tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg September 25, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this week in washington. president donald trump and republican senate leaders are engaged in a search for votes in a last-ditch effort to repeal and replace obamacare. senate leader mitch mcconnell has announced he will bring the graham-cassidy bill up for a vote before next friday, perhaps on wednesday. joining me is mike allen. let me begin with what we just heard this friday afternoon, that john mccain has announced
he will vote no. what are the implications of that for the graham-cassidy bill? mike: as you know, this is a very dramatic moment that almost certainly kills the graham-cassidy bill. the bill could not lose another vote. this means it likely will go down. the amazing thing about this is republican leaders again got themselves out on this limb. i don't how many times they need to put their hands on the stove to know this will not have a happy ending for them. senator rand paul, a hard no. senator susan collins likely no. that is enough to kill it. you look at any of the fact-checks about this bill, and this was going to be, of all the
different versions, this was going to be one of the hardest on end users. it was arguably rewarding blue states -- rewarding red states at the expense of blue states. the policy was always problematic. and now we see with senator mccain, the politics also problematic. in senator mccain's statement, saying he did this with no joy, the line that was memorable and will provoke a lot of conversation and be consequential where our country is now is he thought something this big needed to be done in a bipartisan way. here is the key line in his statement. the fact that republicans were again going to try to pass
something by themselves is what he hung his hat on. there was another huge issue here and a hole i don't think republicans were going to dig themselves out of. that was the jimmy kimmel factor. in the most personal of terms talking about his own child, he said this bill broke a promise to him by republican senators they were going to continue to cover pre-existing conditions, even for people whose last names are not kimmel and cannot afford the millions it might cost to have these surgeries. three nights in a row, yes talked about how senate republicans have tried to hurt the american people and not been honest about what is in the bill. this might be the first on a late-night comedy show, putting up the screen showing the telephone office numbers of on the fence senators. republicans did not have a good answer. all the fact-checks said jimmy
kimmel was right. that is a tough thing to overcome. charlie: saying this bill would not necessarily guarantee pre-existing conditions would be covered. if so, premiums would be so high no one could afford them. mike: exactly. you might hit your cap and have to pay out-of-pocket for some children, including someone who had some of the treatments, that it would be unaffordable for anybody who does not have a late-night comedy show. charlie: what does this mean for obamacare? mike: it remains the law of the land. i think there will continue to be small efforts to fix it. there is no way republicans will be able to say they repealed it. republicans, whatever they do in
the future, they will do it from the back foot as our british friends will say and will have to involve democrats. this is a trend we are going to see. one of the arguments for why president trump started doing some of the democratic deals with chuck and nancy is because he has to. the math does not work without them. there were a couple more bills where there was the possibility of using reconciliation, the mechanism that will allow you to do with only republican votes. that is running out. the president has no choice but to involve democrats.
that is what we will see for anything coming up. charlie: if tax reform is the next order of the day and the president decides to cooperate and negotiate with schumer and pelosi, is there a tax reform bill possible? mike: yes, yes, and yes. the big question is whether it will include democrats. it is possible to do it with only republican votes. such a treacherous path. the white house is very optimistic about getting some democratic senators who are up for reelection in trump states to join with them. that would give them the margin of victory but also allow them to say this was not a republican only bill. you know i have been a bear about the idea that anything substantially was going to happen on tax reform. it is now looking more likely than it was. some sources on the hill will tell you still less than 50/50 but more likely than before. if we have something, the most likely package is three-pronged. there will be cuts in corporate
rates. there will be cuts for small businesses that file as individuals. and third, there will probably be a tax cut for individuals who make $150,000 or less. the president making sure there is a notable, substantial, measurable tax cut for trump voters. and he will do something for corporations. not as much as he planned from the beginning. what we are down to is a package of pretty cut and dried tax cuts. none of the systemic reform that so many economists argue this country needs to be competitive in the new world. no tax reform since the reagan years. there is not a single thing about our economy that has not changed since then except the tax code. again, washington failing to do its job and failing to take advantage of opportunities in the global economy. charlie: the president believes he needs a legislative victory
which he has not had except the confirmation of the supreme court justice. mike: it is not just the president needing it. as you well know, house republicans going out for reelection in 2018 need something to hang their hat on. they don't have much of a story to tell at this point. if you are a third of the senate up in 2018, every house member up in 2018, they really need this for that reason. not only the ability to say washington is not completely broken under the leadership of republicans at both ends of pennsylvania avenue, but quickly this will have psychological and real effects on the economy. that will help the governing party. that by itself could be a huge help towards the president's reelection. that is why many republicans
