tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg September 24, 2017 7:00am-8:00am EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: jens stoltenberg is here. he is the 13th secretary-general atlantic treaty organization. he is also the former prime minister of norway. nato is the largest and most powerful military alliance in history. since its founding in 1949, the organization has significantly redefined its role. its primary focus after 9/11 has been combating terrorism. and increasingly, inserted russia and north korea have become a priority for the alliance. the secretary-general recently declared "the world is more dangerous today than it has been
in a generation." i am pleased to have him here for the first time. welcome. mr. stoltenberg: thank you for having me. charlie: let me pick up on your quote. "the world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation." tell me what causes you to say that. mr. stoltenberg: it is the combination of so many different threats and uncertainties at the same time. we have the proliferation of nuclear weapons like we see in north korea. we have terrorism and turmoil close to nato borders, but also in our own streets. we have a more assertive russia. all of this together has created a much more challenging and difficult security environment than we have seen since the end of the cold war. therefore, nato has to adapt and change to be able to manage and handle it. charlie: i want to talk about all those things. change. adapt, and
but first, speaking of the russians, what do you make of the war games they are doing in belarus? mr. stoltenberg: russia has the right to exercise its forces. we don't criticize russia for conducting exercises. the important thing is it has to be transparent. it has to be predictable. because when there is more military activity and exercises close to our borders in a situation with higher tensions, there is the risk for miscalculations, for incidents or accidents. if they happen, they can spiral out of control and create really dangerous situations. we have seen before russia has used military exercises as a disguise for launching aggressive actions against neighbors as we saw in ukraine when they illegally annexed crimea. therefore, exercises, that is part of what every nation do. but it has to be transparent. we call on russia to be transparent and invite international observers and tell
the rest of the world what they are doing. charlie: a couple of questions about russia. number one, it is a fair appraisal the president of russia, vladimir putin, has significantly modernized the russian military force. mr. stoltenberg: yes. we have seen the development over several years, since 2000, that russia has tripled defense spending. defense tripled spending? stoltenberg: tripled defense spending in real terms. invested heavily in more modern capabilities. exercised much more modern and large formations of troops and forces. but most importantly, they have used military force against neighbors. we saw that in georgia in 2008. we saw it in ukraine in 2014. that is the reason we have responded by increasing the readiness of nato. we have tripled the size of the nato response force.
so we can quickly reinforce an area if there is a need. but also we have increased our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance and deployed groups to the baltic countries and poland. charlie: how would you assess the readiness of the nato forces today? mr. stoltenberg: our readiness is high. it is the combination of increased presence in the baltic region and poland, but also in the southeast in romania and bulgaria with the increased capability to reinforce troops and forces quickly to provide deterrents, which is the key task of nato. we don't deploy forces to provoke conflict. we deploy forces to prevent a conflict. as any adversary knows, an attack on one ally would trigger a response from the whole alliance. we are the strongest military alliance in history. as long as our deterrence is credible and it is all for one
and one for all, we will be able to continue to preserve peace. charlie: if russia were to attack one of the baltic countries, nato would respond immediately under article 5? mr. stoltenberg: absolutely. that is the reason we have deployed multinational forces led by the united states, poland, united kingdom, estonia, germany, and canada, and many other nations are contributing forces. by having a multinational nato presence in the baltic countries, we are sending a very clear message that an attack on one of those allies will trigger a response from the whole alliance. at the same time, nato does not seek confrontation with russia. russia is our neighbor. we don't want a new cold war oh. we strive for a more constructive relationship with russia. i have seen that it is possible
