>> live from bloomberg headquarters in new york, this is "market makers." day.day maybe the all whole case and industry is waiting on. >> baby boomers in critical condition. living longer just as a doctor shortage kicks in. we will talk to the ceo of one of america's leading medical centers. >> one-on-one with bill clinton.

the future and whether his wife or end up running for the white house. >> good morning, everybody on this wednesday in new york city. it is "market makers." this is a theory. >> you know what, we are connected. this is how it works. i do not know if bill clinton will say his wife is running for president, but i am pretty sure she is. we will see. the one person in america who thinks she will run. >> he is not aware because he is canadian. i am feeling it. >> time for justice, or at the very least time and time for the justices. any minute now the u.s. supreme court will rule on one or more cases with implications for american business. they can hughes is that the supreme court. what are we waiting on today? left to beses decided. big day at the supreme court. you can see the cameras lined up

judges to come out. three cases that are critical to the business community. let's run through those. hobby lobby versus a bilious. the affordable care act requiring employers provide contraception coverage. ius.hobby lobby ursus sebel -- vs. hobby lobby saying they do not contraception. number two, the national labor relations board case. a very hot case lyrically. did the president overstepped 2012 when henuary appointed three members during the congressional recess third -- two the national relations board. and is that power out of date. >> it could call into question

decisions.nlrb third, abc and the broadcasters aereo. broadcasters are furious they have not been paying broadcaster fees. so huge potential impact in these decisions. three decisions that will be decided if not today, within the next week. the session is monday. back to you guys. next inc. you very much. megan hughes of the supreme court. again we'll be back to you as soon as the news breaks. you to the top business stories from around the world. the economy shrank a lot more in the first quarter than the government previously said. gdp fell at an annual rate of 2.9%, the most in five years.

the drop in consumer spending gets the blame. most of that blamed on the bad weather. our and the noble is officially going to split its business into. it will split off the ev dear unit. sales

affiliates. it has the largest number of local television stations in the u.s. market. the fed big winner is going to a fox, a similar story, win forfor aereo is a these companies. they might have gotten a break for the retransmission fees. ,nitial reaction for these guys their stocks are also up and

benefiting from the aereo loss. >> we will be back with more. paul is here, we have been talking about this case for months because it is so significant. are you surprised? >> i am not. >> of course you say that. the tv stocks, some of the tv stocks like sinclair, they were down 1% to 30% this year, aereorily on the ube concern. ,here was uncertainty retransmission fees have become the lifeblood of the tv business. they have to defend upon advertising, now that i have a second revenue service. 2013.ve m&a in

>> what does this mean long-term , this is not going to be the first company to try to disrupt the model. does it insulate broadcasting from attacks. it reaffirms the value of the copyright of the local broadcast. that is the primary asset of a local broadcast station, their ability to get paid through advertising or retransmission. this ruling validated the copyright value. >> you sat down with barry diller what do you say? >> he said it was like for jeff, this is death. >> he said there is no plan b here. what barry diller was trying to

do here was to thread a narrow saw ine he though he the copyright law, clearly the supreme court did not. diller likes to disrupt everything, whether it is broadcast television with the fox network or home shopping. thought he could be disruptive and shake up the world in terms of broadcasting. >> let's bring that in. erik spoke to him two months ago, why not take a long shot. take a look. >> very possible there is some salvage. would probably, i cannot see any path forward, it probably would not be able to continue in business. >> barry diller was very realistic about the prospects for aereo. at best, this was a 50-50 case.

if you are building a business, most people do not build businesses on a 50-50 probability. this is on something much more certain. this gives you a sense of the kinds of bets diller is willing to take. i am looking at the headlines bloomberg is producing. the supreme court itself says this aereo does not affect cloud computing. we will see how it plays out in practice. that is important. let's takeot mind, the coverage back to washington, where megan hughes has a little bit more on this particular angle. >> justice breyer mentioned that this was a big concern of his. i can tell you what the broadcasters lawyer argue, paul remember himmight representing the states in the affordable care act case. he made the case this was a more narrow business model than affecting the broader cloud

computing universe. you look at a company like and companies we talk about. he makes the case people are downloading or uploading content to the cloud that they own. fundamentally, he argued that that is a different thing than retransmitting broadcast programming. ostensibly, that broadcasters own. also, the justices trying to thread this needle that aereo's equivalent to a cable company. not an equipment provider, that this is not a question of the cloud is their argument. us, we have been to d.c., let's go to the west coast, jon erlichman, our senior west coast correspondent joins us from l.a. it is not everyday that the entertainment industry wakes up at 7:00 a.m. this matters in your town, y why?

>> all along, we talked about how aereo's business was on hold as they awaited this decision. chet kanojia famously saying to us there is no plan b. from the broadcasters side, there was not a plan b, either. not to say that they had not thought about what potential directions they would go if the supreme court ruled against them. you have different companies with different business strategies. to have everybody on the same page is not easy. will haveprepare and to go through all the specifics on this to see what the language means for aereo. they were in a position where they would have to think about do we continue the course or do we continue the fight at the sec level or do we have to change our business model? about theave talked

retransmission fees they want to protect and what networks like cbs have to move to cable. there is an immediate question about whether we will see some outrage from the broadcasters towards aereo. in other words, could there be a possibility for them to reach some kind of compromise. at the end of the day, they will say we love new technology, we just want to get paid for our content. a dealreo want to strike like that because of all the work they have already done? too early to say. those are some initial thoughts. >> jon, hang on. i am -- apparently we have a statement from cbs. here it is, just hang on. this is a statement from cbs, "we are please with today's decision, great news for content creators and their audiences here code that is a comment from cbs. jon, this is a ruling on the basis of copyright law.