will tell you they wish they had done infrastructure and tax reform earlier to get the boost for the economy. the economy has had a psychological spring in its step because of what it thinks is coming as far as regulations and tax reform. now if they do tax reform, you have real benefits to the economy. you know, no single better predictor of who will win the upcoming elections. charlie: the president has not been in washington this week. he has been in new york. mike: living in trump tower in his own bed. charlie: and playing havoc with the traffic, as the u.n. always does during the general assembly, even more so when the president is here. what is the overall judgment of the president's tough speech to the u.n. general assembly, especially as it has to do with north korea, iran, and venezuela? mike: the president in very harsh terms calling out those three governments as rogue governments, calling them out in terms never used during the obama administration. you're right about calling it a
tough speech. conservatives liked the speech. israel liked the speech. there were some trumpian touches in the speech that caused a lot of people to look askance. there were pictures of general john kelly with his head in his hands with the photographers trying to match the timestamp on the photos with what the president was saying at that time. one of the photos, supposedly the president called the north korean "rocket man," but he also called the north koreans a band of outlaws. one of the associated press timestamps on the photos of general kelly going like this like watching his kid strikeout in little league was when the president described the north koreans as a band of outlaws. there are trumpian touches of what he wants to do.
but the meat of the speech was what many republicans would have liked to hear, what his staff generally liked. the gossip around the u.n. and around new york, i was at the bloomberg business forum. the conversation was they are starting to get used to the president. trump who was regarded as an alien figure is now less so, now that he has been to summits with top officials. they are just getting used to him. it is a mix of what he actually does in foreign policy and national security policy. it is very much within the 40-yard-lines of what you would expect a president jeb bush or president marco rubio to do. charlie: there has been an uptick in his ratings. mike: partly because of his handling of the hurricane. partly because of the publicity
he got from the deals with democrats. we are told the president is in a great mood. he loves that all the great leaders at the u.n. suck up to him as host. he loves the great publicity he is getting. he soaks it all in, this great moment that was reported by the "new york times" where the president called chuck and said, are you watching tv? he said on fox news, they are praising you. and on your channel, apparently referring to cnn and msnbc, they are praising me. there's nothing that makes this president more excited. charlie: he cannot be excited when he goes back to washington and finds out robert mueller, in terms of subpoenas and closer focus on paul manafort who used to be his campaign manager for a while, and evidently the effort
to reach inside the white house with respect to conversations the president had with the russian foreign minister and others. mike: you are right, charlie. this is a dark cloud. a fascinating quote appeared in "the washington post" this week that quoted a government official as saying there is now an air of inevitability about the mueller prosecution. it is not inevitability of any certain outcome, but it is that it is going to be full-court press until the end. that the prosecutor is taking a more expansive view of his role than anybody knew, as you point out, including his investigation of the oval office conversations. we requests for documents and interviews. the prosecutor shows his hand a little bit by saying i want to
talk to these six current and former aides, including reince priebus and sean spicer. charlie: apparently, they also have wiretaps of paul manafort even after he left the trump campaign. apparently, from some reports. and secondly, the request for documents seemed to look deeper into the president's financial background even before he became president. mike: that is exactly right. the watergate aura around this pro became more acute because now we know there are months, perhaps years of tapes. this goes back to before bob mueller was in charge of the investigation. these investigators got a fisa warrant. difficult to get. they were able to record phone
conversations by paul manafort when he was in the president's orbit. it is possible the president's voice is on these tapes. there was no wiretapping directly of the president in trump tower. but the fact that paul manafort was recorded at the time he was running the trump campaign makes it possible and even likely the president is on those tapes. charlie: let me turn to one last issue, which is the whole notion that five of the biggest corporations in america are tech companies out of silicon valley. certainly includes apple, amazon, google. and these companies are under increasing scrutiny because of the centrality of their business into our lives, as well as their huge resources. mike: charlie, that is so right. in washington, there has been a windshear in the sentiment about
these companies. until recently, such a romantic view of these companies. they make so many amazing things possible. but now, you have the extremely unusual situation of republicans and democrats agreeing on something. charlie, i'm told both republicans and democrats looking into ways they can use legislation to rein in these companies. on the republican side, they're going to emphasize the national security and homeland security elements of the data that is out there and the efforts by foreign governments to use platforms that include facebook to influence elections. democrats more concerned about the monopolistic elements of it. republicans very unhappy with these companies because of