to talk to russia, to work with russia but that has to be based on a predictable, strong approach. if we have the strength in nato, then we are able to engage in political dialogue and diffuse tensions between nato and russia. charlie: nothing seems to concern president putin more than nato on his border, the idea of ukraine or georgia being a member of nato is a subject which he becomes passionate against. mr. stoltenberg: yes, but at the same time, it is an absolute principle and right of every nation to decide its own future. russia was also against the baltic countries joining nato. but the baltic countries decided
-- estonia and later latvia, through the democratic process they wanted to become members of nato, and became members of nato. when it comes to georgia and ukraine, it is up to georgia and ukraine to decide their own path. and in the end it is a decision by the 29 nato allies and the applicant country to decide whether they qualify and meet the standards necessary to become a member. russia does not have the right to interfere or try to defeat such a process because that is an attempt to reestablish world order with spheres of influence where big nations like russia try to decide the future of neighbors like the baltic countries. or georgia. again, coming from a small country in norway bordering russia, it is absolutely unacceptable the idea that big countries can decide the future of small neighbors. charlie: as you know, president trump in his campaign to win election as president of the united states had some
interesting comments about nato, at one point calling it obsolete although he has subsequently seemed to have changed that. and he has consistently said nato has to pay if they are share in countries other than the united states. the benchmark seems to be 2% of gdp. what is the relationship now between america and nato? has it gotten through those criticisms from the president? mr. stoltenberg: yes, because president trump has clearly stated to allies, to me, in different meetings at the white house and in brussels, that he is committed to nato. that the united states is committed to nato. not only in words, but also in deeds. the u.s. is now increasing their military presence in europe for the first time since the end of the second world war. charlie: nato welcomes that? mr. stoltenberg: we welcome that. there is a new armored brigade from the u.s. going to the eastern part of the alliance. after many years of decrease of
the u.s. military presence after the cold war, now we see an increase. i think it was right to decrease when tensions went down but also the right decision to increase when tensions are going up again. at the same time, we see european allies are stepping up. fair burden sharing is absolutely something which is -- charlie: there has been a response to the president's criticism about everybody paying their fair share? mr. stoltenberg: more european allies are paying more. we see that across europe and canada. investments in defense is now increasing. the good news is more nations are reaching the 2% target. but even those nations who have not yet reached the 2% target, 2% of gdp on defense, they have started to increase defense
spending. after many years of a significant decline in defense spending, after 2015 we are seeing a significant increase. charlie: speak to the challenge from north korea and iran, how you see it, how nato sees it. mr. stoltenberg: when it comes to iran, it is absolutely unacceptable what they do. and therefore, we need maximum pressure on north korea to reach a political solution to the crisis. charlie: therefore, what did you think of what the president said today about increased sanctions, including a chinese bank? mr. stoltenberg: i welcome the use of sanctions, because i really believe we need to find something in between doing nothing, which is not an option because then we watch north korea developing missiles and nuclear weapons, and using military force, which no one really wants. then there is the alternative in between.
that is to have strong political, diplomatic pressure on north korea combined with sanctions. charlie: diplomatic pressure always needs leverage from economic pressure or military pressure. mr. stoltenberg: yes. we have the sanctions. i welcome initiatives and discussions about how we can strengthen them. we need to at least implement the sanctions we have all agreed already i think no one wants a military solution. that is the reason why it is important to try to find this room in between doing nothing and a military solution. charlie: you believe sanctions will do the job? you believe north korea will respond to sanctions even though they have shown little inclination to? mr. stoltenberg: i am in no way saying this is easy. i am not saying this is a straight way to success. i am saying we have to compare political pressure, diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, unified response from the global community, compare that alternative with other alternatives and they are worse.