inyright is about content the entertainment industry, how do content producers feel? working more happy with the devil they know, the broadcasters, or working with the devil they are just getting to know, netflix, for example, even amazon. or are they in different? they will work for the person who writes the check. >> they are thinking a lot about it. for the most part it has been a good scenario and given them an opportunity to generate more money when netflix or amazon will write you a check. we all know what seems like a new generation of tv watchers is less interested in paying for the cable package, even if the cable companies tell you it is a good value. the technology trends are not going to change. thethose people who were in new york area interested in using a service like aereo in

conjunction with netflix, that represent a threat to the traditional broadcast players. i think they still have to be open to technology and change to ensure their business survives. they have to think about these issues. the question now is if others see aereo as not being successful, do you see others take on this challenge? i would make the argument that this technology moves very quickly and you will see this issue pop up and for broadcasters to have to deal with it. for giving usyou the reaction from the west coast. i would like to bring in chris, nyu professor. he joins us over the phone. besides this being a big morning for les moonves, what do you think the broader response is? .> my last name is brigman what you have here is a decision from the supreme court that the broadcasters' side and

attempts to contain the damage to cloud computing by saying although we are interpreting the copyright act in a way that would reach cloud computing, we are not going to go there. we will set that aside. i just have to think that cloud are readingmpanies this and are not happy. even though the supreme court is trying to limit the scope of the decision. you are worried this is going to have collateral damage. >> justice breyer, who wrote the decision, and the other justices are trying to limit the scope, they have done an awful job. they have interpreted the transmit clause in the way broadcast companies asked. come -- that raises problems for countries like broadcast, they are doing the same thing at a conceptual level. >> they are saying this decision should not affect cloud computing industry, but it will because of the way that the

supreme court justices interpreted the law? the law, there is no reasoning but it is just an assertion. the lower courts are not going to take the assertion seriously. this is possibly the beginning .f trouble >> what do you think the response should be, will they work through the courts or is this a regulatory fix to the extent that this case is able to them. ?- a blow to them >> they should go to congress and get this overturned. >> wow. what are the odds of that? >> roll the dice, who knows with congress. and barryare aereo diller, you already rolled the dice with getting behind aereo. he said two months ago it was a 50-50 chance. do you want to keep pushing/ >> the barry diller's bet has

companiesox and other involved in cloud computing. it is not barry diller who is going to spend money, it is those companies. ?> who are we talking about willing to congress to change the law means going up not just against the entrenched interests in congress but les moonves, andiger, brian roberts comcast, they spent tens of millions of dollars in washington, that is a tall order. likelynot saying it is to be successful, but on the side of companies that could be hurt by this are microsoft, google, amazon, apple, and huge companies, much bigger than the companies you mentioned, that run cloud computing operation and think their future is in the cloud. everything they do has been

thisht under cloud by decision, which does an insufficient job of saying why cloud computing should not be subject to the same thing as aereo. >> how will this play out practically? bring the first case against a company involved in cloud computing and what might it look like? >> hard to say that i can give you a possibility. i am a software company and i see people pirating my software and storing current copies of software on a cloud computing company. and then distributing them from a cloud computing account. the cloud computing company has no idea what is on its service. cloud computing companies do not inspect private data files. that is not what cloud computing customers spent -- expect. are we going to get a lawsuit that says cloud computing companies have to go snooping around in people's data? the issue of data privacy comes

to the fore. the supreme court has opened up an enormous can of worms. they have not actually explain why they can of worms is not going to be very troublesome in the future. >> thank you, chris sprigman, nyu law professor. back out to the newsroom, alix steel has more. how does the market seemed to react at this point? we saw cbs with a positive response. >> all the movement we have seen is picking up steam, take a look at iac interactive, steamed to the downside. no shock there. day moving its 50 average, a medium-term trend line a lot of traders watch. looks like it is moving to the 100 day moving average, bad day for aereo, off by 1 point.

stephanie, you're just talking about cbs, a huge spike. actually shooting above its 50 day moving average, seeing a very strong filing through here. ties of the session, the big really comcast. it owns nbc. a pay-tv operator on the highs of the session, a huge jump for that comcast stock. you can see it right there. toare seeing a trickle-down the smaller cap stocks i want to highlight for you, likely and media. overhaul about these hit in the year. that stock also got a big jump. you are seeing their next star broadcasting group around the highs of the session.

that is focused on the central east part of the u.s. vision communications, geared commuters, hispanic now tour the three point five percent spike. these guys were hit earlier in the year on the possibility it would win the case, and now you are seeing that reverse case today. that to you. >> the broadcasters, on the >> we thinkopyright it is a strong ruling that upholds copyright law. it can earns regardless of the device or process, the officers of that work need to be compensated. like the questions i asked

before had to do with whether there was a market worth content regardless of how the supreme court ruled in or would it not have been possible for content creators, the people whom you represent, to just take their work elsewhere to other kinds of services is not for the broadcast networks? people want content and they want to consume it. they will go to whatever platform they could find it on. >> sure. you have -- you could have taken quality program off of tv, but i do not think that serves the public interest. local broadcasting is a very important part -- it is the way we receive the tv and the broadcast distributed through local tv channels. these services. i think that is an important

policy consideration separated in part by the ones us sprinkler was looking at in this case. >> just to play the devil's advocate, it has been an important part of the way we consume television, but some people who are not barry diller, and are not checked kenosha, it needs to change and that is a construct we have grown up with in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's, but there are technologies available, and they offer roots to consume content and ultimately finance the gathering of news that do not need to be the walled garden of the broadcast world. >> what the court said today and what we believe is that it isn't orton the copyright law remain technology neutral, and that that ensures there is a healthy relationship between the people who create the works and those who distribute the works.

the andtrue innovation, beyond the relationship between the creative community and those who create technologies and services to distribute. it works and has resulted in great new technologies and even entire new industries developing over many years. what area was doing would have taken us backwards to cuss rather than innovating to design the best new technology, they were investing to pay lawyers to capitalize on perceived loopholes in the law. >> does copyright law needs -- need to be changed or updated to adapt to the new media world? it has been upheld, yes, but should it be? is it the right framework anymore? >> in this instance, it is the right decision and the right eye more. it has supported and continues to support the dissemination of

authors and that benefits society as a whole. that is what the copyright laws were put in place for. >> we have on earlier this segment a guest who voiced concerns is could be applied to cloud computing in general. the cloud storage could be negatively impacted here. do you have an opinion on that? >> i do not think that is really a risk. the courts took an approach year asking a very basic question. what is the company broadcasting and transmitting and to whom? stereo is a purpose driven business and advertised its viewers could watch tv live. that is a very different situation to make company who gives you access to your own content where and when you want it. i do not think it has an impact

on cloud companies. >> it may not, in that sense, but what everyone is of enough with the cloud, with companies like google and microsoft, what they might be afraid of, is that lower courts could disregard the instruction, effectively, to the supreme court, where the assumption, the assertion of the supreme court, and choose to interpret the ruling that -- in a way that disadvantages operators of the cloud computing networks are that may not direct effect your members now but it is possible that may affect them in the future. >> cloud companies that did well before aereo, they continued to grow and thrive throughout the time this has been going on in the courts. seen any cases brought against any of those companies up to this point. i do not see where the lower courts would have the opportunity to issue those.