cultural differences. they see them as being for open borders and liberal social policies. charlie, you recognize the great irony of this on two fronts. one, the president himself has said he might not be president without twitter. that the connection he had with voters is very important. second, more evidence all the time, including facebook saying it will turn over ads purchased by russian operatives, that maybe facebook helped the president. irony one, republicans mad at the companies that helped trump become president. but second, that the groups and lawmakers pushing this have spent their careers and raised a lot of money being against government but they are for reining in these companies. democrats, the first specific move taken on capitol hill was by senator mark warner of virginia and senator klobuchar who sent around a two-page letter looking for cosponsors for a bill that would look at some of the promises facebook made about increased
transparency and regulation of political advertising. this is a big fight. you and i were talking before we went on the air about the david brooks column this week saying this could become a defining issue in american politics. we have a war on business coming that is a sign that trump is not necessarily a one-off. that the strain of public sentiment behind trump could fuel this continued effort to rein in these big companies. i know you have lots of conversations with silicon valley, as i do. this has been eye-opening for the leaders out there. but they know that they are now in the barrel. charlie: david brooks' column also suggests the populism of brexit and the election of donald trump began some time ago. and what has emerged is the conflict between elites on both
coasts and everywhere and average working men and women in america. this has been a forward progression of a big idea coming to fruition with the trump election and might extend beyond donald trump, and a central focus of it would anti-business. mike: that is right. this brings together so many issues that fueled the trump phenomena. if you look at income inequality, the great wealth amassed in certain places, the huge amounts of data these companies have amassed about us, the ability of foreign governments to interfere in our elections, so you have the perfect storm of fake news, trump, hillary clinton, because we also learned this week that one hot focus of mueller's investigation is how the social platforms were used in the election.
charlie: ray dalio is here, the founder and cochairman of bridgewater associates. he created the firm in 1975. today, it is the largest hedge fund in the world with assets of around $160 billion under management. "fortune" has called bridgewater the fifth most important private company in the u.s. the firm's success is anchored in its unconventional culture that emphasizes values like radical transparency and truth. he expands on those ideas and more. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. tell me the motivating reason to put this together for you. why did you want to write this? >> to help others make decisions better and be more successful. i was originally very reluctant to share some of these principles. they were internal. charlie: because you thought they led you to enormous achievement in the investment
world, and perhaps personally as well, and therefore you did not want your competition -- >> i don't like public attention. i would rather have privacy. but when we made -- when we were successful anticipating the financial crisis, we received a lot of attention. because we operated with such different principles and had a unique culture, it became somewhat distorted. i put those principles we had at the time out on our website. they were downloaded 3.5 million times. i received a lot of thank you notes because it helped people a lot. and so, i accumulated more. and now i am at a stage in my life where i am transitioning from what i call the second stage of my life to the third stage of my life. the first stage of one's life is when one is dependent on others. the second stage is when we are working and others are dependent on us. the third stage is when they all
do well without me or without us. so my objective is to try to help others be successful without me. this is my year of transition from that stage, the second stage to the third stage, and i want to put everything i had of value in that one book. it is a series of recipes essentially of what i have used. i also hope it will encourage other people to write principles. you know i have been trying to get you to write your principles. i think if we can have principled-level thinking, when something comes along, what do we do about that? how do you handle that reality? and we are clear on our principles. i think that would be important. i think it is particularly important at this time. charlie: i want to talk about
your principles. born in queens. your father was a jazz musician. mother? stay-at-home mom. went to long island university and onto harvard business school. was a caddie and made a little money and invested successfully on a small scale. but it gave you some great desire? >> i got hooked on playing the game. charlie: that is right. the game was what? the markets? >> when i was 12, i was caddying for money and the stock market was hot. i took my money and thought i would buy stocks. the first company i bought was the only company i had heard of selling for less than $5 a
share. that was a dumb strategy, right? but what happened was this company was about to go bankrupt and somebody acquired it, and it tripled. i got hooked on the markets. it began as a game and change my way of thinking completely. it changed my way of thinking because in order to be successful in the markets, you have to have an independent view that is different from the consensus because the consensus is built into the price. you have to have an independent view different from the consensus. and you will be wrong a lot. and that began to influence my way of thinking. charlie: you were wrong in 1982 or thereabouts? >> super wrong. charlie: you bet the market would go down in the market started on a bull run. >> one of the greatest ever. charlie: you bet against that and went broke? >> went broke, yeah. anticipated and calculated countries could not pay their debts back to american banks. and that happened.
