>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> michael lewis is here, he rose to fame 25 years ago with the publication of his first book. "liar's poker." the frenzied years of wall

street in the 1980's. he was a bond salesman. tom wolfe writes, liar's poker is the funniest book on wall street i've ever read. the special edition is out now. i am pleased to have michael lewis back at this table. >> is just been six months ago it hasn't been that long. >> what is the difference in wall street? you did this because? the same question is this morning. >> it because i can. it wasn't my idea but i couldn't really see a reason to say no. it never lost currency. they sell lots of books every year. it hasn't changed. that seems to be an eternal story right now. what has changed is that wall

street has gotten better at disguising what it does. it got more complicated. it's hard for the outsider to see, even if it seems transparent. it's so complicated, it's not. subprime, collateralized debt obligations. >> weren't those done away with after the collapse of 2008? derivatives and stuff. >> they've never gone away. they've never been banned or anything. i left wall street in 1988. there was no such thing as too big to fail. if this -- if a firm screwed up, it was going to go down. the other thing that happened is this extension of trends to begin around that era. extreme free agency. people really not wedded to their firms, but to the markets.

so it creates a climate of more short-term view and people are much more interested in short-term than the long-term. they don't have long-term interests, they have short-term interests. >> what about hedge funds and private equity? >> it has risen a great deal. the question i have is, is this whole sector being disrupted by technology? especially the intermediary side of the business. the internet has been really harsh. but wall street has been very good -- >> it eliminates the middleman. >> this is a an industry that is premised on the need for a middleman. you wonder how it moves forward with the innovation that happened. what it feels like to me, not the hedge funds, but the big banks. they are scrambling around to figure out how to preserve their lifestyle without having the same social and economic function to perform.

>> but we still need big banks, don't we? corporations need a place to borrow money when they want capital and to do things. >> you can make the argument that we don't. >> mergers and acquisitions and all of that. >> i am sure they are useful things but the things they have historically done they don't need to do. that creates a problem. you have massive regulation and response to the financial crisis which is hard to do. it has become broadly -- at the same time all of this interest and transparency. we'll be clear about what we're doing and why, it is basically indecipherable from the outside. much harder to understand than they were 20 years ago. and there is a much greater at session with their public image.

the self-consciousness with which they present themselves to the outside world is unlike anything i've seen. i could not have written this book now. there's no way. after i left they made people sign a contract saying you won't write a book about salomon brothers if you work here. less politely than that. there is a relationship between wall street and the rest of society, even less healthy than it was then. society trusts wall street less. which is saying something. but wall street trusts society less in a funny way. >> are you surprised more people haven't been prosecuted for things that happened during 2008? the banks are paying huge fines,

but it's not an individual. >> the individuals are untouched. i don't know. the truth about the financial crisis is that what was scandalous is what was legal. a large amount of the behavior was legal. and that's the problem. and i have always been wary of calling for people scalps. if someone gets lynched, they feel like they got it. but they either get the wrong guy or do it the wrong way. so it's lakes the public appetite for vengeance in an unhealthy way. it is outrageous. i think too big to fail is a huge problem and we need to establish that. if you are in a supposedly competitive marketplace and you fail, you fail. >> what did you think you wanted to do?

>> my thesis advisor told me. not only were there no jobs, but i probably wasn't cut out for it. >> think of the books you would have written if you became an art historian. >> we never would have met. >> you would've made something that would've been a huge movie. >> very quickly i figured i wanted to write. >> you knew that before wall street. >> a few weeks ago, i bumped into a friend of mine and he went into the mortgage market. i was at a mortgage bankers place and he said, do you remember when we first met? he said, you came into the training class, you introduce yourself and said, what are you here for? he really wants to become a

mortgage banker person. i am here to write a book. he says it's true. i knew that i was chiefly interested in having experiences that i could write about. i was in search of life experience. i didn't know what i wanted to write about but i thought this can't be bad. i'm sitting in the middle of the action. facts i'm saying this not have u, but -- >> i'm saying this not too -- not to flatter you, but you are really good. you have this wonderful ability to describe scenes. just exquisite. you had that talent early, yes? >> it took a long time to be identified. i didn't write for school newspapers or anything like that and i got a lot of sees on english papers. i liked the feeling that came over me when i sat down with a