charlie: terrorism as you know the conflict in syria, in iraq, they have already retaken mosul. we assume they will soon retake raqqa. what is that mean for terrorism, especially in western europe? mr. stoltenberg: it means a lot because the prospect of isil or daesh being able to establish a caliphate, a physical territory they control with huge revenues and control of the population -- charlie: it has been taken away from them. mr. stoltenberg: yes, and that was important because if they had that kind of territory, that could be a safe haven platform for organizing, planning, financing attacks. charlie: 9/11 took place from afghanistan, which was a failed state at the time. mr. stoltenberg: afghanistan was at that time a safe haven for al qaeda, for international terrorists. the reason nato went in was to
prevent afghanistan from being a safe haven for international terrorists. i think afghanistan shows nato is important for europe, to have a u.s. presence in europe defending european allies. nato is also important for the united states. you have to remember that the only time nato invoked article 5 was after an attack on the united states. hundreds of thousands of canadian, european soldiers fought alongside the u.s. soldiers in afghanistan. and more than 1000 paid the ultimate price with their lives in afghanistan in the mission that was a direct response to an attack on the united states. they lost their lives. so, for the united states to
have friends and allies as they have in nato, it is a great advantage for the united states. you've seen that many times. charlie: as you suggest, the president recognizes that. mr. stoltenberg: yes, and i welcome him recognizing that. in afghanistan, there are troops coming from other allies. charlie: but as you know, when the president went to the g20 and gave some of the speeches on article 5, i hear you saying the relationship between nato and the united states is as good as it could be. we appreciate the president has listened and perhaps changed his mind about the necessity of nato and being adequately funded as well. mr. stoltenberg: first of all i am saying that president trump,
he has clearly stated to me and allies that he is committed to nato. i agree with him that nato should do more in the fight against terrorism. we are stepping up our efforts. we do more providing global support for the commission fighting isil. i agree with the president of the united states that european allies spending less than 2% should spend more. charlie: you mentioned at the beginning of the conversation you had challenges you had to respond to, and you had to in a sense modernize nato to the fullest extent. tell me where you see the biggest challenge for nato and how you hope to meet that challenge. mr. stoltenberg: it is a combination of so many things at the same time. for 40 years from the second world war to the end of the cold war, nato did one thing. that was to do collective defense in europe against the soviet union. then the cold war ended, and we did something very different. we started to fight terrorism in afghanistan. we ended the ethnic wars in the balkans and kosovo. now we have to do both. we need to do crisis management beyond our borders in afghanistan fighting terrorism, and in iraq and syria. but in addition, we need to step up and respond to a more assertive russia in europe. it is this combination. on top of that, we see there are
new kinds of threats. we have cyber, hybrid threats which are very different from the threats we saw. charlie: tell me how nato responds to the potential of cyber warfare or cyber espionage. mr. stoltenberg: we are stepping up and strengthening our cyber defenses with more exercises and more modern capabilities. we are sharing best practices with other allies, helping them to improve the protection of their networks. so we are doing a lot. i think the most important thing is to understand we are living in a time where there is a more blurred line between peace and war. before, it was either peace or war. war was declared on a specific date and lasted through a specific date, and it ended. now it is harder to say when the war against isis started and will end. charlie: there are new weapons including cyber espionage and cyber warfare. but also we have seen it outlined in one research study
after another of how russia utilizes this information as a tactic in conflict. mr. stoltenberg: yes. and again that illustrates the wide range of tools we need to respond to this new security environment. because before, wars would take place in a defined geographic area between countries. now we have war taking place in cyberspace. we see attacks in cyberspace. therefore we do whatever we can to not only protect our own networks but also to help allies improving their resilience and ability to defend their networks. charlie: thank you for stopping by to see us. mr. stoltenberg: thank you so much for having me. charlie: jens stoltenberg, secretary general of nato. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