>> we will leave it there, if you do not mind. the ceo of the copyright alliance am an organization that supported the broadcasters in the fight at the supreme court. we have just received a statement i'm aereo. i believe this is from barry the, thehairman of ihs organization that financially backed area. he says it is not a financial- a big bracket for us. but this is a big loss for consumers here beyond that, i only salute the ceo and founder of aereo and his band for fighting the good fight. the chairman and ceo is saying, not a use financial loss for him, but he told me to ever weeks ago a defeat of the

supreme court was a life and .eath matter for aereo but a lossoss nonetheless, and he salutes the ceo and founder of aereo not just for coming with the technology but will they a toiness viable enough threaten in an accidental way -- existential way. fought the good fight. they took it up through the supreme court but clearly, it was a cut and dry case here from a copyright perspective. to the whole ecosystem of content creation. since day one, whether you are a publisher, a musician, an actor, at some point you have to get

paid for the content creation. one of the tried and true methods is advertising. you have a big audience and advertisers will pay for it. it goes to the value creation of content. ramificationser for all of hollywood. i think it went to the whole content of the value of intellectual property in this space and that is probably issue number one. >> we will take it act to jon erlichman in los angeles to get more of a sense of how the broadcasters are responding. they feel good about this and we read to our viewers earlier a statement. tell us what you know. >> you are seeing similar language across all the broadcasters. a statement representing tensioners in that statement, they simply say this is a victory for consumers.

they have sent a clear message they will uphold the law as congress intended. there was a question about whether or not you would the eighth ida in congress. broadcasting pushing their case there to potentially have this issue dealt with on other bills in congress, possibly those dealing with laws regarding satellite and satellite maybe now thea broadcasters do not have to go down that path where it the industry talking about a number .f dollars it received rallying on the news today, there is a company estimating it will get $2 billion in upransmission fees i 2020 from an estimate around $600 million per year. this is an issue for these companies, even if they were playing it down publicly on some level. a click, for broadcasters as a group. christ were some people who

remember other copyright rulings, it is a little confusing. there was an important case that came up and i do not believe that although -- and when all the way to the supreme court. involving cablevision. walk us through the inconsistencies. >> i think the question is for traditional ddr, was it a public or private showing. >> aereo also argued this is a private showing your request right. this is a public viewing and there've or copyright law does apply. it was a and dry that very fine loophole but one nonetheless that aereo and very they identified. a very fine loophole they were trying to tread through.

if it is public, then you have to pay for it. >> that little argument area was thatg, the tiny antenna beamed it individually to you, was the argument that it constituted private viewings and the supreme court has effectively invalidated the idea. >> again, you can see it by the reaction here and it is a big deal for them. the television broadcasting industry, audiences are climbing every year. advertising spending is under pressure. it is not the gross business it used to be. the revenue of retransmission fees that were found five years ago has been the life led for the industry. >> is that surprising he said it is not over? maybe be over but they should all go back in, does that surprise you? >> it is a question, if you really dig down to the ruling,

how well does spain court keep the decision narrow? how narrow do they keep a decision? no matter what they say, it has wrought her implications there it really goes to the issue of copyright and public information in general. clearly brings into question cloud storage and cloud computing. wewe always have to ask when see the market respond the way it has, the broadcasting stocks, surging on the aereo decision, investors are a little overenthusiastic. was there this much of an overhang on these stocks, strict the because of the aereo case? >> up until a couple of years ago, the stocks for 10 years were flat. decline andre in under pressure. the most notable thing that changed with a television broadcast model is the second revenue stream of retransmission fees and may the broadcast

network like cns look like a cable network. investors all the sudden said this is a lot better business than it used to be. a lot of m&a was and this was a better business than we thought, so retransmission he is really became a major driver, not just of the business, but m&a. it really has been a big deal for the stock. $36 billion now. a big deal for ceo's is. more than anybody else in america. thank you very much. fantastic coverage for our team. jon erlichman is in los angeles making steps on this in court. >> alex deal right in the newsroom. coming up, just in time for the retirement home. we will be speaking with the ceo and nyu medical center.

stay with us. you're watching "market makers." plus, an exclusive one-on-one with the clinton. we will be at the clinton initiative in denver, colorado. stay with us. ♪

>> welcome back. is one of thenter country's leading hospitals, ranking 14 in the nation and number two in new york state for its world-class facilities and doctors. the nyuor leaves both medical center and school of medicine and is a great person to discuss the health their revolution transforming the system as we know it or it welcome. what setsmes to nyu, you apart? is it r&d, technology, patient care? >> it is all of those issues. have fantastic doctors in a

highly integrated academic setting area we also have cutting-edge research. the combination of the research, clinical care, as well as innovative education, that set us apart. >> how can you afford to do that at a time when it seems like there is no funding? >> we get the money from a number of source is. one of our sources, our fabulous trust these and donors, who have donated in the past heaven years --ut 1.6 alien dollars billion dollars. that is helpful. in addition, we have run a very efficient and high-quality medical center which enables us to support research efforts which are normally very underfunded. >> is the american medical

system at and why you getting better at trolling cost? >> absolutely. but it is a very capital business. >> why is it the data still american health care at higher costs with more outcomes than that of other industrialized countries? >> i actually do not agree with those statistics. you really have to parse the statistics and analyze what you're about. our cancer outcomes are better than most systems. the fact is, when you look at some do not --y, you have to be careful when you talk about statistics area canada becomes a paradigm and a lot of canadians come to the u.s. for help there.