blank sheet of paper. i liked having to tell a story. there was no particular reason. nobody told me i was going to make a living doing it. i just started doing it. very naive. the idea that i was going to do this took a while to digest because it was so alien. >> did your parents read books? >> my parents did but it was a storytelling culture. but it wasn't a literary culture. it took a while to get here. >> i'm interviewing someone later who's a filmmaker and he said there are three things he looks for. a charismatic character to be at the center of his action. he looks for narrative and he looks for a subject that interests him. >> i would add one other thing. i look for emotion. i need to feel something about the story that will get me out

of bed in the morning. not just a question. it's like a feeling. it's a different thing with each book but there is an emotional experience. >> do you go in search of that or does it come to you? >> i graze. i talk to people, i think about pieces. when i hit something that i think it's rich material and i hang around, it's like, wow. >> have you had an instinct where you thought this is it and it's not? >> i never gotten far enough along on something that turned out not to be a book. >> what is the hardest thing for you? >> structure. it is figuring out how to tell a story. where it begins, where it ends, where the beats of the story are. how you get from here to there.

, thei get the reporting gathering of the material and i am in agony about the best way to tell a story. the important thing is what you leave out. what can i leave out and get this story? how do i tear it down to what it should be? once i got that, the words are easy. boys in four months. worked on it for a year and a half before that. >> where are you finding your next subject? >> i have several. i know the next few probably. i think. i fiddle with them until one comes to a boil. and i'm writing a tv show now which is a little different. but when i go back, there's a book i know i want to do. >> what is the setting for your

tv show? >> wall street in the 20's for showtime. the characters kind of based on real people, inspired by life. wall street today is hard to dramatize. it's very complicated and so abstract. i think there may be a trick in going back in time. anyway, the stories kind of walk in, i get interested in them. i kind of know what the next few are, i think. >> would you have been good if you had stayed at wall street? >> i would have been terrible. >> didn't they give you a bonus when you left? >> they were deceived into thinking that i actually had a future in that business. by the end of it i could hardly drag myself to work i was so bored. once you stop learning, it ceases to be interesting.

once i saw what it was, it wasn't interesting. and i knew how bad i was going to get when i didn't want to do it. i don't know if i would have last another year but i left at my peak and it was perplexing to them. i really liked my bosses and they said, don't do this. you have a future in the firm and i said, i want to go right books. they said, we can't do anything about that. >> did you tell them you were going to write about them? i'm going to go write about you. did you tell them? >> i was -- it wasn't hostile. i went back and talked to people. >> and they eagerly wanted to talk to you? >> i was friends with a lot of them but the mortgage people invented the mortgage bond market that led to the financial crisis. he was very helpful. >> was he cynical about it? >> he was emotional about it. >> he was creating something of value that it was important.

>> he felt like there was a bond between him and the firm. it's so different from now. there was a real love of the place and the identity, he couldn't believe it. >> people like paul volcker have complained about the best and brightest going into financial engineering and it's really bad because they should be going into other places. do you think that is happening? and is it possible for those people now, because of the power of silicon valley -- i don't know many people that have been 10 years on a business and all of a sudden could sell for $20 billion. is that more attractive to the smartest? >> first, wall street attracts people that are very ambitious but don't know what they are ambitious about. silicon valley, they have an idea. they have something specific.

you kind of have to know about computers and they tend to come with a clear set of skills. silicon valley is a slightly different crowd that i think drifts that way. wall street still does provide the youth of the best colleges in the country a place to go when they don't know. >> harvard business school, columbia business school? or undergraduates? they studied as you did, romance languages. >> wall street has infected the educational system so they don't study art history so they go get a job in economics. >> there's no sense in the value of the humanities? >> there's no sense in the purpose of life. people sacrificed so much for things that they actually probably shouldn't want.

and i think what wall street does because there's so much money and it sort of exciting, it gives young people a sense that it is a calling. it feels like a calling instead of a job. it completely eliminates the need to agonize about what you're going to do with your life. >> what does this have to do with status? somebody wanting to be part of the establishment. >> they want to have an answer to the question, what are you doing? it was going to harvard and i work at goldman. it solves the problem. if you need that response, wall street give you that response. >> what did you make of the tapes? >> i thought they were terrific. >> i bet you did. didn't you call them the ray rice video wall street?

