tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 20, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> bitcoin, the most significant, and cruises of records. it fell as much as 9% in the past few days. the rise of a worldwide debate over the future of digital currency. here to discuss bitcoin are three experts. catherine wood, the reporter of the wall street journal, and a reporter at bloomberg news. i am pleased to have all of them at this table. welcome.
let me start with you. there has been a lot of bitcoin talk. where is it at right now? paul: it is probably -- oh, god. probably the fourth or fifth wave of interest of this thing. it has waxed and waned in terms of speculation and attention in he mainstream. certainly in terms of price in dollars, this is the biggest move it has had. in terms of interest, probably the biggest too. not totally in the mainstream but much further than it had been. jeff: is it still at hype phase? catherine: the market cap, the network value bitcoin with -- bitcoin is a little over $100 million -- $100 billion. and has come up really fast but
it is at a fraction of apple's valuation, amazon's valuation. jeff: and certainly a small fraction of the overall economy. >> a very small fraction. for all the cryptocurrencies, which there are like 1000 different digital point. it was 12 billion a year ago. it has been doing pretty well in the last few years. jeff: bitcoin is far and away the most popular. take me back a little bit if you would. bitcoin is invented in the wake of the global financial crisis. why and how?
paul: release in the original -- the original white paper announcing the concept was released in 2008 by somebody calling themselves toshi nakamoto. we do not know who this person really is. whoever it was, they had been working on it before the financial crisis they released the white paper. january 2009, they launched the open source software line. not a mono put it out in the world and let anybody who wanted to put the project on. the financial system has collapsed. the central bank had to pour in and put money into it and save it. it was. as an alternative to the banking system. if you released that idea at the time, it might not have taken off. it could be a group of people, there are all kinds of theories.
because of the timing that nakamoto chose, the thing really took off first in the sort of hacker, hobbyist, engineer, developer communities. and then it started to get out a little more and a little more. they kept growing. by 2012 or 2013, it started to step into the mainstream. jeff: this is one of the most intriguing parts about it, the speculation of who nakamoto is. lily: a lot of people have stepped out and claimed to be not komodo. -- nakamoto. >> four people have outed -- four people have been usted. able say this is nakamoto and they say no i am not. lily: people conceptualize this world where transactions are cheaper because they are not going through bank and more secure because they are protected by the block chain.
>> which is why the base to like it, which is in part why jamie dimon famously slams bitcoin. there has been a lot of discussion. catherine: a lot of discussion. this is increasing the public's increase minute. you have jamie dimon, public figure, very well-known along with howard marks of oaktree. interestingly, the following week after jamie's comments, the ceo of morgan stanley was speaking about it in a different tone. i think they are beginning to see trading opportunities. >> they are not endorsing it just saying we are interested in finding out more about this because the clients are asking about it. ily: the results of the ceo of
blackrock who came out and talked about it. jeff: you started introducing more folks to it, which leads to the question of i do not want to get too far ahead -- but it leads to the question of regulation. much of space and financial services being involved -- not just banks and financial services being involved, but the government being involved. aul: there are a couple of moving parts there. one, you have people working on bitcoin it else and that project - itself and that project. initially, a lot of them were antigovernment, and i regulation. it was designed as a hacker projects that wanted to get around the system. create a network or you do not need the middlemen. distances came in and then we can build a business on his.