in august of 1982, mexico defaulted. a number of countries defaulted. i thought that would cause an economic disaster. that was the bottom of the stock market. i got a lot of attention. i was on "wall street week" and all of that. and i couldn't have been more wrong. i had to let everybody go. they were like my extended family. i was so broke i had to borrow $4000 from my dad to pay my family bills. it was one of the most painful mistakes that ever happened to me in my life. and it turned out to be one of the greatest things that happened in my life. and that was because i went from thinking that i knew to asking myself, how do i know i am right? it gave me the humility i needed to balance with my audacity.
and it really led to this democratic way of operating. charlie: you wanted to say to everyone working with you because of the lesson of 1982, let's test every idea and make sure we are right and listen to test critics of our idea and let it prove its worth. >> it started with me. i did not have anybody at that time. it started with me thinking, what can i do to be better? in particular, i wanted to speak to the smartest people i could that disagreed with me to find out what their perspective was. i wanted to know how to balance my risk, and i also wanted to look at history in a different
way. the most important thing it gave me was that need to be among independent thinkers who disagree and to get the most out of that disagreement to develop an idea in a democratic way. to develop an idea meritocracy where the best ideas win out, that they are not just mine. i think one of the greatest tragedies of mankind is holding onto opinions that are wrong, being so attached to them and being so attached to them and not putting them out there and stress testing them. by stress testing them, it was essential. we wanted to have an effective idea of meritocracy, this is the key to our success. first, everyone has got to put their honest thoughts on the table. speak frankly. most people will not do that, but that is what we do. second, you have to use the art of thoughtful disagreement. enjoy disagreement. it does not mean it is onflict.
it is an exploration of the better ideas that can come than just the ones in your head. you have to have a way of getting around disagreements if you have remaining disagreements. how you get past those disagreements, move on, and find that acceptable. we have what we call believeability weighted decision-making. in most decision-making, there is either the boss who makes a decision in a hierarchical way, or you have a democracy in which everyone has equal votes. both of those are not the best. in other words, the boss making the decision -- how do you know the boss is right? in the equal votes -- that is silly because not everyone is equally good. >> so you do it based on past performance? >> assessments of each other, past performance, tests. >> yeah, and so, there are
points. literally, someone has a certain amount of believability points on different expertise. is it an economic question, a legal question, requiring different attributes? somebody might be a big picture thinker but be lousy at details. somebody might be really perfect that details or the pposite. when we think about that, our goal is idea meritocratic thinking. if you can make great collective decision-making and then write those criteria down in principles and then we've converted those to algorithms that make computer decisions in parallel, that's been our formula for success. charlie: that is the formula. not you, not one individual, but the process is what has prevailed. >> that's right. that's right. charlie: a bit more about the company. some people have come to you. talk about this.