>> i think she is the erin brockovich of wall street. so the viewer understands, a woman who was a regulator and was installed after the financial crisis to help regulate goldman sachs was so frustrated by her inability to do anything and to be listened to and the revisionist history that was going on. she would be scandalized about what they said and she would turn her fellow employees and say, can you believe they said that? they would say, they never said that. she started taping it. the tone of them are incredible and you get the sense the regulators have no spine. they just don't want to get in a fight and keep everything sweet. this is the problem. it doesn't even begin to describe the problem. if you are a regulator, you don't want to antagonize the system because one way or the

other you will work in the system. >> if you work at the sec, are you thinking about the post s.e.c. world rather than regulating? >> you don't want to say this lightly but she seems uncorruptible. >> it is corrupting? >> every occupation has its hazards. the sums of money you can get paid to do things you shouldn't do and live a life you shouldn't live are quite high. there are incentives to behave in a certain way. it's not evil. it's pretending expertise you don't have. it's not exactly greed. it's desire for status, desire to be a big fish. >> do you think of yourself as a

financial writer or simply as a writer? >> simply as a writer. it was an accident that i ended up at salomon brothers. and i was able to post financial crisis stories. it's quite possible i have one about something else. >> the blind side. you wrote about kids going to a baseball game also. >> i wrote a book about a presidential campaign. >> what do you make of the fact that the principal issue in this campaign is a man you profile for vanity fair, president obama? >> what do i think that he's become such a liability to his party? it happens. >> did he bring it on himself? >> i think it is mainly unfair

but people when they are unhappy, they blame the president. i will tell you a book i want to write. i want to move into his life for the last year of his presidency and write a book about presidential decision-making that will come out after he's done. one of the reasons that i think the book could work is a think it will work as a literary project. and i predict that a year after he's out, people will miss him. because i think people are not sitting where he's sitting and seeing what he's seeing. they don't see the complexity of the decisions he's got to make. i think a lot of what wrong in the world is not actually his fault. >> but it's his responsibility to respond to it.

>> when he's made mistakes, i understand them. i'm not a political person really. i don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. but i feel like i am happy. i think his heart is in the right place and he's really smart. he has disadvantages and one of them is his temperament. he is really not that interested in you. >> one of the closest people to him said to me just that. she said i think he's going to write. it's what he really is. a writer. >> most politicians when he said -- when you sit down with them, you sense right away their political type of person. they are seeking to flatter or get inside. >> nobody said bill clinton is a writer.

>> obama is watching you. he is completely neglecting his responsibility to flatter you. he just doesn't want to go to that. it's not what he wants. he likes relationships between equals. he's not manipulative and it all hurts him. there are things about him that i think make him ill suited for the job but i'm glad he's in the job. once every hundred years we put a writer. because of him, i will never be. he has ruined it for me. >> has he agreed to the project? >> he was interested. >> i'm sure he is. it is you are david remnick. they like you and remnick. >> if he says no i will write about something else. >> it irresistible to him. >> i don't see the downside and i think that the world benefits

from an inside view of that office. we don't really have good ways of judging or evaluating presidents. it's a bit like judging baseball managers. they have very little control over games. a lot of what happens on the field happens in the general manager's office. the manager has a dial that may be affected a little bit but they get all the blame and all the credit for the game. >> the book is called liars poker, rising to the wreckage of wall street, the 25th anniversary and there is a new afterword here. the always entertaining michael lewis. thank you. great to see you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪ >> aaron david miller is here. six secretaries of state on israeli-palestinian no additions -- negotiations.

he is currently a vice president and distinguished scholar to woodrow wilson. his book is called the end of greatness, why america doesn't have an doesn't want another great president. is it a pleasure to get away from the mideast for a moment? >> it is and i felt a certain sense of liberation. i started life as an american historian and i noticed during 20 years of negotiations that when things happen, we are dealing with leaders that were masters of their political houses and prisoners of their constituencies. i understood the importance of leadership. it usually determines why things happen. what i began to understand about the presidency, the greatness

three undeniably great presidents in 250 years. that undeniable greatness was driven by personality, character, and capacity. but largely by circumstance. and the circumstance was a crisis. which is why i argue in the book that you don't want another great president because if you have one -- exactly. and he lamented the fact that even though he is a consequential president, what i call the close but no cigar category, they are almost there. jefferson, jackson, teddy roosevelt, wilson, that is arguable, and harry truman. their crises were not as great. their flaws are larger so that each identified and shepherded the nation through a very consequential time.