♪ charlie: brian moynihan is here. he is the chairman and ceo of bank of america. the nation's second-largest bank stands at the center of the u.s. economy, serving one in every two households. it has also emerged as a leader in wealth management and mobile banking. yesterday, the federal reserve said it will start to pull back some of the massive support it provided since the financial crisis. senate republicans announced plans to move forward on a
budget that would pave the way for a $1.5 trillion tax cut over the next decade. in full disclosure, bank of america is one of the underwriters of this program. i'm always pleased to see brian moynihan back at this table. welcome. brian: so good to be here. thank you for having me. charlie: look, i mean -- the financial sector is a crucial part of the american economy. we went through hell as too many americans did in 2008. how is bank of america different today? obviously, you made some major acquisitions. how is it different in terms of how it sees role, how it sees the future? brian: if you think about the company back then, we were more of a product company. we had a credit card division whose job was to get the most credit cards. we had a mortgage division. now we are really a customer company. we say to customers, we will help you live your financial life. we have to do three or four
things very well. your transaction account, your car loan, your house loan, your credit card and help you figure out how to invest money. we are very customer focused. everything we have been doing is to get away from the product only process toward the customer thought process. that is how we operate. credit card and help you figure structurally, a lot more capital. a lot more liquidity. a lot less operations. about 25% reduction in size. all those things, but the real change that will live on in the future is the change from product to customer and focusing in as opposed to focusing out. charlie: i heard jeff bezos say recently he does not think about competition, he thinks about the customer. brian: i think you have to think about it emotionally. our teammates come to work every day to help people be successful and to serve them. that is a good thing and it keeps you out of trouble. if it is about you coming you tend to forget and make mistakes. you also have to think about it structurally. when you think about what a customer needs, they need to transact, buy things, and borrow. how do you weave together
programs that say, if you do more of this, you get more for it and get better rates? that is a customer-in focus. i agree with jeff. it is all about that. the profit will take care of itself. you have to be careful. you do have to make money. we've gotten to over $5 billion a quarter. that's good, but if you do it the right way, it has much more sustainability. that is our view. we have to be sustainable. we have to be able to live through decades. when you reach for short-term profits, you are not sustainable. we've talked a lot about a concept we call "responsible growth." charlie: you had a big investor during the tough times named warren buffett. he is now a leading investor?
brian: leading shareholder. charlie: he is also the leading shareholder in wells fargo. what is it like having a living person there who knows a bit about the world of business as your primary stockholder? brian: berkshire hathaway and mr. warren buffett were fantastic. what they sensed at the time, our stock was getting beaten up. we were trading at five dollars a share. he said this is a great franchise. they just need stability. they need people to leave them alone and let them get to work. so in august, in 2011 -- you think, the crisis was in 2007 and 2008 -- as we but as we came out of the crisis, the residuals were still affecting the company. he saw the opportunity with great underlying opportunity. a straightforward business model that he could see market shares and a huge deposit base. he called me up and said i want to put money in the company. charlie: just like that? said, i know -- that
is why i am calling you when i the "we don't need money." it was the thing about stability. despite the seven or eight acquisitions, what he saw was when this got on track, it would be where it is today, earning $5 billion per quarter, $20 billion a year, doing the right thing for the customer the right way. for that, he got rewarded. interestingly enough, if you are a shareholder that had bought the day before he called me, you would have gotten the same thing. he had the courage to do it in a big number. he has been terrific. charlie: what is the right balance between retail, investment banking, trading, wealth management, credit cards? brian: we think about it this way. there are constraints on how big you can become in something. if you look at our company, about 30% of our balance sheet is in the markets business. 70% isn't. as the markets ebb and flow, it is not going to have that big of an impact. 10% of our revenue comes from fixed income trading. 15% of our revenue comes from all trading sources on a quarterly basis. you have this big, stable sort of annuity stream.