we want legitimacy, we will need to be regulated. they started reaching out to the regulators. the last four or five years, you have a dynamic where one group is adamantly anti-regulation and the other group that says we want to bring this into the mainstream. we think this has value for people in their everyday lives, let us build regulations around this. and then have every regulator on the planet at the point where you have to figure out what this is for the economy and how to
address it. jeff: explain this to me. jamie dimon was critical but said he believed the block chain technology is legitimate. what is that? paul: that is another hour. the concepts behind bitcoin, behind the software, have probably come to become block chain technology. 's set of ideas that is essentially taking, creating a network where anything that can be digitized to be traded between two people directly. i have an asset i want to give you, let us say a mortgage deed. give can take it and digitize it, stick it in a transaction on this software program, send it over to you. that gets timestamps in the network. the idea -- that gets timestamped in the network. it is like sending an email. instead of sending any moment and forth, you are sending -- an email back and forth, you're sending something that has value. bitcoin is this open source, ermissionless network that anyone can control. jeff: because this was verified publicly? paul: yes. what happens is every computer on the network has a copy of this letter and every transaction gets updated on
every ledger at the same time so e can be verified. the process makes it transparent. that is what makes the banks unnecessary. previously, you would need a third-party tracking those transactions. lily: in the original white paper they talked about proof versus trust. the system we have now is based on trust. you just a bank -- trust a bank to keep your stuff secure. this is based on truth because you have computers that verify transactions. jeff: or a kvitova cup of coffee? -- or it can be a cup of coffee. lily: yes -- catherine: yes. people say they cannot see the cup of coffee. we have with where people can conceptualize it. -- i had trouble understanding that
back in the day. today we have a voice over ip. with this is is money over ip. the transition of money over ip will be free again like the analogy there. the distinction, block chain bitcoin -- in silicon valley, we heard that we like this block chain but do not like bitcoin. we were saying in terms of the bitcoin block chain, you cannot have that unless you build it out and incentivize the minors ith the bitcoin. you cannot separate them unless in jamie's case wants a wild garden trusted network. so it is called permissioned. the bitcoin block chain is ermissionless.
jeff: you are saying it is too vulnerable to hacking. it already comes to the volatility to be sure but those who criticize it say it is dangerous? catherine: this is the same criticism we heard about the cloud when it first came out. everyone said that could be hacked. that is true. anything can be hacked. what the c -- the cloud was an open sourced system. when you have a lot of i was watching the system and a lot of people's livelihood and businesses dependent on it, you have a lot of people watching it. you are seeing what a hack start. the news travels really fast and it stops. e think the permissionless walk-ins are very robust and secure relative to the permissions ones. >> i don't think the argument is
if it is vulnerable to hacking or phising scams. you all the hacks that have happened. ook at equifax recently. the systems we have built up over the past few decades are extremely vulnerable to hacking. hacking is not the real argument against bitcoin. the real argument is that it is a system that authorities cannot control. they do not control the money in it, who is using it, and what they are doing it for. jamie dimon doesn't want that because it cuts into his business. regulators need to figure out is that something we can have at least enough control over that it is not going to destroy the economy, that it is not going to abandon the government, the -- up end the government. can we accept some type of darknet transactions? coin is somewhat anonymous as a currency. cash is a completely anonymous currency. there's a lot to be figured out.
catherine: not just money, it is the technology. you have three forces coming together. the regulators want to impede he technology. they do not want to be accused of preventing the next internet. they are stepping lightly and we are even seeing very recently, within the last week, groups beginning to agree on bitcoin versus other crypto assets. some should be regulated by the sec and some should be regulated by the commodities exchange. the other thing that we see going on is fear on the part of regulators in the developed world.
they are stepping lightly. jeff: what you say to investors when they are looking at volatility? 1000 or so this year all the way up to 6000 and a span of nine or 10 months? not the first very dramatic swing up or down that has happened. you don't think i will end anytime soon? -- that will end anytime oon?