>> who would be closest to the top three? >> i would pick teddy roosevelt because he was a republican president that was, in many respects, a paradox. a hunter and yet a conservationist. a believer in rugged individuals. and he saw government as an agent of reform and remedy. tough talking, but very pragmatic. ambition and i mean real ambition. look at the three undeniables. by 23, washington was the best-known military figure in the state of virginia. lincoln, terribly ambitious and driven. he didnklin roosevelt, not think the presidency was his due, but it was his legacy. attached to a broader

enterprise, the american experiment. that's why they transcended their own party and began to be appreciated by republicans, democrats, and independents alike. >> they know how to make people work together. >> and what they had to use a very fashionable word is emotionally intelligent. there were not haunted by demons. they were men of great discipline and i think they were at ease with who they were. that's so important to project a bond with the public. and in the end, the public's affirmation and validation of presidents are incredibly important. we never had a great one term president. it is critically important the president established that second term bond. it is the people's office and people ask me, why should anybody listen to aaron miller? is a terrifying prospect.

my response was, it's a national conversation. the conclusion of the book is to get real about what we should expect out of these individuals. >> is that part of some kind of analogy two, don't let perfect be the enemy of good? >> it is. you could argue that the greatest obstacle is the office itself. because the founders willfully designed an office that was energetic but accountable. and because they feared the royal governors and the king, they did not want power aggregated. so they created a system of accountability, checks and balances which presents an enormous challenge to any president. what i'm trying to argue in this book is that even the greatest president didn't create circumstances.

they intuited, exploited and took advantages of the moments they had and they had the character and the capacity for presidential greatness. character and capacity enables them to walk through. competence, management of the cabinet, the right people to advise you. washington's all-star team of rivals, probably the greatest cabinet. roosevelt's brain trust, and lincoln's team had a pretty good cabinet. very smart people. but the situation has changed since our last undeniably great president. >> who in your mind would be good? teddy roosevelt would be most likely -- >> i argue three undeniably great, five no cigar presidents and i identify three post-fdr who i consider to have what i call traces of greatness. real or imagined.

jack kennedy, frozen forever as our idealized president and cuba. lyndon johnson who without vietnam would've been the most transformative legislative president since fdr. three civil rights bills. >> it was demons that he couldn't get his arms around? >> he really wanted the best. and reagan is the third. >> because? >> it's funny. not a great president but a guy that was great at being president. a guy who changed the nature of debate over the role of government and the guy we can argue all day long was a key factor, not the key, in bringing an end to the cold war and a guy who restored a measure of prestige to the office after the proverbial fall of it. >> and he knew how important it was to have someone like jim baker around.

>> firing people for reagan became a real problem in his administration. so you get a sense that these larger-than-life figures somehow are gone. and obama will be a historic president. >> because of what he inherited? the fact thatse, he is the first african-american president is extraordinary. that he inherited the greatest recession since the great depression. but the question is, he set such a high bar. do you know that the inaugural lunch after the first inauguration was served on a replica of mary todd lincoln's china. he re-created the exact meal

that lincoln consumed. that was inaugural committees but obama actually had a real admiration. >> and you have people stepping forward like leon panetta and bob gates questioning whether he has the passion of leadership. >> more than one observer, including one of fdr's most recent biographers made this point. that the fire required, the partisanship required to drive national change was missing from this president. from obama. that attachment, that reserved caution of the professor is appropriate for some aspects of decision-making but not for politics. >> when you think about secretaries of state, you served for six. >> i don't want to make anybody unhappy but i will be clear and honest with you.

>> who is the number one? >> in the last 50 years we've had two undeniably consequential secretary of state. >> kissinger? >> and james baker. i worked for baker. of the three ingredients you need to be a consequential secretary of state, one is support of the president. i don't mean rhetorical support, i mean a real bond. number two, the opportunity. the world has to be in some measure of distress that makes it amenable to some kind of american fix. and negotiating skills. the world has got to be an unassembled jigsaw puzzle and intuitively -- i don't know how these guys do it. kissinger was an academic. baker was a lawyer. how do you understand how to negotiate? both of these guys did. >> if you look at where the president is today, we have a

huge threat today. was there or is there opportunity that he can carve out for himself a legacy that is better than it is going into this crisis? >> i would argue the world has become such a cruel and unforgiving place and much more complex since the cold war that presented a world of semi-order. if you ask people what was the most discreet and important act of foreign policy, the most heroic act is probably that he killed osama bin laden. but other than that, you have a world on fire. vladimir putin having his way in the ukraine. decentralization in the middle east, syria, iraq. the emergence of isis. the new bogeyman threatening the united states.