>> there is a canadian sitting here right next to me. you mentioned a capital intensive is missed their it is also education. doctor you facing the shortage specifically the areas that do not have to pay money? academic ethical center has their approach. our approach is, frankly, to try to decrease the length of time for medical schools. we implemented a three year .edic oh curriculum we started this past year. 10% of the >> will go through in three years. it is to be four years. it saves them a quarter of tuition, room and board, etc.. in total.0,000 a yearart earning money earlier. they save on the front and ends

are earning on the backend. >> how do you incentivize students to want to go into the practices that are starved? there are perverse incentives. they keep people from wanting to deliver babies. work keys people from wanting to go into that side of the medical profession. it is a lifestyle choice. [laughter] >> i take a little issue being a radiologist. what i would say it is really hard to push people. you have to pull them along and make them attractive. there are ways to do that, but clearly, one idea is to decrease the mortgage they have on their education so they have more freedom of choice. bestw do you attract the doctors to come to new york? it is any -- a superexpensive

town to live in. if you want to bring the best thatrightest doctors here, is big for them. >> medical students and college students vote with their feet. we have about 9000 applicants for 160 positions. i do not think we have trouble attracting. i think it is like every other business. they come and want to be in new york. >> if you could design a health america, what would it look like? >> it is very important and the incentivize quality and value. there are objective metrics that need to be met. if you steeply incentivize them, institutions respond to the

steep incentives of ancient. -- incentives. doctorsou worried the economics seem to be steeply declining? >> again, if you think of the medical school applicants as canaries in the coal mine, you have lengthy of applicants for the appropriate positions. >> what do the numbers look like compared to 10 years ago? >> applicants are of higher quality than they were. is a different type. they are first-generation people who want to come and make a life and want a professional career. medicine is a fantastic rear and will always he a fantastic career. each person can't find their niche. that is the beauty of the profession. >> it seems like doctors spend so much of their time battling with insurance companies, not getting to work on research or

patient care. >> right. what you are seeing is that the individual doctor doing that in the past is joining groups and institutions where they have less of the red tape and more of the opportunity to do what they train -- they are trained to do. >> what is the report card on obamacare so far? fax it is a mixed report card. card.it is a mixed report for patients,t those who did not have insurance, to have access to all the health ear. that is important and good. >> thank you for joining us. great to have you here this morning. the ceo and dean of the nyu medical center. we will be back with more. ♪

>> it is time for more of bloomberg's exclusive coverage of the clinton global initiative summit. will is moderating -- moderating the panel of the workforce and how they are affected -- affecting the american economy. last but not least, the former treasury secretary and number goldman sachs cochairman. >> that would have a fiscal effect and you could increase revenues. >> how do we get there? is this leaders are used to going out and doing it and it is not some we can do when it comes to our federal policy. everyone is in agreement we need these policies to keep us competitive. how do we get them? >> unfortunately, what you have is people with very different views, as opposed to agreement here that is fine. there is nothing wrong with people with if and views. we had

that in 1990 evan. the trouble is you needed to compromise. our democracy will not work without a willingness to engage in compromise area that is lost in washington and that is why we are in gridlock. that has to be restored. --how did we do that quest how do we do that? >> i always say i will not support anybody or vote for anybody. i will not unless they are committed to governing and engaging in the process of compromise. we all did that and made it clear with our opinion leaders in communities. moodan create a national and that is a small piece. >> i think it is written -- a responsibility of businesses and

ngo's and citizens to make their voices heard even on all matters. >> let's say it is for some tax how sea or whatever it may be. we need to combine that voice and say, this is what i a. my elected leader. i want you to engage in the process of governing to get something done. >> we cannot necessarily rely on a reluctant government to do everything were us. we have to take matters into our own hands. we are americans and we are good at that. we need the support of a government, but taking matters into our own hands looks like the education issue with your science education. i am a strong supporter of a new .org.ace -- a new

a computer scientist with a passion for education. he did this thing, a code, a few months ago. he had 20 million people in the country spending one hour to learn how to code. he had people like president obama doing it as well. it was a big deal. he has strong support from folks like bill gates and mark zuckerberg. it in the computer science education, a tiny minority of people getting that education are women. girls. this is a problem and one of the reasons we do not have as many computer scientist says we need. 20 million people did and 50% were girls. this is a fantastic thing. i support an organization like that taking matters into our own hands. teachers in public schools love this and have never seen students so engaged. this is how we begin to change

the curriculum of public schools and we need to support that and realize it's is important. prepared tech industry and willing to take a leadership role in helping us perform american education, encourage kids, girls and boys, to embrace them? yes is the answer but it might be too overbearing. there is so much momentum around this. there are some any resources around this. people are beginning to take matters into their own hands. we put through a charter school amendment, specifically one of the big reasons for pushing through charter schools was to bring some competition into the

public school system. we are excited about that and to be able to introduce a new and progressive oriented curriculum. you will see people step forward increasingly and a very progressive way. >> 26% of america's kids live in poverty. it is outrageous. this is emotionally and economically destructive. specific -- there were specific outreaches to the poverty-stricken committees, especially in urban areas. >> that was bloomberg special correspondent willow bay. you can keep watching it, the whole discussion on our website, bloomberg.com/tv. that is a pretty

extraordinary hour. you are in for another one ahead. exquisite interview at 1130 a.m. eastern time with former president bill clinton out at the cgi america event in denver, colorado. for, you have something big us. >> yes, i sat down with the head of the fbi new york office to talk to the assistant director in charge. this morning, big news, there is no questions. the supreme court putting area out of business. supreme court justices, by the 6-3 decision agreeing with rock cast networks that the internet start up that is aereo violates their copyrights. francisco,n of san our markets coverage with alix steel is in the newsroom. we will start with our supreme court reporter in washington.

why don't we begin with this. the reasoning for this decision, why granted the broadcasters their appeal and effectively put aereo out of business? >> the supreme court says that aereo is not that different from a cable provider. it is actually enable him to do that and says what it is doing is what is known as a public performance, under the copyright act, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to a public performance of its work. theo, let's talk about implications to that. immediately, it would appear is gone.o we have a statement more earnest acknowledging as much. -- more or less acknowledging that. where it goes from here? the scope of the ruling.

