>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: marco rubio the republican senator from florida announces plans to run for president last month. he sits on foreign relations the and and hence committee and outlined his foreign-policy doctrine today at the council on foreign relations. i spoke with him following those remarks including questions from the foreign relations. in previous quest -- conversations with me you have said that we are trying to fix

21st entry problems with 20th century ideas. but all of the menu cited are of the 20th entry. marco: some of the same -- today we face multiple challenges. it is not just a conflict with a nationstate, the soviet union, which we faced at the end of the cold war. we face ambitions of china, and russia, putin wants to be the president of a great country, so he tries to achieve it militarily. north korea's basically governed by a criminal syndicate. iran, a nation governed by a radical shia cleric, and nonstate actors with increasing capacity both isis, al qaeda, etc. the need for american leadership is still true. the challenges are different and require a different approach. charlie: should we be the

world's policeman? marco: that is not the title i would advocate. a global response requires someone to convene the world to take action, and only america is capable of doing it. in the absence of american leadership, our european and nato allies cannot come up with a strategy to confront the aggression from russia, nor can the allies in the middle east or the big -- the asian-pacific region. american leadership is necessary to confront these challenges. charlie: this weekend, a meeting of the president and arab leaders to do about the middle east and the problems of the middle east. and there is a drone missile strike that killed the number two leader of isis. the number one leader has already been disabled by a drone strike. the two examples seem to exhibit american leadership. marco: first, think it's good

that we have a meeting at camp david with the president. it is a meeting that should have happened a while ago and i regret the king of saudi arabia is not among them. charlie: there may be a series of reasons he's not here. marco: i would expand that beyond the countries that are in the gcc. i would also extend that to jordan. there are concerns about primary challenges one, sunni extremism , and only sunnis can come in and defeats in the extreme isn't. and the other is that iran wants to dominate the region. that is a perfect example of a group of nations that could come together to confront both of these challenges, but it will require america to bring them together. that meeting, i hope, should have happened a while back, but i suspect that much of these meetings will be dedicated to bringing these countries some point of these -- to a place of

ease with regard to iran. charlie: do you give the president that marks with regard to isis? marco: i think there could have been much that could have been none and instead we -- if we had instead become engaged in the syrian conflict earlier. the vast majority of the people were rebelling against leadership of that country. and i identified leadership that we could work with on the ground and i argued that in the absence of doing so, we would leave a vacuum and that would be filled by foreign fighters, primarily radicals. that is exactly how it played out. those are the conditions that allowed isis, and alamosa a group on -- al musra a group on the rebound, to come back. i argued for an earlier engagement, both targeting their nose for the -- for logistical

operations, but also transit points. i think it's good that we are conducting airstrikes. the truth is, we probably need more. but i think it's critical that a sunni force confront them on the ground. and part of that can be an iraqi force. i see they are starting to train some. but it's also important to go to the jordanians, the egyptians, the existing the company that countries -- the existing countries that are willing to put forces on the ground. charlie: they are willing to put forces on the ground in iraq but at the same time, the saudi's have asked egyptians and others to help in yemen and the egyptians refused to send their own ground troops in. marco: there are two areas of concern. i think they are willing to be more help will with a combined -- more helpful with a combined force. the problem is, need logistical support and air support. they will not do it on their own. charlie: should we offer support

in yemen? marco: the saudi's, it is telling that they did it without really notifying us. charlie: but the u.s. gave them some advice. marco: we have given them increasing advice, but not to the level that it should've been. the complexity of the situation involves iran, but also al qaeda and other countries. and the spread of the regional influence by ron, yemen has just become a flashpoint. a joint sunni force that could stand up to extremism and iran's ambition can confront these challenges with u.s. logistical and air support. charlie: and advisory support on the ground. marco: yes, you put in special operations forces to help them improve their capabilities. these countries understand a fair fight. they are not just type -- just fighting for territory. they are fighting for the identity of what it means to be a sunni muslim and they are

confronting serious challenges. there was an interview a couple months ago in the wall street journal where he said his important that they understand they are a muslim state and that it needs to be confronted and defeated because extremism does not just threaten the world, but islam. charlie: when you look at the strategy against terrorism today , your move to iran, the significant difference is what? marco: i think he viewed american engagement abroad as a cause -- in essence, that there were problems around the world because of a grievance against the united states, as a sign of something we had done. you conflict or not grievance-based. iran's problems with america are not just a grievance. it goes deeper than that ideological. they want to be the dominant power in the region and they want to export their revolution to other territories.