he basically said "you are a jerk and you do not know much you are offending people and hurting people by your omment." -- by your conduct. >> there was a time in 1993, i am working with a small group, and they told me that, which is great. and i said "i do not want to hurt people's feelings. do not want to do that. but i want to speak frankly and i want them to speak equally frankly with me, so i was in a dilemma. could i be a hundred percent straight forward with them and was it going to work? or would they not want me to do that? that made me think. how am i going to deal with hat situation? and then i realized i should have conversations with them and ask "how do you want me to be?" do you want me to tell you what i think and hear from you what you're thinking? can we work that through or should i keep to myself? should we have a culture in which those things are behind
the scenes which would mean a political culture? we began a process in which we wrote down how we should be with each other. we had principles which became to how to develop an idea through radical transparency. let me be clear. this is not for everybody. this is not for everybody. people encountered that one way or another -- some people would not want it any other way. that radical straightforwardness. and some people love it. we go through that process, and that was an example. i think that is such a good example that i would not have known that if people did not speak up like that. you know? there are so many things in my life that i probably would have just been clueless too. charlie: let me ask you this.
in 1982 -- i mean, in 2007-2 thousand eight, when everyone was losing money, you made money big-time, and it gave you a huge reputation in the financial world. global financial world. was it the process that you believe it enabled you to make the right decisions and the right calls? >> yes, because whatever ideal -- charlie: whatever idea you had, you wanted it tested every possible way without concern for feelings or emotions. just the meritocracy of the idea. investment idea that was controlling where you place your funds. >> it was kind of a crazy iew. when i say crazy, what i mean is it was a view that nobody had. it was a bubble. it looked like enormous prosperity, and i am talking about a bust. how do i know i am right? how do we have that independent
charlie: then there is the case of gregg jensen. here you were in the late 60's. you make a decision about a person you worked closely with. who was the right person for this next job? you made a mistake. > yup. charlie: how did you use this perfect process and come to the wrong conclusion? > that is the process. i think i explain how failure is such an important part of the process, the learning process. i do not know what the right decision is, and the ability to, frankly, almost in any case i have not done something before, i think there is a high probability i am awkward to do -- there is a high probability i'm not going to do it right. when we started out, we said this could be a ten-year plan because i knew i did not know necessarily how to do that, so we undertook that process and we learned about different things, to mistakes i made in terms of making that choice in
this particular case, it was a situation that because the business had grown up under me, i was both an investor and running a business. i gave something that was too big, both management and investing. i gave something that is too big and even was getting too big for me with experience. i gave that to greg, and then we went to that. what we saw was disagreements as to what should be done and how to do it. one of the great things that we saw is because we have this idea meritocratic system that we believe in, that we could work ourselves through that even though we might have those differences. if you don't have a system for getting past your disagreements you're going to have trouble. think about the recent presidential election. you have somebody who winds the popular election. another person wins electoral
college. ok? if we did not have rules, we would have a civil war. because there are procedures. charlie: if you do not have rules and i am not going to accept this result, then you have a real problem and breakdown. > that is right. >> that is why rule of law is so important. those rules though have to be perceived as being fair. everybody says that's fair. charlie: and you have to believe in what fact and truth is. >> but also knowing you may not now truth. >> you have to know the facts. >> you try to find your facts but different people perceive the facts. the key is how do you work yourself through disagreement well by the process? this idea meritocratic process
meant most companies under the same circumstances would not have gone through their argument because the individuals involved would have said "that jerk" or whatever and they would have had it. even though you think it is right, everyone around you think that it's wrong, and you take a vote, you can get past the disagreements. that is a very big power of the idea meritocratic process. charlie: it was your decision and your decision alone -- >> no, no, no. charlie: so there was a committee almost like a jury? >> literally like a jury. there was a group of 15 senior people. that is how it works. there was a group of 15 senior management people, a group we call stakeholders committee, which is like a board, and we are all a community together, so we all got together and we heard the different positions