this business which is valuable to our customers, investors, and corporations that issue bonds. i think we got the right mix. if you run it through all the math and all these crazy rules and applications, you kind of come out to optimizing around the capital level that is reasonable and yet you are big enough to be a presence in the market and small enough to have for lack of a better term, capital ratio 100 basis points or somewhere under the competition because it is tough i think our mix is pretty good. what will happen next is opportunities, u.s. versus global. the rest of the business will grow based on opportunities. wealth management grows a little faster because people accumulate wealth. we are doing a heck of a job in retail banking. middle-market and commercial banking is doing fine. everything is solid and performing well. the only business we put a real constraint on is the markets because we have to keep it in check or else it starts to create requirements and rules and risks we do not want. the team does a great job handling that. charlie: how is the u.s. economy? on the one hand, you have the
imf lowering their estimate for the growth rate for the u.s. economy. you have on the other hand the global economy of where do we china and other countries looking good. where do we stand? brian: let's back up to your first comment. if you think about every year going back, i was looking at a chart in a board meeting the other day. it had 12, 13, 14. every year, the forward projections have been too aggressive. the u.s. was going to grow at a faster rate. as we went through the year, they started pulling back. the imf would pull back in the fall. people would pull back in january. people go to davos and they were pulling back. and it was, oh my gosh -- the economy is slowing down. it was not slowing down. it was not growing as fast as people hoped. the difference in the last year is the forward projections are right. that is a 2% growth, 3% plus in the world. the best news you see as you
come through 2017 is the imf lowered it a little bit after the election but the u.s. ought to grow at 2.2% this year. we think it will be a little faster next year. the big difference is the world is growing faster. we think europe will have a big difference next year from two years ago. it was basically flat, maybe 1%. that is good. china is stable at 6%. india has come back and is big enough to really help. we have it almost double digits next year. so, if you think about china at 6%, india at 9%, 10%, that is really constructive. europe up .5% or so. and that is different than it was two years ago when europe was being carried by the u.s. now the u.s. at 2% is fine. to help contribute. charlie: what do you think for 2018? brian: 2.2% in the u.s. and 3.5% in the world. charlie: will we get to 3%? that seems to be the president's favorite number. brian: if there is fiscal stimulus and tax reform, if people are enthusiastic and confident, if unemployment is
low, it will take a little kick to kick that enthusiasm into action. i think we can get in the 3% range. charlie: will that be monetary or fiscal? brian: tax reform is critical. you have to lower the corporate rate to make it competitive. you have to be territorial. hard to do, but simple to say. they have to get that done. charlie: what do you mean by territorial? brian: if i operate around the world, i do not have this problem where i cannot bring the money back to the u.s. and use it. by having one tax rate for u.s. earnings. 39%, whatever it is for the u.s. charlie: what do companies want to see done by the government with the money overseas? they say the taxation is prohibitive. brian: i think there are two parts. they want it to be a territorial system like everybody else has. for the pocket of money of building earnings, i think the right policy matter
would be to get it to tax around around 8% to 10% to get it back here and let it get to work. charlie: should there be a mandate you do something with that money? brian: i think money is fungible. where i depart from some people is people will put it to work. the straightforward question is, in the alternative, if you don't allow it back, what will happen? it will stay over there. if you think about the great global companies we have the pleasure of serving, there is a huge amount of demand outside the united states for cars and phones. cars in china sell big as cars in the u.s. now. when they last looked at this question -- charlie: china is the biggest market for cars. brian: it is. when they last looked, china equaled 10% of car sales they do now. i can make a car and sell it in china. i don't need to have the united states involved. i think the globalization of the world allows you to let it come it back differently and not
worry how it is going to be applied. if it is back here, the chances are is going to do something interesting. the money goes back in the market and the investors will have to put it back to work doing something. charlie: you mentioned globalization several times. it has become a cry of populism against globalization. steve bannon and people who have been advisers to president trump talk about globalists in a derogatory way. contemptuous. how do you see globalization? brian: i think it is the world we live in. it is like arguing the transistor radio is somehow better than all the ways we listen to music today. it is just done. there is not a question. realo i think there are thees of inequality in
rate of growth and how it occurs that are absolutely real.\ we brought back 4500 jobs from overseas to the u.s. because we made a decision that it was a better decision out of hand. it wasn't some big policy question. that was just a better business answer. we have business outside of the united states with supported outside of the united states. i think the horse is out of the barn now. it is gone. the distinction i make is really two. we need population growth in big economies to be successful. the plain fact is the u.s. population isn't going to grow unless we have immigration. it will grow, but not at the pace. charlie: inaddition to all the other reasons we have been a melting pot. brian: that statue in the river says something, but it is also a pure math. if we don't grow the population, everything is harder. when we look at countries that aren't growing, what is the issue?