catherine: we size day. out of this market right now. a captured a lot of people's imaginations. we will go through heights -- hypes and then shake out. it is being battle tested almost every day. china banning it, russia banning it. these are all tests that bitcoin has gone through and they did it came right back. lily: it is so resilient, at least in the last year or so. you now have bitcoin and bitcoin cash. people were scared before this happens and the prices dropped but then it bounced right back up. china banmed the initial -- china banned the initial point offering that it went right back up. paul: until the point is that some -- assuming it gets -- jeff: -- any time soon. paul: that process will go on for a long time. yes, it is extremely volatile, but there are people like that kind of volatility. they are called traders. a lot of wall street traders are interested in this now because they can make money trading it. people who have been doing this for a long time our total keyboard cowboys. they love this thing. they stay up all night and traded and they do not care if it goes up or down. they are looking to make money off of it. part of bitcoin's attraction is it is volatile. there is still a small group of people trading and they are true believer tight and a lot of people are buying and holding it because they think is going to a $50,000 price. i think it's coin -- bitcoin is a one to some extent-way trade. -- is a one-way trade. to some extent, they think there is something going on with the company. it is not like that yet. catherine: we found a way to measure it. if you do it on a 12 month moving average basis, it had come down quite significantly. we compare it to twitter's stock price. it dipped below that and dipped below gold and volatility last year before this next run up. volatility compared to where was an 2000 11, 2012, 2013 has come up quite -- jeff: what is the difference between buying and mining? lily: buying a cryptocurrency is literally paying money to have a digital point. -- coin. mining is a process -- i liked it think about it is people sitting around in their basement around the computer. they're looking at transactions happening around a block chain to digitally time stamp the
reactions and make sure there is no double spending happening. if you have cement counterfeit a dollar, they can spend and two places. jeff: talk to me about what is associated with bitcoin currencies. >> there is only one way we can gain exposure is a registered investment company to bitcoin. it is only bitcoin we can access. that is through an over-the-counter security. we are just rating and the -- just trading in the stock market echoes over-the-counter.
lily: the fees have changed over time for bitcoin. one complaint is what people call the scaling debate. basically, people are concerned that bitcoin transactions are getting too expensive and slow, and that is actually why bitcoin plit in two. the two rival camps could not come into agreement and there was argument about high fees and the slowness of the network. they jeff: jeff: moved some of the transactions off the network. if i am buying coffee for a couple bucks and i pay for a credit card now, mastercard and visa will take a couple percentage points and american express will take more, where is the money going? obviously, the money is going to starbucks or whoever you buy the coffee from. who else is taking -- paul: you were talking about the fees. with the coin was designed, -- when bitcoin was designed, there was a fee. here was always a fee.
not have to offer them anything because there is a strain on capacity. this year because there were more transactions, you are getting bottlenecks. what people were doing was offering higher fees to get their transactions put to the front of the line. jeff: some countries are embracing and some are banning it. including china. paul: china seems very anti-bitcoin. russia -- south korea, north korea. although north korea might be stealing it. south korea is starting to embrace it. in switzerland, they are pro-actually the u.k. is interested in it. if you talk to government types, they see there could be some value their and something they want to help build out. -- value there and something they want to build out. every country is trying to come to grips with it. catherine: howard. that is why china did it. they were trying to get capital out and control that. the regulators are thinking about monetary policy. they are thinking about capital movements. the technology, they have to do a double take because they are saying if we ban this, we are banning this potential engine of integration -- innovation like where the internet was in the 1990's. do we want to do that? no. especially in the developed world. you're seeing a careful analysis. one person believes it is going to be extremely disruptive and she came out saying so a few weeks ago. because she gains credibility by calling a spade and spain, i think a lot of people set up and notice.
jeff: an accomplished writer and editor in the series final and a lifelong fan of the chicago cubs your his new book -- chicago cubs. his new book tells the story of the team from its founding to its triumph at the world series. a lens memoir, reporting, history and baseball feel itchy to explore the long-held question, why can't the cubs win. i am least to have rich cohen back at this table. life is great. you can die in peace. the cubs did win. rich: the road trip ended so we are searching for meaning a ittle bit. jeff: you still want to win this year. rich: more than anything. people ask me why i am a cubs fan. i don't know. it was given to me when i was a kid but it becomes so intense you try -- jeff: the doctors are good. rich: i -- the dodgers are good.