and we went through that and took a vote and we decided what should be done. everyone thought it was there. charlie: what was the end result? >> that we would make a transition, at the time, to greg working as a chief investment officer. he is a brilliant, fantastic, chief investment officer. part of that process. and the management responsibilities for a year would come back to me. we made that transition. and then we went on to have david and eileen be coc.e.o.'s, me step back into a chairman role. then of course, i am doing the investment. i will always do the investment part. charlie: you always do the investment part? >> it is my game. i love to play the game. i will for the rest of my life play the game. in terms of making other people successful i never had to be
dependent on. i want to make the other people around me successful. i will do the game, but in a way where i am making the success of paramount importance. in other words, to teach the man how to fish. charlie: when people say this sounds like a cult, does that offend you? >> it is just a misunderstanding. charlie: everything is on the ecord and therefore there is no avoiding what you have said because somewhere, somebody has recorded it or taken a picture of it. >> just so everybody understands, that is so everybody can see everything. charlie: so you stay on the same page? > you cannot have an idea of a meritocracy, if i don't let you see something you can't have an opinion on it. those who control information
are those in control. an idea meritocraticy -- this is so everyone can see it firsthand, make opinions of it, and judge it. let me describe what this is about. it is to have an idea meritocracy in which the goals are equally to have meaningful work in meaningful relationships, to be excellent work and excellent relationships, and to do that, through radical truthfulness and radical transparency, so you can see everything. that is the basis of our idea meritocracy. and it has worked. charlie: you think this could be applied to almost all of the big questions of our time? if we use this kind of rigorous process, we would come to a much better understanding of all the complex issues, whether it is climate change or whatever it might be? >> of course. charlie: fighting terrorism or making decisions about investments? >> whatever the decision is,
the process is equally valid, right? in other words, let's put our thoughts on the table. three things. put our thoughts on the table. know the art of thoughtful disagreement so we can pull that together and get past those disagreementsi think you can have good relationships. . it is a personal relationship thing, too. in other words, how are you going to work with each other? charlie: would this apply to marriages as well? >> it applies to any relationship you better establish what your principles are and how you're going to eal with each other. you don't have to follow an idea meritocratic way. there are two things i require from people in any relationship i have. be reasonable and be considerate. i will be very reasonable and considerate. we will have to have that thoughtful disagreement. ways of getting past that
thoughtful disagreement regardless of our relationships, and any relationship i have, that is a personal belief. that is what has served me well. i've been married happily for 40 years. that has worked out. charlie: also what has served you well is your curiosity, the full sense of wanting to learn as much as you can. along the way, and you have talked about this, new have shared the friendship of instrument people. along the way you've had friendship with extraordinary people. there is a man on the standing committee in china. he is known to the the top level as one of the most important people in china. he is one of the people you admire the most because you think his mind is in total pursuit of understanding how everything is connected, it kind of theory of everything. tell me more. >> i admire him. i admire paul volcker and many
people. because of the ability to go above things. and to look down at the world as a reality machine and to just think how does that reality machine work and to recognize that everything happens over and over again through the same things happen over and over again. everything is another one of those. when we start to think about how does reality work and what are the principles for dealing ith reality? we can talk about principles for parenting and so on. he thinks of human nature. it is basically almost that there are a limited number of personality types. maybe there are 20 personality types. there is a limited number of situations, and these things keep happening over and over again.
when we start to see the patterns and look for the patterns, it is almost like you can see the universal theory of reality. he is striving to do that and he looks at the world that way. it is intelligent. it is not emotionally carried away. he appreciates the beauty of reality, even the harsh realities. so i admire him for that. charlie: i assume you are in constant pursuit of greater understanding because the principles are a continuum. bad, worrying about appearing ood. good worry about achieving the goal. that, make your decisions on the first-order consequences. good, make your decisions on the basis of first, second, and third order consequences. this book is full of that. you are constantly adding principles. he started with 10 and now you have 200. >> i have learned something. i got into the habit of taking the time and writing down what is my principal for dealing with that thing?