so that the president during the green revolution in 2009 when he refused to take a side and would not interfere in the sovereignty of the country, meanwhile iranian or process -- were protesting in the streets. charlie: what should he have done? marco: the president should have firmly stood on the side of those iranians that desired true democracy in their country and real political change. charlie: usa that the u.s. is holding back against isis because it does not want to upset iran -- you have said that u.s. is holding back against isis is it is not want to upset iran? marco: absolutely, iran is on the ground heavily. not just advisors, but iranian fighters embedded with these shia militias. they are largely agents of the iranian government. iran does not want a u.s. presence in iraq of any kind. they have tolerated airstrikes because they cannot do anything to stop them, and to the extent that they are killing people far

into isis territory, and there are outrageous rumors that the u.s. is actually helping isis and that we helped invent isis. they don't want us there. i believe these shia militias on the ground hose -- pose and extraordinary threat to americans. they are embedded side-by-side with regular iraqi forces and have full access to all the iraqi government buildings, etc. i believe if the u.s. had taken a more aggressive position -- charlie: against isis or iranian presence question -- or iranian presence? marco: against the iranian presence in iraq, it may have triggered it in time to avoid these attacks from these shia militias. charlie: what is your primary objective in -- objection to the

deal on the table now? marco: my primary objection is that it could allow iran to be capable of enriching nuclear energy. there is a way they -- not many other countries do it by imported the material. the fact that they can retain, a country that sponsor terrorism all over the world, a country that is developing long-range rocket, a country that we know has been working on acquiring nuclear weapons capability despite their lives, and has always had a secret component to their plan, is now going to retain a structure to enrich you run them -- charlie: there is a reduction in terms of the centrifuges and what they can do and in terms of new research and development. they have lay this out clearly in negotiation. marco: sure, but here's the problem. they will retain all of the

infrastructure to break this caps. second, enforcement requires open and full inspections. iran is saying it will not allow access to military facilities. charlie: the u.s. has not acknowledged that will be the reality. they say these would be the most intrusive inspections yet, and if the iranians stop them, then they have to hear to stop any -- they have a year to stop any iranian development. marco: we should not have retreated from the statement that iran does not have the right to enrich plutonium and we should have stopped long-range missile technology that has no other purpose than to place a warhead abroad. and we should have insisted that they be open about all of their secret programs of the past and monitoring activity. they know that one of the international sanctions are lifted, there is no way they will ever be reimposed. they believe they can invade -- is a sanctions over inspections. -- they believe they can evade

sanctions over inspections. and they will exploit any ambiguous languorous -- language any ambiguities or the polls in this deal to advance their nuclear position. charlie: when you look at the iraq war, after finding out there were no weapons of mass destruction, if you had known that, would you have been in favor of the iraqi invasion? marco: not only would i have not been in favor of it, but president bush had said that he regrets the intelligence was faulty. i don't the congress would have voted in favor of the authorization. but let's be fair, the context. there is always a history of iraq of evasion. there were mobile units that have been used for chemical of bins and biological capabilities. it was a country that actively

not so far in the past at that moment that the decision was made had invaded a neighboring country, quake. and it had an of a dispute -- kuwait. and it had as dispute with allowing inspectors to come in and view things. ultimately, i do not believe that if the intelligence has said iraq does not have a weapon of mass destruction capability i don't believe president bush would have authorized moving forward. charlie: with respect to israel you obviously have people across the country who are republican. is your view of a ron any different -- of iran any different from the prime minister of israel? marco: i view them a lot different than he does. first of all, he is a lot closer to them. every friday afternoon, iran