countries aren't growing their population. charlie: what happened with emerging markets. it provided a consumer demand that was fueled, their economic growth. brian: you need population growth to buy houses, air-conditioning, cars, whatever. you need to be competitive for worldwide talent. charlie: what is the best argument you've had for what to do about job displacement because of globalization, because of expansion of economy and companies and corporations moving plants and facilities to a variety of different places, jobs because people are being replaced by robots? brian: the second one is a huge question we talked about this past weekend. let's take the robots and artificial intelligence. the reality is when you look at a city, a state, a country, and you have a population, your
population is in competition for content against the world, right? or cities,her state so what do you compete on, talent, cost-of-living, cost of goods, the way you regulate business? charlie: a classic example is what is the calculation going into this decision for the amazon headquarters. figuring out where to work, the set of lifestyle things that appeal to an employee base that will attract them to want to work for you. brian: that roadmap. when you say what can you do
about it, you have a workforce that at the end of the day is going to win against the world workforce. there are different ways to that. become the cheapest workforce. that is not possible. become the highest skilled. that is possible. they have some natural things going for them. then it comes down to basically the training, education, apprenticeship. there are lots of words about it. we've got to be driving our capacity of work time, products and everything against what we are going to have developing in this country. that takes a little more planning than is done. if you look at cities, and i have the benefit of being on the council in various places, and owning a great franchise, everyone recognizes this. and so you know, they started it, they're thinking about it, i improve theo
education system so my jobs line up with the companies that demand it on the private sector employment. how do i channel people into that so everyone is ready to have a successful career? some may go to college, some not, but we can't have the defining moment going to college. the real thing is, will they have a successful life? it is really focusing back to the principles that when people talk about whenever good jobs. it is not going to be through isolation. in my opinion. it is going to be through recognizing the problems. and going out and winning the competition. charlie: when you look at the tax reform proposals, are you concerned about the amount of debt they are talking about? brian: this is one of those tough things. a lot of us have been concerned about the debt levels of the ceo's and financial services, but i think there is capacity. if it is rational and spent the right way. charlie: do you buy the argument that if you can reduce taxes in
a fair and equitable way, and not just simply reduce the taxes of the people at the top of the spectrum, that you can create growth, and that growth is one way to leverage against the debt? brian: i think the alternative is we are seeing a 2% grind that we've got to do something to get people a little more aggressive on the business side and to some extent on the personal side. i think you've got to bring the people's tax burden down. and you know, an income, twice the income, three -- you've got to do a lot of work there. you've got to get through the system. at the top of the house there will be a little bit of relief, but that is not as important as giving broad relief at the personal side. on the corporate side, they just have to drop the rate. because at the end of the day, it is the nature of business that we are following clients so we don't have as much location decision capabilities. if you are a different kind of
company, if we are at a 35%, 40% rate, and other people or 15%, that is huge. we have to eliminate that. you have to get it into the 20% range. at some point a ceo is saying, i don't make decisions for tax. they make decisions based on other things. we never talked about the robots. charlie: go ahead. brian: i will use our company as an example. it is an interesting thing. so, we have applied technology in ways to make ourselves more effective. $72 million in operating costs before, we million now.
how do you apply technology to work? we're working on changing the work product. we had 280,000 people in 2010 when i became ceo. we have 210,000 now. by managing the impact overtime charlie: how many of those job losses were because of technology? brian: it would be hard to say. in some sense, all of them are. i don't mean that as mathematically precise, but in some sense you have paper-based processes, inefficient processes, and use technology to improve those processes instead of replacing workers. right? and so volume is going up. we're not saying the company has shrunk. my view as a ceo is i've got to look at that further and further out. we will hire 8000 people this quarter. i get 8000 opportunities not to hire somebody that i can actually shrink the company, and if you plan ahead, i think we are going to work through this issue. it is going to keep coming at us. ♪ what did we do before phones?