tries to limit the scope so that it would not affect cloud computing but don't lower courts have the freedom to interpret it as they see fit? >> certainly this will play out in other lower court decisions. the court did say that we are not deciding anything about cloud computing. the cloud company takes a piece of context that i bought in stores it for me, why that is different from aereo. you will hear those arguments in future cases. they are worried about the moment. they said if you rule against us, it does impair the industry. on the steps of the supreme court, helping us to understand and ultimately impact the supreme court ruling. >> we have to go back to the

impact on the markets. alix steel, a huge day for broadcast stocks. winners break down the and losers. by far, the winners of this ruling obviously are the broadcasters. however, a lot of them are off their session highs. take a look at cbs. really spike higher right on the ruling. it has cooled off a little bit since then. the medium term trend line that many watch. group reallying holding onto its gains for the day. this includes a lot of and bc, foxx, cbs affiliates that have the largest number of television stations in the u.s.. comcast holding onto its highs of the session, it is kind of a dual winner here. operator, a pay-tv kind of moving with both.

keep in mind that overall, the broadcasting stocks have fallen off a cliff this year due to this potential ruling. paring back a lot of those losses. -- biggest loser will be you saw immediate takedown. we have recovered since then. just a little bit below the flat line. you had barry diller saying that this is not a big financial loss for the company and you saw the stock bounce a little bit because of that. looking at the smaller cap stocks, you will be watching within nexstar broadcasting group, entravision communications, these are the specialty guys within the group. this is geared to hispanic consumers. they are all seen the big gains as well, this was the hardest hit throughout this year. down by about 22%.

>> thank you very much. i want to bring our correspondent, our west coast editor at large cory johnson in. my question to you has to do aereo's future. i asked the ceo what the ruling could mean. >> aereo would probably, just because i cannot see any path forward, it probably would not be able to continue in business. >> so, life or death and in this case it sounds like death. salvage value. what might very diller be talking about when it comes to salvage value? the decision is really interesting because they talk a lot of decision about what aereo does and doesn't do anything? does it provide a surface, doesn't process the information

or not? the reason this matters far that itereo is really is about cloud computing. others that do cloud computing, companies to copy services. there are enormous implications well beyond what happens to aereo. it is quite likely that aereo goes away as of today. they described this in the decision. this is really interesting, the decision and the dissent written by justice alito. they talk a lot about what area does. the talk about the implications of this. the majority of opinions are very clear when they say -- one issue that ariel brought up was -- one issue that aereo brought up was that it could make dvr's, cloud computing illegal because it copies the things that exist in other formats and it replicates them.

the court came out and said that this is not about cloud computing and should not be read as a decision about cloud computing because of the imprecise nature of this. ,eanwhile, the dissent goes on an attempt to the court to plug loopholes. so, the implications could have been really big and they're listening to the lawyers saying don't take this as a willing about cloud computing, we need a different set of problems before us before making any decisions .bout cloud computing, dvr >> what happens to their customers now? >> i think they're probably done. fors there no application aereo's micro antenna technology? >> they were a play on the responsibility that rock testers took off when they were given their licenses.

licenses, we the found a workaround. what the supreme court says that the fcc ruled is as important as the 1976 changes in copyright laws. they were stealing the copyright and material of the broadcasters. aereo is a tricky way around that. >> another word, the loopholes closed. >> thank you so much for giving us the latest. coming up, more on the fallout from the supreme court ruling. we will be speaking to read hunt. that is coming up later today on smart" at 3 p.m. eastern. >> fbi agents are just as financialout catching crimes as they are about

terrorism.

>> most people think of the sbi as a counterterrorism force. this is the same investigation that filled the savings and loan scandal. roger rodham, height frequency pariibas.and bnc to thehese questions assistant director in charge of the new york office. >> is a huge responsibility. it is a high priority for us. i could tell you white-collar crime resources in general rival the terrorism. >> given the attention that the actual crime has been getting and the success that the government has had executing insider trading, is financial crime as a consequence that

rising up the party list? >> yes, you could say that. it has always been a priority for the fbi. been one of our largest programs historically and it hasn't changed. but, the success we have had, especially since 2007. we have had 85 arrests of insider crime. so, that is huge. the success brings a lot of attention to it. i think it is important that it does get the attention and hopefully you make somebody think twice about doing it. that is the purpose of paying attention. right?rrence, >> deterrents, absolutely. >> on the morning of nine/11 -- on the morning of 9/11, people look up to the reality of terrorism. thatunderstood the threat an unintended bag poses and a suspicious package. if you see something, say something.

the financial crisis does not have to have had the same effect on people. why? affects the victims. it does not have that 9/11 affect where -- everybody probably knows somebody who died in 9/11. everybody saw those buildings fall. for the white-collar crime, unless you're a victim, it doesn't affect you personally, sometimes you don't take it serious. what they don't understand, especially with insider trading, we are all victims. anybody a mutual fund, any money in the stock market as a victim. >> why do you think that more people on wall street, where people in banks and brokerage firms around the country don't, when they see something, pick up the phone, call the fbi and say something. >> that is a good question.

more do than people realize at times, at times. we need to work at that, we want to make sure that people are aware that this crime has affected everyone. people have to realize that it is so important to keep this financial market was legitimate. >> me think how much better off if someone at jpmorgan said, this guy ernie made off is really messing around and we see some things here that you want to look into. how do you change that culture? wallo you change on street? >> you hope that that example would resonate with everybody, look at what could have been

saved, how much money could have been saved if summit he came forward earlier. , itmany people's life's would have been maybe half. >> where do you hope to have success? do you hope for individuals, whistleblowers if you will? themselves the banks to be more aggressive about self reporting, what the red flight they see in their legal and science department. >> we don't want to rely on too many whistleblowers because the problems are down the road. we really need to get the banks. they are starting to do a really good job, compliance departments built up. they need to change the culture with him, the industry, that it is good to find problems. make it big.