says they want to destroy israel in their prayers. and the president has posted on his twitter page a 12 point plan to eliminate them from the owner. i, that threat is real. my interest is not about people that will support me. it is a long-standing believe and it is to part. the first is a moral one. after the holocaust, never again would there be a place for jewish people could not seek refuge and peace, especially in the face of persecution. and the other is this. it is the only free enterprise, democratic, pro-american country in the middle east. if we had more democratic free enterprise democracies in the middle east, my list would be shorter. charlie: do you think a two state solution is possible? marco: the conditions at this moment do not exist. charlie: we should forget about the possibility of a two state solution #the reality is, in your judgment there cannot be a

student -- a two state solution. marco: there is no responsible leadership in the pot -- in the palestinian government. they teach children that it is a glorious thing to kill jews. they mismanaged the government they have in place today. and they have rejected offers of peace. charlie: what is the alternative? marco: in the short-term, to continue to hope that the palestinian authority and the enforcement agencies will provide a level of stability in that territory so they will be allowed to row their economy and -- grow their economy and their prosperity. and you have to hope for new leadership to allow something like that to happen. charlie: i brought this paper with me, because the pope as you know, has said that we should support a palestinian state. he also seemed to be part of the new relationship with cuba. raul castro went to see the pope and raul castro said, i will

consider turning to the church. you are a good catholic, try to be. marco: that is going to be a pretty long confession of all -- confessional. [applause] what is wrong -- charlie: what is wrong with the pope? marco: the pope is the shepherd of the fate. his desire is present and he was everyone to be better off. he is not a political figure although he is the head of a sovereign eight in the vatican city. his desire is to shepherd the flock. there are many roman catholics on the island of cuba and he desires a better future and anything he can do to open up opportunities for then he will pursue. my interest as an elected official is the national security of the u.s. and embedded and that is the believe that it is not good for our country, nor the people of cuba to have an anti-american dictatorship 90 miles off our

shores, a nation that harbors terrorists and advances intelligence gathering facilities for china and russia. charlie: if elected, would you undo the things the president has done? marco: in essence, if they want more telecommunications opening, then they will have to allow freedom of the press also if they want more engagement with american business as an trouble then allow more democratic opening for groups of society. the embargo, which is separate from what the president has done, could be lifted tomorrow. charlie: but those things have been in place for 50 years and have achieved none of the things you want to achieve. why not try something new? marco: because that is not true. number one, the sanctions he is talking about -- if he is talking about the embargo, the purpose of the embargo was not to topple the regime of raul castro. that was the purpose of the bay

of pigs. it did not work. if you travel to cuba, you stay in a hotel and you are staying in a stolen property. another point, there is no japanese embargo on cuba. there is no south korean embargo on cuba. why isn't cuba. some phones? why are they all driving cars from 1956? because they are not confident. because the leadership views themselves as the leaders of a plantation of 1300 people that they can control. the entire country is run by raul castro's son-in-law, his company. the hotels, the rental cars, everything is underneath that umbrella. we do not have an opening to cuba. we have an opening to him. charlie: this is in today's new york times. it is a philosophical question and says the following. it talks about what you were saying earlier in the session. it is a new mood of overreaching

uncertainty and profound anxiety, talking about america today, and it is so ingrained at this point that we tend to overlook it. and he continues, if one of the aspirants can get voice to america's incredible insecurity, he or she will almost certainly be the tories in 2016. marco: frank bernie's piece. -- be victorious in 2016. marco: frank bernie's piece. my parents came here and had no skills. they were immigrants. they were able to achieve a middle class last time. they owned a home, raised a family, and were able to retire with dignity. they were able to leave their children better off than themselves and they took enormous pride in what america achieved around the world and here at home. and now there is the feeling that memo that -- none of that is true anymore. we are not able to shape events like the one state. and the millions of people that are working hard, maybe a same

job they had 25 years ago, but now they are no longer only in the middle-class and the live paycheck to paycheck. why did the old ways of doing things the longer work? and why can anyone tell us what the new way of doing things is? the answer is, the world is undergoing at next -- and historic transformation. we need help with that transformation. charlie: what is your believable pass? --path? marco: i think the 20% three has the ability to be better than the 20th century, but it -- the 21st century has the ability to be better than the 20th century. technology has rapidly change the nature of work. all of the better paying jobs in the 21st century require better education, but we have an outdated higher education system.