they save us from getting lost, getting hungry, and getting tired of places like this. phones changed everything - shouldn't the way pay for them change too? introducing xfinity mobile. where you can pay for data by the gig, and share it across all of your lines. no one else lets you do that. see how much you can save when you pay by the gig. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.
if it went up another $100,000, maybe another $3 billion a year, something like that. step back from that. everybody talks about that. if rates are going up more activity. charlie: supply and demand. brian: the only thing you worry about is rate is going up, the opposite -- stagflation. growth is going down. charlie: people are expending the men need more money and they think the economy is going to be more -- brian: the federal reserve's thinks they don't have to be more accommodative. i think they have been very careful. quantitative. each others'g over
shoulders. it is tricky, because nobody has ever done it. charlie: how much restriction on your company's growth, if any, comes from the regulatory structure coming from dodd-frank? does that really hurt your bottom line? brian: if you remember, last time i used the example where we had 3 t-shirt factories and we had to leave three idle. that's really the biggest impact. if we have 30% of our capital can't take any risk, if he said let's make that 20%, that extra 10% would be $150 billion of loans. that would increase competition. either loans would be cheaper, because we would go out and do more. i am talking about the whole system. secondly, we would probably get slightly more aggressive to produce loans. third, you crate and atmosphere around we can do that, but also you also matchup the business community probably pushing a little harder. you're not going to be able to pinpoint and say, if i change that rule, a huge amount of activity. if you change these rules, we will be able to spend more on other stuff which might be more constructive, but that is not the drill. what you say is if i do this, does manufacturing instead of
buying equipment try and squeeze it into a manufacturing facility and put up a new building because they see the optimism. i think that has come through the election. that is what the small-size and businesses saw. it has stayed up there. i think it is time, if we don't fulfill that promise, that is the challenge for the fall. charlie: what is the relationship as far as you see it between the business community and the administration? you had that committee that was put together and then some people dropped off because of charlottesville. the corporate community, the majority responded to the president, withdrawing from the paris accord by saying, we oppose that idea and we are going to continue to use the same kind of standards that we believe are necessary.
>> right. to to face the challenge of climate change. brian: exactly. let's focus first on the paris situation. i signed a letter. it had been so many years in the making that it got people to commit to the goals. i still think it is right to stay in. i don't make the decision, but we are clear on that. that's because of how we drive the company. we have a $125 billion environmental commitment. we will be halfway through at the end of this year. when i talk to my peers, we are all doing what we doing because we believe it is the right thing and we believe it is going to happen. how we use power and renewables versus nonrenewables, how we invest in things, how we finance solar panels, wind farms, and help support the more efficient
cars and things. we've done all this. we gave our employees a $3000 credit if they bought a hybrid car. think aour employees i credit if they bought a hybrid car. that program went on for a few years. we've done a lot of things. but the corporate world is doing it. i've always said we were doing this before -- and i think our first program goes back to either george w. bush or before, and we will be doing it after. we can't say in the u.s. and europe and china and places that have developed economies, hey, you in those developing countries can't have them. that is arrogant, unfair, and not right. how do we help those countries develop a different path? that is a lot of what the u.n. was about.
which is, the people with the money, the power, they have to figure out how to get some places up the power curve literally without going down the fossil fuel route. believer in "ou have to fix this tomorrow morning." you can't. with time we can change behaviors and patterns. if we get those countries not to go down -- secretary mnuchin in nash and the work on the change in policies and rules, they were very constructive with the industry. they brought everybody in, people investing in companies,
they brought them all in and said, what is the right answer? we are not looking to change this thing for kicks. we are looking to get the right answer that will not allow a crisis like that to ever take place, but doesn't go too far. keeping with the shirt analogy, i looked in my closet this morning and these people keep giving me t-shirts. i've never gone back to figure out if i need all of these t-shirts. that's really what they are saying, go back and take his stack of t-shirts you have never where and give them to somebody who will use them. they're not saying get rid of all of them. they have been very rational and very thoughtful. they put it out there for everyone to see. i think that is right. charlie: it is interesting in terms of something like daca. the corporate community has spoken there too. brian: personally that is more of a fairness question. what the heck? not a huge issue for any company. it is a people values issue.