a culture of south reporting. >> where are they having some success now? are people picking up the phone and calling the fbi? somexample, there are monkey business going on with high-frequency trading. you should have a look at this. >> there's definitely success there. the success relationships, believe it or not, they have gotten really stronger. the relationships with the different institutions have gotten stronger. want thisthey don't to happen. they really don't. they have a reputation. they have a brand they are protecting. they want to be known as a solid company with a great culture. to get moreing cooperation. >> when did that change? >> that has changed over the past two years. >> i think we are getting better

leadership and their same, this. . is trying to be a successful institution. we want to do it the right way. harboringant to be crime or helping crime get worse. >>. a little bit more about insider trading. the ads were one of were reasons why the investigation was so successful. what is the next wiretap. how do you stay ahead of the crooks? have ishallenge we inside the world. , they pick up the phone. not everyone is texting, everyone is sending e-mails, everyone is sending electronic. i think the electronic challenges what we will have in the future. there'll always be a place for wiretaps. there's always going to be a

place for undercover operations. i love undercover operations, that is the best evidence. dealing with somebody face-to-face. >> how does the fbi anticipate or in some cases even understand the most complex financial cases? they can't be derivatives alone, they can be incredibly the doubling. to help uspeople understand. some people cooperate or people in the industry. , we hire people from the industry. we hired the brokers, we have hired the lawyers. best if not of the the best and most dedicated workforce in the federal government. the problem with the white-collar financial crimes, we are dealing with very smart people. we are not dealing with the drug dealer. nbaers,ealing with

some of the smartest people in new york city. >> what about something like high-frequency trading? >> that is a practice that many people consider to be wrong. ?o you find those people >> i think people understand it. i think it is happening so fast, i think they don't understand what is happening. we are trying to get a handle on that and trying to see what is all about. >> how's it going? >> some very smart people. that is what we can do. that is a compensated issue. it is not cut and dry. >> your office is investigating so many different types of crimes, financial crimes, white-collar crimes, where are you most optimistic based on what you have seen now about the prospect for indictments?

the specific type of cases? >> what cases? people need to see charges. they need to see enticements -- indictments to be discouraged from doing the wrong thing. cases, theof those cases that are there, you will see them. the fact that we have had 85 indictments on insider trading over the last few years, that is not a small number. it could be more. it is not a small number. that is just the one insider trading violation. that is pretty good. think we should never be satisfied. i wish it was 160. >> you are investigating, you have investigated wrongdoing at auto companies, banks, the

hiring of well-positioned individuals overseas. you are investigating high-frequency trading. you have these multiple investigations. what is going to bear fruit? >> i think a lot of them well. success coming. we have cases -- our goal is always to indict, if somebody is responsible, that person who is responsible needs to be indicted it go to jail. is the our principal man way we work. that's not something that we will stop. haveedict good things, we a lot of good things coming forward. there's no doubt in my mind. >> a lot of people wonder whether the fbi really is equipped to catch the most sophisticated financial crooks. howonder how smart, educated, how experienced and how devious some of the folks who work in the financial

services industry are. we have seen some of them caught, we have a pretty good idea what kind of people they are. >> the reason they are so well compensated is because they are so clever. the question is, does the regulatory body, does the fbi have people that are of the caliber, i hate to say caliber when -- >> they have some. they tell us that there is no way for them to have enough people and be able to catch all of the crooks on their own. that is why our conversation was effectively a plea for the folks on wall street to do what you hear on the new york city subway. , sayu see something something. if you think someone is doing something wrong. if you see evidence. >> people have nothing to lose. , they bealking about they believe they are seeing something solid but they're not sure. they don't necessarily want to

put themselves, their families at risk. subway, they are totally different from an employee saying, i'm thinking about taking down goldman sachs. >> he knows that. when i asked him about whistleblowers versus legal compliance, his answer was we would much rather see the culture on the street change so that there is a more legal compliance and those departments , the general counsels at j.p. morgan and citigroup and goldman sachs and morgan stanley are the people picking up the phone and calling us. instead of -- look at what is happening at the empty -- bnp paribas. blews an informant that the whistle. they would've had the council same, it appears as though there were some anti-money laundering and terrorism are relations committed inside of our bank. coming in and take a look. click things are changing.

they are beefing up compliance. are the people in those departments, do they have the swagger, the power that the big-time traders do? what this was the bottom line. when we come back. bill clinton.

live from bloomberg headquarters in new york, this is "market makers" with erik schatzker and stephanie ruhle. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am stephanie ruhle. i'm am erik schatzker, and slightly less yellow. >> today, the six-month anniversary. it is like christmas in june. we were waiting for former president bill clinton. willow bay has a very special conversation with him coming up. that will be coming up live from the clinton global initiative

summit in denver. that is minutes away. time now for the newsfeed. the top business stories from around the world. for everyone thought that they were indestructible. this is the worst in over five years. consumer spending fell off a cliff. people are blaming much of that on the severe weather. no one wanted to go to the mall. japan's minister says that deflation is officially over. falling prices have wiped out much of japan's growth in the last 15 years. told bloomberg tv that there is no deflation anymore and their business prices will keep it from coming back. buyers are ready to bid on the governments bitcoin auction. the bitcoins are valued at more than $17 and will be auctioned on friday. the fbi confiscated them when it shut down the silk road

marketplace. waiting to hear from bill clinton, let me share with you a little bit of my exclusive interview with the newstant director of the york office. you saw george talk about how the fbi is cracking down on financial crime. elsewherecrime is and like in washington. it is called political intelligence. analysts hired by companies to keep them up just beat on what is going on in the capital and sometimes passing that information on to people with financial interests. >> it is an area of concern. it is an area we have to look at. is an area that we are looking at. whereanother area influence could be.

there is potential for that to happen. >> potential for what? >> insider information. loss they could pass can affect businesses. they made benefit from that. it is another gray area that could be potential fraud involved. these crooks are creative. they're always looking at the edge. people get an unfair advantage. >> who is lucky with them. working for them? >> that is who we are trying to find out. tell you if a lawmaker is involved in and illegal insider trading type activity. yes, they should go to jail. if that is happening.