rich: i am happy living in the past. jeff: honestly, how long does it ast? was it as satisfying as he thought it would be? rich: it was disorienting because the cut had not won in 108 years. losing was so regular and happens in such weird ways that we turned it into a kind of religion. i thought being a cup span major kind of better because they were kind of like buddhists. you have given up on the idea of mbition. you are just enjoying the game. when you wore the cubs hat, you
told the world my kingdom is not of this world. we won and i think the red sox and went through the same thing. the identity changes and you realize your children grow up in a strange world where they think the cubs are a great baseball team. rich: with it -- jeff: was it early banks who said it was never a curse but a fear? rich: i think in one of the last interviews with sports illustrated, the points were the curse became serious was 1969 where they had an incredibly great team up by seven games in september and they collapsed. i asked what is the curse. he said it is not voodoo, it is fear. when you have never one in your team has number one and you -- when you have never won and you get into high-pressure games in the season you do not know how
to increase your odds, you have to go back multiple years and they never competed in the playoffs since the early 1900s. also, this is their third straight appearance in the nlcs. they had a chance to be there at the end. jeff: it is a fear among the players, the ownership, the fans. it is pervasive. rich: i think it is almost like a psychosis. one moment that was hard for me was the bartman game where the fan reached for the ball and the cubs fell apart. the fans at wrigley, whom i love dearly, instead of taking out their anger at the players, in the field they turned to bartman, the fan. it is like something is happening to you and you'd don't know what you did to deserve it. -- you don't know what you did to deserve it. jeff: i am a bills fan. i'm waiting to get over that hump. how did the cubs come to be, and it certainly wasn't the same way back then than it is now. rich: i am not really a sportswriter. is american history -- it is american history shot down in a way you can understand it. i am saying if you tell the story of the cuts correctly, you are telling the story of america in a fun house mirror. baseball came out of the civil war and away -- in a way. in cincinnati, they put together a team full of ringers. the team came to chicago and beat the crap out of the great chicago teams. they were like, do you think you are better than us? they put together another team of ringers. they were called the white stockings. bb the red stockings -- they beat the red stockings. the real source of the curse is their first great captain created the color line in aseball. hey had a famous double-play
combination. in 1906, they one 116 games -- won 116 games. they were like the yankees became in the 1940's. they dominated. jeff: how did they go from that seem to falling off the end? rich: they say good. hey won 700 games and eight -- in eight seasons. they went to the world series but would lose. it was a corporate thing. you had a corporate coulter. sports is not necessarily make sense as a business unless you love the sport and want to win. william wrigley wanted to win.
his son really didn't care about baseball. when asked about his favorite sport he said craps. i didn't even know it was a sport. maybe if you bring your are back and forth you can break a sweat -- your arm back and forth you can break a sweat. he was like i don't care about the sport but i wanted bring people out so he made wrigley field. jeff: what is sensational postseason? n terms of the teams you have,
he wanted to be the guy that did that and if you were watching he cubs, they were some of the worst teams and never let the team fall apart like that. and it's an interesting thing, the power of a narrative, and loveable losers. i traveled with them in 2000 and joe girardi was with the cubs then. and celebrating. nd they are individual accomplishments. >> there is that much psychology
y. >> the cubs are a great team and the best team in baseball. but, the cubs have one big fatal law, like they stop hitting. and that's why they fell apart at the end of the season. every cubs' fan. almost that cubs' team died the bears were pencilin and hat team was -- five, six outs away and easy plays couldn't are
i have little kids and i know you have little kids. the move away from football and where will those kids go? aseball is really athletic now. the cubs are a throwback to the ead ball era of baseball and rich: they won when i was 48 result. if they won when i was 16 i would be taller and much more handsome. jeff: how is the dynamic between the cubs and the white sox? rich: the white sox and are going to hate me. i feel like from my friends, the white sox fans have resentment toward the cubs and the cubs do not care. -- they are connected in all of hese ways.
they took the name from the cubs. the white stocks will always be the team in my mind that fits in the world series in 1919. jeff: what is it like writing a book like this as an outsider, not the cubs' beat reporter? rich: my whole thing is i do not want to be outside -- inside. i want to be outside. i want to get it from the grandstand in the with the fans and get it from the guy jerking beer in the bleachers. he would broadcast from the bleachers and he would get increasingly drunk as the game went on. evolving is no way he could really see what is happening. he was 380 feet away and describing everything wrong. he got the bigger story which is what it means to be a cubs fan is in the bleachers and what you go through out there. they had no light, which meant they played all day games. if you lived on the north shore, you can get on a train and get down there for the third inning and that was your first taste of he grown-up world.