it goes back to national security. in a globalized economy, foreign affairs has never mattered more from an economic perspective. ♪

charlie: let me take questions. >> china has been aggressively building airstrips and ports into disputed territories in the south china sea. they have not denied that they can, in fact, be used for

military that appears to be there purpose. how would you shall strength and to ship in the asia-pacific area with respect to this kind of activity by china? what is your redline and what would you do? marco: that is a great question. they are building entire islands. secondly, it is in the legitimate claim. that they owned a part of the world -- it is an illegitimate claim, that they own that part of the world. i would come in fact, take all sorts of naval actions not military action per se, but military vessels transiting through that zone to show that this is international waters open for anyone who wants to go through there. beyond that, it is critical for us to create a stronger alliance to visit -- to pivot to the asia-pacific region. we need to increase the military

alliance that expands beyond just japan and korea, and includes working with australia and other nations to change the calculus that china would have to face if they move forward with the territorial claims that are illegitimate. and prove the capacity of the nations to defend themselves. one more point i would make is that military's ending is critical in this -- military spending is critical in this realm, because china is designing technology designed to make it too expensive for aircraft carriers to get to that region. charlie: yes, sir. >> senator, mark rosen of bank of america, merrill lynch. charlie: stand up, please, sir. >> with the invasion of georgia some years ago, and cry and all the border problems as well --

and crimea and all the border problems as well. what did you think when he said that russia was the major foreign-policy problem for the u.s. and was laughed at? how would you deal with the threat of russia and apparently it's expansionary policies? marco: let me call -- let me clarify the threat. it is not the russian people, but vladimir putin who wants to be the leader of a great country. and to put behind him what he feels is the humiliation of the 1990's and reestablish russia on par with the u.s., and potentially even china in that -- even china. and the result is that he cannot do it economically, so he is doing it militarily. i think the sanctions that have been put in place, although i would like to see an increased particularly on the part of the u.s., the sanctions will prove

to be long-term devastating, and already have been for moscow and the russian economy and their ambition. but beyond that, i think it is critical whether it is the baltic states or even ukraine who is not a member of nato, to have been this their agreement to provide defense of their own territory. for many years, what we told those nations as we want you to increase your capacity to help us, help us in quebec -- in afghanistan and other far-flung places, but these nations did not invest in their own protection of their territory because they felt the cold war was over. we now see that is not true stop -- that is not true. and now we see that putin feels he can take his aggressive action under the guise of moving in to protect them, because he feels there is no consequence for doing so. he does not believe that these nations will be able to inflict enough pain militarily that he

will be able to -- saturday will have to pay the price domestically. that is why -- enough pain militarily that he will have to pay the price domestically. that is why they have been covering up the deaths of russians. charlie: you welcome ukraine in nato? marco: i am open to ukraine in nato. if we want to give them defensive military capabilities to say they will join nato is even longer reach in terms of this administration. we need to be able to help then defend themselves. >> senator zoe baird of the how foundation. you recognize the extraordinary growth in the markets around the world with the growing middle class. and you also have acknowledged that book -- most of the job growth in the u.s. comes from small businesses. can you talk about how you would get americans in mall businesses

to understand that the world is their market and how we can transform the culture of this country to be part of the world? marco: we as americans are only 5% of the world population. there is only so much prosperity if we sell things only to each other. we need people around the world who can afford to buy the products we make and the services we provide. and for that unique global stability, which is why american leadership is important. without it, there is no global stability. and we need to have access to other markets. we need these free trade agreement finalized and we need to see the details of them. if we do not have free trade agreements with the pacific rim, which includes latin america and others, then we are walking away from access to 1.5 billion people or more. we are not engaged in the fastest economically growing area of the world, then all of

our businesses will not prosper. i come for miami. in south florida, many businesses are directly impacted by global affairs. for example the colombian free-trade agreement has been a bonanza. for the guy who drives trucks and brings in fresh flowers every day to the people who import them. it is important to explain to more americans how critical it is that access to millions of people around the world who can now afford to become their customers because today you can buy things online. charlie: back over to the lady in the rear. >> senator, i was a letter to radical islam as one of the threat we face. the great ideological threat that you reference faced. truman, kennedy, reagan -- communism. his radical islam the equivalent ideological threat that we face? and what is your strategy for defeating it?