>> the assistant director in charge of the fbi's new york office on the lookout for financial crime in d.c. phil mattingly was together with me and stephanie watching george's comments. how much concern is there in congress that the fbi isn't just may takebut the fbi action? the idea that we could see a lawmaker perhaps or more likely and upome staffers behind bars for insider trading with political information will stop >> a lot of concern. in this healthen care issue with the house ways and means committee, this is developing with the battle going on with the securities and exchange commission over the last couple of weeks. basicallyis because the staff members and the lawmakers have to put this in a congressional record. it becomes public. the fcc is looking into a staff member tipping off one of these

intelligence firms to a major health and human services, medicare type decision. there is a big jump in trading volume right before the bell. here's the big issue. there are two that i look at. law enforcement and congress always have a very kind of complex relationship. congress does not want law enforcement coming anywhere near their turf. on enforcement is limited on what they can do on capitol hill . on this particular issue, it looks like law enforcement and certainly the sec is looking to go in on it. what you're hearing from capitol hill. in terms of insider trading. so much can move the market but it is traffic every single day. what exactly is that threshold? i think there is a lot of uncertainty and it goes from the law enforcement side and on the

health side. as long as that sits there, there is a lot of concern that i am talking to a former colleague, i am talking to a buddy on the phone in a fine sharing something that might actually end up being insider trading, i might have big trouble. it is having a chilling impact on how information is being shared. >> how aggressive are they trying to draw that line? you talk about the separation of powers between congress and the judicial branch of government. how much authority do they have? how far away can they push investigators from the fbi? >> they have a lot of authority. there is a court battle starting to play out. waysouse and way committee suing with subpoena. you might remember when there was a bill called the stock act which was supposed to lay out how lawmakers trade and also lay out how staffers trade they

found some of the information that they are dealing with. political intelligence firms were extremely concerned about that. i hearder issue that from a makers and staff throughout the consideration of this bill was they wanted to make sure that there was no way that law enforcement could use that as the miscues to get deeper into congress. the per excuse to get into congress. their e-mails are not saved, there is not a lot of transparency about what is going on the offices. lawmakers like that. i don't want any major change. any time you get close to putting a camels nose under the tent, you will see a big push back and you will not see just from staff, you will see the lawmakers come in and try to protect their staffers. >> the lawmakers like it that way, i think it is safe to say the fbi doesn't. the question is, how do americans feel about it? >> how much do they know about it?

stay with us. in just a moment, and this collusive interview with president bill clinton. .e will have that and more -- an exclusive interview with president bill clinton. we will have that anymore.

>> it is time for some top tech and media headlines. big changes at abc news. diane sawyer is stepping down. she will be replaced by david -- george stephanopoulos has been majorthe lead anchor for news event such as election. rupert murdoch's news corp. might taste criminal charges in the wake of the phone hacking trilemma did. it led to the conviction of an editor. police would like to interview rupert murdoch himself as a suspect. warnings from north korea. the government says the release of a hollywood comedy about a plot to kill kim jong on would be an act of war. un a plot to kill kim jong-

would be an act of war. in movie is set to open october. i don't know how seth rogen and james franco could be an act of war. >> do you think that james franco was funny? r not as funny as seth ogan. >> i don't think that james franco is that funny. lucky for you, everybody else does. the supreme court effectively ruled aereo illegal. being had in every major network right now. it all comes down to the aereo technology. how it grabs the broadcast signal and sends it to their customers. here is a quick explainer of what it does. question might have heard about aereo -- >> you might have heard about aereo.

broadcastyou to watch tv over the internet. in 13 cities so far, they have created farms full of dime sized in tennis. these work much like the rabbit ears that you would've passed your television at home. they receive free over the air signals from broadcasters like abc, and foxx. it takes a signal and gives it to their subscribers over the internet. you can then watch tv over the andrnet, your tablet, smartphone. the service costs eight or $12 a month. here is where it gets sticky, there were three ways before aereo. bolted to your roof, you could pay a cable company for inbox, or you could pay a satellite company for a dish. while you are paying cable and satellite companies, they are paying broadcasters so they can read transmit programming to the

tune of about $4 billion a year. do you know how much aereo pays broadcast networks? zilch. they argue that they are pulling --n the same intent as signal that anyone can get with their antenna. don't think we can overstate the impact of the supreme court's ruling. >> or the impact it will have on on dropbox, onto google. >> that is a part we don't know. down rightis sitting now with the former president of the united states, bill clinton. >> this is really exciting. my first cgi america. bloomberg is delighted to be back here with you. we know you find it incredibly exciting. so, i would like to start as we

usually do with you, by asking you what initiatives are you most excited about this year? >> the ones that i think are going to have the real impact in preparing younger people for the workforce or to go forward in their education. i think that this is a real big problem. one of the things that has troubled me is that even though the economy went down so far, we vacancies,eeling that is employers say i want to hire five people to do acts. we have been filling posted vacancies at roughly half the rates where previous post recessionary periods. so, i am excited about that. ongoingited about the progress of the public and labor pension funds in raising more than $10 billion to invest in infrastructure. that enables them to work with

the state and local governments interested in that. we got this started to ask ourselves what we could do to help accelerate the growth to the american economy, to create more jobs, to create that are jobs. we cannot reduce inequality, poverty unless we have much tighter labor markets and a different job mix. clearly, we need to do a lot more on infrastructure and the 21st-century infrastructure, broadband and traditional infrastructure. i'm excited about those things. toi got the chance to talk brandywine garden, the head of the american federation of teachers about this project and she was brimming with excitement about reaching their funding level of 10.2 billion and had a schedule. and about the payoff that she was seen in jobs, and improve

infrastructure, and yields to their pension fund. about thehe learned value and importance of public-private partnerships that you already know about that others are just learning? >> that it is good business. it would be wrong for us to be putting together a project where we ask the trustees of pension the employees money or the retirees money into projects that did not have a rate of return that was at or above their target to meet their future pension obligations. we don't want to contribute to more pension funds in america. this proves that you can't do that. of clinton's a lot onstage. there was dr. clinton, secretary clinton. to atary clinton pointed