i am constantly learning. by the way, it is the best habit. i recommend it for everybody. whenever something is happening and you are making a decision, write down your criteria for making a decision. when you are doing that, you can also communicate it to others and refine it over time. what has been magical for us as found that we can convert that into algorithms. we also have computers running parallel and making those decisions with us. this is happening. this is the type of thing that is the key to success to be able to think "what are my rules?" so when another one of those comes along, i handle it well. charlie: are you saying you are teaching machines how to make the kind of investment decisions that only human beings have been making at
bridgewater? >> no, we have been doing this for 25 years. charlie: but you also have a huge investment in artificial intelligence. >> yes, and algorithmic decision. that's right. it is a language. an algorithm is just like writing but it spessfice those criteria. if you think of the brain, as you know, the brain is 89 billion neurons, so those are little computers. charlie: interesting slip of tone from neuron to euros. >> they are little computers. they are programmed literally that way. and then data comes in. and that is how we make decisions. nowadays, we can take our criteria and we can specify those. and we can have computers make decisions in parallel with us. it is like using a gps. that is what it is like.
charlie: where does intuition and instinct hunch play in all this? >> it is critical. it is what the computer cannot do well. in other words, it is the ubconscious. as you know, man -- although only 200,000 years old, the brain is much older, and we came programmed with many of the things in our brain, intuition and some things. they are in our ubconscious. so, by opening up one possible subconscious to consciousness so they come up, you know, creativity comes from not working hard at it. it comes to relaxation. it bubbles up from the subconscious. charlie: that is why you believe in transcendental meditation? >> it has been invaluable to me because it helps to build that. that intuition, that creativity, man is still unique at being able to do those things. you would let that bubble up, but you would have to reconcile
that with your logic, so when he subconscious comes up and you replicated with your logic, it is fabulous, but you take what you learned, and you just do something with it. our converting it into our words and -- into how the -- algorithms and realizing that has been valuable. the computer can process information a lot less emotionally. you don't have to do that to have an idea meritocracy. i want to be clear. anybody in any relationship can have an idea meritocracy. charlie: where is the global conomy headed? >> i did a 30 minute video that i know you saw on how the conomic machine works. so if i can make this clear, there are three main forces. it is productivity. in other words, we learn, we invent.
and then there are two big cycles around that. there is the short-term debt cycle which we call the business cycle. that lasts about 10 years maybe. and then, there is a long term cycle, a long-term debt cycle, which accumulates and you build up a lot of obligations for the future and that is a burden on the future. right now, productivity is ising, although it is much difficult to measure so i won't et into that too much. we are in part of the cycle which is when the economy is not too hot and not too cold and inflation isn't too high and not too low, worldwide, generally speaking. we are in that part of the cycle. it is a good part of the cycle. ok? we have an enormous number of liabilities. they are not in the form of debts. there are a lot of debts.
they are also in the form of pension obligations. charlie: are they debt? >> they are a type of obligation. there is also the health care obligations. we have a demographic that is changing. so that is changing. and then as a backdrop, we have two different economies, with -- there is the economy which 'll call the bottom 60%. then the top 40%. make it the top 20% and the bottom 80%. two different economies. two different world. that disparity in wealth and circumstances is the greatest since the 1935-1940 period. the top -- charlie: what you think is the most interesting comparable period? >> which i think is most interesting comparable period. the top .1% of the population has a net worth equal to the bottom 90% combined. if you look at the economy of the bottom 60%, just say "what does that economy look like?" it is a miserable economy with
a miserable set of circumstances. there's not been growth. death rates are rising. suicide, opiates, and so on. it is a miserable economy. we are in a period that is analogous to that where there is a gap. when we talk about the economy, we should start to think about the two economies. we need to deal with that other economy. there is technology that is wonderful, but at the same time, it is replacing people. when we deal with algorithmic decision-making, and when we deal of that process, we can expect that that is going to increase the wealth gap, and it is going to increase that. so the biggest economic, social, and political issue of our time is that split and how to deal with it. charlie: how can our society survive if it doesn't do something about that split? >> i believe that's right.
>> i'm in washington and you're watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. white house press secretary sarah sanders says president trump's remarks and tweet last week were not a declaration of war. north korea's foreign minister made the claim today after trump warned the u.s. would destroy the country if forced to defend itself or its allies. the minister said pyongyang has the right to shoot down u.s. warplanes. the nonpartisan c.b.o. will issue a preliminary analysis of the grant/cassidy health care bill today. a revision of the bill is on the website of senator bill cassidy but today's score will reflect just the original version. the re-tooled bill will aim to win over gop