rubio: that is an interesting question. all of these threats have different characteristics. communism was certainly an economic and political view of the world. but it also tried to create nationstates to implement the policy. radical islam, while there is a caliphate, it involves interconnected groups that make you take action. there is no economic model behind them, per se. it the history of these radical jihadist groups, once they take over your town, they do a horrible job of governing. but they are brutal. these groups can only prosper if they have a safe haven. it that is why libya has become a premier operational space. it has become a safe haven.

9/11 was possible because al qaeda had a safe haven in afghanistan. we can't allow safe havens to emerge anywhere in the world. ungoverned spaces were groups can set up camp and establish themselves. do not underestimate where isis is involved. they absorb al qaeda elements. they are present throughout all of north africa. virtually all of the countries of the middle east in some capacity. individuals that have never even traveled abroad that are sympathetic to their cause radicalized online. the idea is to take part of it and keep them acting in that regard. being involved in syria early and not providing that safe haven was critical preventing the growth of isis. charlie: richard.

>> hillary clinton supported early intervention in syria. it you were critical of her just before. do you tell us where she went wrong as secretary of state? rubio: what are the successes of her tenure? russia was a disaster because we misunderstood pugin's motivations. i don't know that she was openly supportive of the libyan engagement. i'm sorry. syria. i thought the libyan engagement was not handled appropriately. the united states intervened in a very short time. boil out lies that worked hard. they do not have our capabilities. the results of libya were conflict, leaving behind the conditions for the rise of multiple militias that refused to lay down their arms. i travel to libya after the fall

of qaddafi. they came back and warned that we allowed the conflict to go too long. we did not engage on the front end. not only would it be a failed state but it would become a haven. i thought they were completely negligent. very little discussion on how to improve our standing in the region. particularly countries that are prospering and moving in a direction we think the world should move. we also ignored the situation in countries moving in the opposite direction whether it is argentina ecuador, or venezuela. i don't believe there are many successes they can point to. she was this chief architect and spokesperson. charlie: right there in the back. >> you spoke beautifully early

on about the importance of holding other nations to high standards in terms of human rights and our moral authority around the world. many would argue it has been eroded through the continuing opening of guantanamo bay. even some of our own criminal justice issues in the united states. can you talk about your view of how to resolve guantanamo? if we're going to have high standards for the rest of the world? rubio: i think terrorists that plot to kill americans and actively engage americans deserve in prison and taken off the battlefield. charlie: it's been a great pleasure. thank you for coming. rubio: thank you very much. ♪

charlie: mohammed is the chief economic advisor and columnist for bloomberg new and a contributing editor. he had $1.5 trillion. let's begin with this. the fed chief warns a bloated stock, weighing in on a growing

debate among investors and market economists suggesting the year-long stock rally may have driven prices too high and raising concerns that debt market investors are taking excessive risk. she said that in a conversation with the head of the imf. >> it had quite an impact on the markets. i think she's right. there's been too much risk-taking. ironically, it's been encouraged by the fed. it's the only way they can promote economic growth. what you see is a dilemma the fed has to promote economic growth and using an instrument that is promoting too much. and somehow, they got to strike the balance. charlie: what the balance? >> it can only be struck if other policymaking entity step up to their responsibility. the fed is the only game in town

right now. it doesn't have the instruments to deal with western economies. they need help. charlie: what about greece and the eurozone. >> 5% is the solution. the holistic solution where greece and the partners get together in the context of a trust and both are willing to commit to what needs to be done. germany gives on debt reduction. and more financial support. greece agrees to meaningful structure reforms. together, they agree to some reduction. the solution is technically there. charlie: it hasn't changed since

the crisis developed. rubio: they can't even agree on the past and present, let alone on the future. but the 50% probability is that we get an accident. and greece ends up out of the eurozone not because someone made a historic decision. no one wants to go down as having made that decision. it is rather that the accident happened on the ground and greece has no choice but to exit. charlie: and when would that happen? >> the little things that are going on. there is the bank job going on. people are withdrawing money from the banks and putting them in their mattress or taking them out of country that means you are sucking oxygen out of the system. second -- charlie: they are taking it out of the country. >> second, the government is running out of money.