is the real aristocrat. that is how people react when they win or when they lose. when the cubs won the world series in game seven last year, i was so excited but my focus immediately went to the cleveland indians dugout to see them. that is who i identify with. jeff: the author is rich cohen. great to see you. rich: go cubs. jeff: one of us is the new documentary from heidi ewing and rachel grady. it reflects the community in brooklyn and follows three former members who have an harassed and shunned for leaving. -- who have been harassed and shunned for leaving. it will debut friday, october 20. >> i was living a double life for a little over a year. i called my mom and said hey, mom. can i talk to you? i said you sitting down and i said i am not religious anymore. she said ok. then, she just hung up. and then we can it speak for seven years -- we didn't speak for seven years. >> i looked in a mirror and saw something that is not what i want to be. i chose a different path. i don't know anything. i have to learn how people live. google? what the hell is that. i couldn't google what to google because i didn't know how to google in the first place. >> anybody who leaves will end up in jail. they never make it out there.
>> a spouse who beat me, broke me. i never responded. i am breaking a religious law if i pressed charges. i cannot do it anymore. if you do not show up in court, then you lose your children. >> we can no longer retreat. >> nobody leaves the community a must they are willing to pay the price. >> 911, what is your emergency. >> there are people of the jordanian at the door. -- there are people at the door banging at the door. >> you know these people? > my husband's family. jeff: thank you for coming. what first brought you to this subject? >> my codirector rachel and i are new yorkers. rachel lives adjacent to this neighborhood. as new yorkers, we interact in some way -- we share a city with the community. there is a curiosity about the group who is identifiable by their dress. hey are often not making eye contact with us. it started with a point of curiosity. jeff: not making contact with you by design? >> yes. they do not interact with outsiders unless they absolutely must. jeff: how big is the community?
>> 350,000 in new york. the majority in brooklyn. jeff: what is the reasoning? >> the community was started in eastern europe in the 1700s. in eastern europe, the community was not as insular as it is today. the vast majority of this group were exterminated and the holocaust, partly because they refused to blend in. they kept ring the clothing, they were loud and proud about their identity. the vast majority died in the holocaust. when the survivors came to the united states, they became more suspicious of outsiders. the theory is this is a community that is traumatized by the holocaust and passes that down generation to
generation. that is their reasoning. they would like to be left alone. jeff: you mentioned you followed three different people as they tried to leave this community with varying degrees of difficulty. one of them is ettie, who has seven children. this is him talking about the strict rules for children. >> you not enter a secular library for any purpose. a lot of rules. so many rules. my son was in second grade. ll the schools are using it.
emale scribble, female scribble. how are they not putting a yarmulke on this? how did he know which was which? reading and education is deprived of the community. that is how they keep their control. jeff: how old is she? heidi: ettie is 33. jeff: she had her first child at 18? went to the recognition come with she -- went to the recognition come that she didn't want to be a part of the community? >> she suffered abuse by her husband. it is discouraged to go to ecular courts, to call 911, to
rely on secular institutions. there is the rabbis that one talks to, counseling like that. she talked to the many types ofsays. she got fed up and got an order of protection. she went to the authorities. that was a breach of protocol. that was considered a betrayal. he community looked at it as a betrayal. it was a quick house of cards after that. seeing the film, she was pushed out of the community and they attempt to take her children from her. she just wanted a divorce. jeff: she no longer has her children? >> she no longer has her children. eff: how did you get to know
ettie and the others, and how do they give you this kind of access? >> there is a reason you have not seen a film about them. have you find people who will speak to you? my codirector and i were secular women so we never thought we would make a film like this. we read an article about an organization called footsteps. they have been helping people transition into a more secular lifestyle. they got their membership from shipley and jealously. their address is not listed on the website. it is a private space where people were thinking of leaving comfortable. it's a them about six months to agree that we can come and hang out in their lobby and his eye footsteps with no cameras and talk to people. through those months and months of showing up in talking to people, we were able to find them. jeff: possesses the organization that shepherds these folks through the process when they decide they may want to leave the community. > that is right.
