are usually more cheaper than the u.s. as 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 priced at 11 times earnings had gone to 22, and emerging had gone from 11 to 10, so a huge divergence in favor of the u.s. that is usually a pretty good sign. you should pay attention, be ready to be a little brave. the probability of emerging over not outperforming the u.s. in years is veryyear' slim. charlie: who has the strongest economy, and how do you measure it? jeremy: i think obviously china and india have been able to outgrow everybody else, and that is a workable definition of a strong economy. charlie: the velocity of growth. jeremy: yes. and how many of your poor have you turned into middle-class?
what is the average lifestyle, what is the average educational standard, and you have to give it to the chinese. charlie: that is one of the advantages of emerging markets. i have always believed, understood, or read the advantage of the emerging markets was the fact we are creating a middle class which provides a consumer for the expansive economy. jeremy: absolutely. along the way, there is success, particularly the chinese, on educating their average workforce. the recent scores in 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: i think it does, yeah. charlie: can you make the the long run,over whatever the long run is, those countries that don't have a highly functioning democracy will be in the long run restrained in terms of their prospects? jeremy: that is a widely held view. charlie: i know. jeremy: i have this view about capital that it does millions of things better than other kind of top driven -- charlie: economic systems. jeremy: economic systems. one or two things it does badly, if it is very long-term, capitalism is not really suited to that. they have a discount rate
problem whereby anything that happens out 20 years doesn't seem to matter. the chinese can deal with those problems much better. and today the real threats tend to be long-term issues such as climate change or population. and how do you deal with the se which are what economists called externalities mainly? how do you do with overfishing? how do you deal with protecting the quality of your soil? their societies i think can 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 in favor -- 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 a lot of trouble to find out how many we had in the whole of congress up to the presidency. and the answer came back 1.5 , depending on how you view doctors. this is a fairly tragic comparison. charlie: it certainly is. would you think of president trump's emphasis on deregulation and using the power that he 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 the most unequal society. and also the speed with which you can move from one economic class to another. one always used to think of america as being extremely , the moste stickiest difficult society in the developed 20 countries -- charlie: to go from lower-class to middle-class? jeremy: this is absolutely a long-term threat to how virile a capitalist society can be if you suppress the ordinary worker. since 1970, the average hourly pay adjusted for inflation has not changed. in france, i bring up france because ever since i have been here for 40 years, if you read business week, we are kicking
their bottoms, 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 understand that and see that and respond to that? jeremy: and yet wouldn't you say , if you look at what is happening and what is being proposed, this is the complete flowering of corporatism. it is a complete domination where people from a particular industry are appointed to run the regulatory body that is meant to protect 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: when you explain these views to your friends in the corporate community or financial
community, do they applaud? jeremy: they hate the topic, step one. but 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 to corporatism. they run congress i think it is fair to say, and this administration perhaps is as i say the flowering of that wave. a good society will have these waves. you move towards capitalism .ould yo 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 from 1945 to and
1975, we had the golden era of everybodyy, where benefited from productivity, pension funds were started, the workers made huge advances, educational standards for ordinary people went up, and the handsome. 1975 to 1980, it got stickier, and after 1985, it has been corporate power increasing all the time. charlie: donald trump is the champion in many ways of the people you are talking about. jeremy: he proposed that he would be the champion. that is absolutely fair. charlie: well, they voted for him. jeremy: and they accepted his proposition. charlie: yes. 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. donald trump says to you, you understood what i did in 2016 election and how i got elected. now i have have the power and i have a congress controlled by 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 clearly. he differs with you on probably a lot of issues. jeremy: and i should say upfront i am a one issue voter. i would vote for almost any president who had a brilliant
climate change agenda. charlie: because you think it is that essential. jeremy: because it is that essential. having said that, it is clear that the current administration is not going to further income inequality to all of their proposals so far have been tax deductions for the rich. heard warren buffett sang the first of the proposals for a change in the health care amounted to millions of dollars of tax savings for his friends, hundreds of thousands for him, and the loss of 20 million people being insured. this is exactly the opposite of deregulation. deregulation is a huge help for
corporations. and in the end, a threat to the general well-being of a society miners poure coal assets down the streams in west virginia, which is what has happened. you make it easier to have methane leaks in the fracking business. it makes life easier for them. fewer forms to fill out. in the in, you have to ask the question, if led to their own devices, do chemical companies protect the environment or the public? or do they try to maximize the profit? charlie: would you invest in a company if you did not approve of what they did, but approved of the profits they make and their potential growth in stock? jeremy: it is an unfair question. if you are managing money -- charlie: we ask that questions
of universities today. jeremy: absolutely. if you manage money for institutions as we do, we are just the agent. we have no right to impose our personal values on them. we don't have the right to vote for them. they should make up -- and they make upny cases -- their own line, where the lines are that they would draw in the sand. it is not for us to do that. it is for us to listen to what they want and make as much money for some college endowment 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 saying, hey, guys, pay attention. the environment is important. it will play a big role in your portfolio whether you like it or not. there is a great opportunity for great american universities to take a leadership position on
this issue, which they have not taken yet. charlie: do you think we can overcome, if you had the environmental views that you have and the majority of americans do have, we could not overcome america leaving the paris accord? jeremy: you see with the cities and bloomberg of course does it has done very well here, the cities, the states, a lot of corporations. charlie: right. jeremy: without obviously intending it, president trump has galvanized the 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
on the agenda climate change was given its significance, given the fact it is the only threat to our existence that there is, really. charlie: if you talk to people in the national area, they say climate is a national security issue. jeremy: that is very encouraging. for the last 10 years, i have been amazed that 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. in my opinion for at least 10 years, they have come to exactly the right conclusions. but how low this was on the agenda of the public and politicians was shocking. and what has happened with paris is that it has moved the issue up the agenda.
it is more talked about. charlie: not only that. an opportunityen for tpp and paris accords and other issues. it has created a vacuum for other countries to move into in terms of global leadership. jeremy: absolutely. china is not going to miss this opportunity. china has some fiendish advantages really. it saves 50% of its gdp almost, and we save relatively little, so we have an embarrassing lack of capital investment, and they have embarrassing surplus of savings ready to invest. climate change is about making this huge shift to renewable energy, and renewable energy is about capital. you build a solar plant, and
then it is free, electricity is free for 30, 40 years. it is free windmill, for 30, 40 years. if you are 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 come out of this with 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: it is great to be here. charlie: a pleasure. ♪ ♪
>> i am alisa parenti. you are watching "bloomberg technology." this is first word let's start with a check of your first word news. sarah huckabee sanders says anthony scaramucci has no role in the administration at this time. scaramucci was removed today as communications director after 10 days on the job. sanders says all staff members plan to remain. they will report to new chief of staff general john kelly. meantime, president trump says retired kelly will do a fantastic job as chief of staff. the former homeland security secretary was sworn in this morning. he replaces reince priebus. the white house