$20 billion problem over the next decade, one that you mentioned, use unemployment. unemployment. your onealking about job initiative, getting american businesses to engage and help america's young people. do american businesses need to radically rethink the way they go out and attract and retain talent? i think a lot of them do. i thought one of the most important presentations made yesterday was made by the chairman of chipotle talking about how they had created a culture ofmpany promoting from within which meant that they were creating a level of social mobility that had not been there otherwise. and i think that that is really

important. if you look at the cultures of these companies that really emphasize the development of and ploys capacity and makes an appropriate share of the revenue goes to their employees as opposed to the top executives or the shareholders, i think they their five-year period, revenues grow faster. their profits go up, their ability to deal with the serious unevenness in the economy. unevennessioned the in the economy. we saw the gdp numbers revised downward quite dramatically again today. what is your sense of what is going on and what is supposed to be an economic recovery but it feels very much like we are fumbling along. >> there are two things happening that account for that number. i think the people who were estimating it, underestimated the effect in america and in

countries that might by our exports of the winner. interesting because it was all men northern hemisphere with the polar vortex, where it blew off the north pole. we also had for the first time in my lifetime the ice pack on the northern part of greenland melting. we had not seen any melt in the northern part and it was the fourth hottest three-month p the globe asrd for a whole. it affected the wealthy countries, it affected our exports to europe and elsewhere. i think that accounts for the difference by and large. is,, the other problem there was no other engine of growth to pick up our exports. europe is sort of stuck now, a .airly low growth the chinese are trying to do

with their internal stresses and their banking system. the massive environmental challenges and what to do about it. ironically, i think they will in thedo what japan did 70's, to clean their air and their water and their soil. it will generate enormous opportunity for both the u.s. and europe to export some technology to them to help them do that. >> those are the things you think account for the revision but how would you characterize this economy? >> well, i think what i would is we don't have enough internally generated growth but unless we unlock investment and directed to high-growth areas. one of which is favored by the

house of representatives in washington which is to say that we have cut the deficit by more than 50%. we have to keep getting this rates lowernterest than inflation, this is the best time we will ever have to undertake a massive effort to build the 21st-century infrastructure. have -- if we did that, we would have internally generated growth. congress would have to put up matching money, it would be to build an infrastructure bank with public and private funds and seed it buys some negotiated incentive structure with the big companies that have more than a trillion dollars in cash overseas and would like to repatriated. there is a wariness to do this in both parties and

president bush 43 said this to me a month ago. he said, i try to do that, i wanted to repatriate the money. instead of paying the whole difference. all the money went to buy back andk and issue dividends raise the executive pay. if you require that the percentage of that money go into an infrastructure bank. i believe we can negotiate a very attractive deal, much better than before and it would help. john chambers have been trying to work with companies like his that want to bring it home for investment purposes. i think we should go with that, if we cannot pass the

infrastructure. >> is there a right number, is there a right corporate tax rate? basically, have fewer deductions and senate and maybe have an alternative minimum tax for cooperation -- for corporations. ratesed the corporate tax to its current level for incomes over $10 million. >> it was a different era. it was the middle of the pack. >> when i did this, it was exactly in the middle of the wealthy countries. tax rates arethat theology, it is about economics. if the government is going to have a certain amount of money, you have to have a revenue stream to cover it. other things being equal, tax policy should be like, willie sutton's policy when he robbed banks. i rob banks because that is where the money is. those of us with a greater ability to pay should pay more

in revenues. the tax rate in america is now all out of whack. if you ran a big multinational company with responsibility is not just to your shareholders but to your own employees and you had operations all over the world and you earned a lot of this money legitimately. you are not looking for a tax shelter, you legitimately earned it another basis. you would be reluctant to bring it home if you pay the difference, you paid here and there in a world where now the average corporate tax is not 35%, it is more like 25% or 26%. the way to do it without giving a money is to require those that pay under 20 and there are a significant number to pay it a little bit more. finance the repatriation. and to have -- we should look at this money as a one-time stimulus to the american economy and require a certain amount of amounte to pay a modest of the treasury. the most important thing is to fund this infrastructure bank and put the american people back

to work. if you find it it that way, then the kind people that put up $10 billion for our more modest program could invest their pension funds in the infrastructure bank. other corporations could put money in the infrastructure bank. what i think our two options are. separatelyry to get the corporate tax rate that is competitive internationally. we can do it without giving up very much if any way just by closing some of the loopholes. >> you have spent a lifetime believing that policy matters. >> i did. of fun of.a lot >> to this day, our students a its implementation. i would like to get your take on

the policy solutions, so many issues that business leaders have been bringing up. this is not one that public-private partnerships can solve. they need federal policy on that. if you were running the show right now, what would the path to immigration reform look like? how would you cut it? that we had asure targeted approach for skilled immigrant labor that reflects the current demand to the economy. i will give you the simplest example. every year, if you look at the posted job offers, there is a demand for about 120,000 young people with degrees on conspirators science. it, they produce 40,000 of those graduates. they the aggregate,

produce 40,000 of those graduates. the committees in america that had a lot of skilled immigrants, for non-immigrants in those committed these went up at twice the national average. in other words, everyone was benefited by that. that is when we needed a broad-based immigration reform and give people a path to citizenship and we need reasonable quotas in the future. we need to be prepared for the fact that we are living in a highly disrupted world. like a lot of these kids that are showing up on the southern border now. interestingly enough, in 2010, 2 thousand 11, we had no net migration at all from mexico because they are diversifying their economy, they were growing in mexico and brazil. income. a decline and

the immigrants keep us younger. only ireland has a younger workforce than america today. china is younger than we were. it would not be in 20 years had the president not have had the one child policy. uth really matters. that should be coupled with the strategy. is in placeseeling without enormous number of immigrants because by and large these are generally open. they are in places that feel like they have been left out and left behind and everyone else is at the front of the line and neither party does much for them.

i have friends in north arkansas, he tried to hit him to vote for our party in the congressional race. guys aren't doing anything for us up here and the other guys aren't doing anything for us. but, they say you will take my guns so i guess i will vote for the party that is not going to do anything to me. but the point is, you get what i mean. we should cover immigration reform with an economic transition plan for coal country. i strongly support the epa rules and the coal areas have artie lost two thirds of their employment, just greater efficiency and the lower price of natural gas and other things. we have not done anything for them. when we had the tobacco initiative when i was president, we had an aggressive economic transition plan in north carolina and can that were affected. ifdi