>> and you could also argue that he inherited an economic crisis that needed his full attention and there was not a time for him to go off around the world and try to solve the crisis or find a central principle that needed to be applied. he had to stop the collapse of the economic system. >> and managing this became, given the fact that politics were hostile, not an opportunity, but a burden. he has less than a thousand days of his presidency left. it's hard to see now even though the final judgment on his record will take time, it's hard to see how he navigates through. >> where do we put bill clinton? >> fascinating question. he and reagan are undeniably the two most effective american politicians of the 20th century after fdr.

relative peace and great prosperity. but the scandal, keeping those hidden demons under control, critically important for presidents. but i think, you know, they ask americans even now, who do you want back? reagan, jack kennedy. >> they say that reagan could not get the nomination of his own party. >> that's probably right. >> and bush 41. >> a guy for whom i have a great deal of admiration. these are transactional presidents. eisenhower, bush 41. men who i think understood their times, did not inspire to grandiose dreams and ambitions, were competent and effective.

don't think great. think good but don't think good not as banal. >> people think of jimmy carter as a president and identify him with malaise, and as as one term and it seems to me that you would know this specifically. it took uncommon ability to achieve campaigns. >> an extraordinary testament. those that remain will tell you. there is no question about it. it took carter to put this together. it, is-egypt in peace? i asked him, with all due respect, how come we haven't had a great president since fdr? his response was extraordinary. he said because we haven't had a

good war. and the truth is, the last was fdr. >> what if jimmy carter had rescue the hostages? >> and probably beyond given the degree of the complexity of the operation. the art of his presidency would have been altered. >> it would have given him a second term. the book is called the end of greatness, why americans can't have and don't want another great president. the argument is because great presidents come on the top of the crisis that is threatening to the country at large. thank you. aaron david miller. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

>> russell james is here. many say he has the best job in

the world and has been the main photographer of victoria's secret. his work has appeared in vogue, sports illustrated, and his work focuses on the female form. and how did you come to photography? >> i am probably an accidental photographer. i have a very diverse background, making trash cans, i trained dogs. i was a police officer for five years. what that all amounted to was i had a fascination with the world. i started traveling. eventually, i was in the dark room with a photographer. i was assisting him. i became fascinated with the process. i saw an image lifted out of the paper when digital was still in myth.

it was a singular moment that grabbed me and this is what i wanted to do. >> regardless of if the camera is digital or not, what separates good from best? >> subjective. it's who ask. i stood before a picture with 20 different people and get 20 different opinions. >> and one is not necessarily better than the other? >> it's in the eye of the beholder but certainly there are specific aspects. i was inspired greatly by irving penn. there is such a deliberateness to his photography. there is an art to it and the balance of the photographs, if there is a person involved or a model, the connection to the camera, is it real? digital has done is

equalize the playing field. >> how did you come to this? angels, these are beautiful women photographed in a beautiful way. there is the cover. why? >> i came to it delicately. i planned to do a book going back to the early 2000's when i was inducted into the first fine art gallery in berlin. my passion was divided. i had a landscape to a portrait of someone that i had seen significantly but had never known them. they all compelled me in the same way. nude photography, there is a very special thing about it. it's an empty canvas.

if you're shooting paragraphs for a male viewer, you can take the photo like this and you win. take a photograph of a woman and not offend her but have her partner in the photograph and have her come back -- the most important critic is the subject itself. >> what is the essence of shooting the nude body? you start with an appreciation i guess. >> a great appreciation. we can go back to the early arts and say it has compelled us from the very beginning. from any time, some of the ancient rock art contains the nude female form. >> or sculpture or whatever it may be. >> it is the purest form, and

there are so many different ways you can take it. you can take it to the most vulgar and offensive to the most beautiful and delicate and innocent. and all those things in between. >> the most liberating or the most subjugating. >> absolutely. what drives me the most is that what i do isn't offensive, it's a partnership. there comes a moment where the subject is nude and i'm not. and i think the worst thing you can do is take the camera back. i start shooting very close, directly into the eye. they say the eyes of the window of the soul and it's absolutely true. once i find the calmness of the person and they understand i'm interested in their overall -- >> they are communicating with the camera? >> they communicate with you and

they get to exclude -- >> they go through the lens to you? >> there is a technical object but the conversation has to be at a level and the tone has to be at a level. the opposite of helpful are things like sexy and stunning is the opposite of helpful. what is helpful is talking before i start shooting. talking about lunch, food, kids, life. current politics. the moment the tension drops, i start taking photographs. >> does beauty mean something different to you now because you've thought about it and photographed it and try to reflect it? >> yes. beauty has changed as i have matured and developed. i spent a lot of time in places like haiti and taking portraits of people down there.