they are pretty much the only one. jeff: what sort of threats or challenges does footsteps a? -- face? >> they are despised. here looked at as a group that wants to remove people from the community. we observed neither of those things to be true. ven a someone in the community find that you have been to footsteps, you are out. it is not like you telling when you have been inside until you are positive you want to leave. jeff: talk about what happened when you used some of the clips from 2011, a speech given, warning about technology and the internet as it relates to the community and what these rabbis would like to see. >> this is a massive anti-technology rally. this rally made him. about the internet. the community is very anti-technology. there are businesses in the community that can filter your cell phones, filter your computer so that you can only do searches perhaps for a local shopping. it is very guarded. the genie is out of the bottle but the continuum -- community
continues to warm people of watching -- warn people of watching secular films. jeff: he said he had to google how to google. he said he did not know how to do? math. what does he learn in this ommunity growing up? >> he's a very traditional boy. he was raised in the most powerful sect. his first language was yiddish. he barely learned english. he had to learn it because it is the law. went to an all boys school where there is no premium on proper education. you come out of the community at 18, he was curious when he learns about the big bang he said. he had no idea. you have to circumscribe.
that is one idea -- one reason why more people do not leave. how can you make it out ere? jeff: he cut his hair. what is the reaction when that happens? >> the site girls are in identifying marker. hat is a provocative acts. a woman who removes her weight or wears pants. cutting off is an act of rebellion saying i'm the longer with you. jeff: they reacted to this? have they had a dialogue with you at all? heidi: almost all of our attempt
to reach out remember the response that they are not interested in participating. if there were any people who had left the community represented in the movie, they would not speak to us. they wished us the best of luck, including the representatives out there in the community. we do have a feeling and a sense of some of the elders in the community, and one lovely gentleman does sit with him and you get a sense of the camaraderie and kinship that exists within the community. we have not had a dialogue with them. hey are not in the film. they're not the selection of place. i can imagine many people will see it anyway. we were chapa we were shut down. jeff: ettie says she was threatened and harmed by those who did not want her to leave. heidi: she was threatened by her husband and others.
we have a series of phone calls in the film you hear. she also suffered a mysterious by accident days after she was told the bike was not acceptable. this operating a bicycle, which is absolutely bad behavior. she was stalked. she was followed for many months and make to feel afraid and isolated and alienated her family -- alienated. everybody stopped talking to her on the same day. she lost everything after she filed for an order of protection. jeff: when the speeches like one we saw at city feels are given, get rid of the phones, get rid of everything that provides any sort of communication to the outside world, why? heidi: the community for the most part leads technology and this sort of secular information is a threat to their existence. they want people to be born, aised, get married, have
children in the community to make up for the people who died. it could make people too ambitious to pursue higher education or put off having children. the idea is if you can keep it out, you can keep the unity intact. jeff: heather they make money? -- how do they make money? heidi: the majority of the community is at or below the poverty line. williamsburg in brooklyn is the poorest part of brooklyn. there are a handful of families that have all of the money and they share that with the rest. they pay for the weddings and funerals and charities and all sorts of things. it used to be more the garments and diamond industry. now it is realistic. a large amount of the real estate and burrell park in other parts are owned by a handful of families. they are finding a lot of -- they are funding a lot of the community got a lot of reliance
alisa: i am alisa parenti from washington. you are watching "bloomberg technology." president trump says the united nations has tremendous potential that has not been used over the years as much as it should be. the president spoke during a meeting at the white house with the u.n. secretary general today. mr. trump also praised his leadership in the organization. damage estimates from california wildfires are rising. officials said today 7700 buildings have been destroyed by the blaze. the number has gone up as they assess damage from the series of fires that broke out earlier this month. the fires have killed 42 people and caused more than $1 billion