i don't put myself in front of the company. people have come forward in our company, getting free legal representation so they can be represented in the system. hopefully that will resolve it. to me that is a fairness question. the broader immigration question is a different question, in that that is a talent and growth acquisition program that i believe has to be managed properly. we will do a lot of work on cyber security and terrorism and finance and new sanctions and all that and ffigure out how to apply them and how to help our country apply them charlie: you are the primary underwriter for the cannes burns series on vietnam -- the ken burns series on vietnam. how you make a commitment like that? brian: we made that commitment because ken is a powerful storyteller. we've been doing it 12 years, going back to the civil war. whenever that was. he has been marvelous. we had an event at the kennedy center with 2000 people, senator mccain and kerry talk about their experiences.
and you think about -- bob kerry wasso there, too. kerries. the i'm actually on that foundation board, too. it is an interesting connection. he is a wonderful storyteller. this happens to be his biggest and most promoted. and it should be. charlie: 18 hours. brian: i have been trying to watch. i will tell you, it is causing conversations which are fascinating. because i was at our board of directors meeting sitting around, and we talked about our sponsors and showed him a clip. we had photographs.
we had david kennerly, he won a pulitzer prize at 25 years old, "time magazine." i asked the director, where were you? one was at kent state. one was in chicago, went to protest. another went to the air force academy. he was coming out in the class of 1968 or 1969. they started talking about it and it became a conversation about things going on in america. women, african americans, people were protesting. i'm just sitting there watching the conversation. that's the conversation we need to have, because it becomes relevant to the current questions about what the government knew or didn't know, what they told us, were there strategic mistakes on tactics? ken is putting it all on the table. that is kind of interesting. charlie: you hear from the
vietnamese for the first time. brian: that was in the episode last night, soldier saying they were humans just like us. think about the poignancy of that. another session we did around this, one of my teammates who works with me came out of vietnam when he was like 13, son of a senior officer at that age. we did a panel with he and another woman who came out who had been under completely different circumstances. kind of got to hong kong. and here they are both senior executives at bank of america, talking about, granted, they or 14-years-old when they got out of the country in 1972, 1973, but think about what they saw when they grew up. having that conversation in front of our senior leaders, the conversations need to be had not in tweets, not in blog posts. conversations like you have all the time are the important conversations. whether it is around charlottesville, charleston, jefferson, new orleans, dallas, whatever, hb2,
charleston. so our company, because we have 200,000 people in all these places, we are all -- this week is the riots in charlotte at the base of our building -- you get those conversations and the current police chief and city managers having conversations -- to bring it back to ken. wayaid wait, our city was out front again. to bring it back to ken. whatld be shocked just by i witnessed in the first few days. the conversations are going on about vietnam and the memories and people talking about it are really going to be special for america. charlie: you ask why we do it? brian: there's why. he's terrific and a lot of fun, and energetic and prolific and
great with clients. fact it if in creates a range of conversation and if because of that the thenry is better off, that's an investment by a corporation because a corporation has to live in a community. people have to live in a community. it ought to be invested in the idea of creating communities that better people. brian: when you think about how we run our company, call it responsible growth, one of the core tenets of that is to share our success with our community. how we do that is our environmental program, but also things like our charitable giving, our employees volunteering, working with the arts. our team for the arts. we have done this program with
museums where we sponsor some of the great exhibits. we did a jeff koons exhibit in germany, and an exhibit in the boston fine arts museum. exhibits buteat shows a person who bank of america debit or credit and wets in for free build these programs around kids. the way you use arts is geared at trying to get understanding through art. this is really unique, the conversations we have in our company, when you are at a university and are on campus, and getting people to talk about stuff are critical. if we can help that, we help society. charlie: great to have you here. brian: thank you. charlie: brian moynihan, ceo of bank of america, thanks for joining us. see you next time. ♪