i certainly say this with complete honesty that when i am photographing a person, an elder or member of the seminal tribe, there is a beauty about the photograph. and it's the strangest thing but it's so powerful and engaging. i get lost in that moment. >> the other thing that comes up is that you are objectifying women. >> it is a challenging balance that we do. from an art perspective, working with brands like victoria's secret, the good thing is i am shooting women for women. value can be measured on how women receive it. i've got daughters. so i'm very conscious of the

objectification of women and it's a balancing act. at the end of the day, one part of my career, i'm taking photographs of nude people and at the same time, i have to think, how do i balance that? i do a lot of work with young women, i don't photograph them nude but we let them come to the industry and let them see it's not about objectification. we made a big transformation in the last 15 to 20 years, probably in the last 10 even more. >> we will take a look at some of your work. this is new york city in 2013. >> a lot of the nudes that i do, there is no nudity and that is the irony. some of it is a sense and a feel. and it's just amazing to have the moment we can calm the room

enough to look at the camera and not do anything. just let her eyes and her body speak. >> this is lily aldridge. what should i notice about this? other than the overall photograph? her hair is not sort of perfect -- >> i photograph lily very much. she's about as rounded a person as you can get. she's a remarkable mother, a remarkable spokesperson. she is philanthropic in her nature and is an absolutely gorgeous woman. she walks in with a pair of jeans, and a t-shirt. >> tell me about this

photograph. >> taken in the northwest of australia, it was with an elder. it was -- literally, some things are self-explanatory. i looked at the eyes and body and said, i can literally see the 50,000 years of your culture and your eyes. there wasn't a lot of explanation to it. i shot around the area and went back the next week. it's always compelled me. the eyes of people whether it is a beautiful woman or an ancient elder or a person that we know very well. it is carried in the eyes. >> what is that? >> the vehicle was started as a foundation, a philanthropic

endeavor. it's an art project where i would collaborate with indigenous cultures. i did it because there are so many issues where indigenous cultures have been marginalized and for many groups i met, there have been extraordinary suffering going on. but this tribe is the seminal tribe of florida. they have one of the greatest success stories. we are working on something we called seminal spirit. it is an art collaboration that will launch in february 2015 in new york. what i hope to show is a positive side to what is often a negative. it is a tribe that has kept the culture and has adapted as good as or better than anyone in the modern day. >> tell me about -- what are you looking for in this photograph?

you're looking into his eyes. >> it is somewhat an absolute mentor. i got to travel with him to haiti and other places. would -- what i was looking at in that photograph is inspiration and understanding that what i was doing was an art project. when people like president clinton and richard branson said don't be ashamed about socially conscious -- people see you can't mix philanthropic endeavor with commercial activity. they completely flipped it and said yes you can. i am seeing a mentor and a space. who sits on which side of the fence? >> are you talking to him -- >> are you talking to him or is he simply posing and you waiting for the moment that you want? >> we were talking about the

citadel, a little-known story in the north of haiti. i had been doing a documentary on the citadel. it represents the first nation formed by free slaves. that was the conversation we were having. and so i had just interviewed the president on that subject and asked if i could take some photographs. i did. i guess the closest thing for me is that it was just his personality that i was looking for. who he actually is. >> when did you take this? >> that photograph is very recent. >> where is the biggest passion for you? someone said to take a month and go where ever you want. what would you do? >> that would be sophie's choice for me. it would be very hard because my

passion is broad. i would go to the roots that have driven me. that is really around indigenous culture and marginalized culture. and again, i probably want to bring all the elements and bring them together. >> thank you for coming. the book is called "angels." russell james, thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live, from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover the future of technology and innovation. i'm emily chang. twitter is replacing vice president kevin wheel. twitter has gone through several executive shuffles this year are replacing its cfo and ousting it coo. i asked the ceo about the future of his management team earlier