they take that step and you start a certain dynamic on argentina. third, we are very close to greece. it starts evolving. charlie: we thought we were on our way to a recovery. people are beginning to say, i'm not so sure. >> we will do slightly better than last year. we will go may a little bit higher. the first quarter we were impacted by the weather. we were impacted by the closure of the ports out west. in the first quarter is typically week. i don't buy into we are looking to a year that is worse than last year. it is 2.5 to three.

rubio: why would -- charlie: why would we get there? because there is gridlock? >> the federal reserve does not have the instruments to get us there. charlie: what would be the fiscal fix? >> to match, first and foremost, the wallet with the will to spend. the second fix -- any quality has gotten so high in this country that the people that are capturing it are the rich. they're spending less of their income. the poor have a massive desire to spend but don't have the ability. fiscal policy normally fixes this. charlie: if we put more money in the hands of the poor, you would

create growth? >> right. you can do that through minimum wage. the second element is give clarity on corporate tax reform. that company, that is material. that is why economic risk-taking -- companies don't see the clarity and can't reposition as quickly as financial investors can. the second way fiscal can help is by giving clarity and fiscal reforms. it is absolutely key. charlie: it has to do with -- >> mainly the tax system. it is littered with exemptions. anti-growth. most people agree, the vast majority of republicans and democrats agree it needs to be reformed. but no one wants to come together and collaborate.

charlie: i want you to balance politics with economics here. it presents certain kind of political things. but what is the ideal policy you would like to see a political candidate run on? what would you like to see him or her recommend to the country as the best way to find sustainability and growth. >> that person would need to have one objective in mind. that is genuine growth. how do we pitted -- givepivot from a stance where we fell in love with finance as an engine of growth. we believe that we were entitled

to debt. we were entitled to buy homes. it would be the financial service industry. it would only happen with the sputnik moment. when people realize they did in the 50's when the soviet union sent up sputnik. suddenly, it's a national priority to catch up. charlie: a man on the moon project. >> were economic growth is right in the middle. charlie: what are the elements of that? >> investing in engines of growth. we have horrible infrastructure. interest rates are really low. charlie: wasn't that part of the

stimulus plan in the first place? >> it was, but we thought this was a cyclical -- we came up with the concept. we signaled that this recovery was going to be hard. you drop your phone, you turn it back on, it's not going to come back on. the term has acquired elegance. they believe they can run the american economy for another five years. we will find that we get even lower growth.

charlie: the likelihood of that? >> the current road ends. both are equally probable. the good news is that we have the ability to shirk probabilities in favor of a good outcome. but it requires a political will. charlie: we can't fix our economy until we ditch our politics? >> correct. charlie: it's a must like the president has given up on congress. >> we have not had an active budget for five years. charlie: a realistic budget? >> just active. as opposed to doing more than we have been doing. charlie: china and india today. china slowed down to 7.4.

india is growing faster than china. how did that happen? >> you can't grow a 10% forever. it's really hard. a soft landing of 6% or 7% -- charlie: it's about 7.1 now. >> india has been constantly underperforming. the got a new government that is serious about reform. if you look at the global economy, you are a teacher. headmaster comes along and says, i have good news for you charlie. your class is going to be -- this is great. the better class is more engaged. headmaster says, hold on.

it will be a much more dispersed class. the good students, the u.s., china, and india will do a little bit better. some students are going to be average. europe is going to have a hard time. and you have the troublemakers. russia over ukraine. greece. venezuela. brazil. suddenly, you feel less good. you cannot predict how good your class is going to be. that is much higher and that's with happening in the world. the dispersion is getting bigger. including businesses that they did not have to think about before. to see how it happens. it is called -- the proposed

title is "the only game in town." it looks at the world from institutions that went from being heroes under alan greenspan to having naively enabled all sorts of malfeasance. to then saving the world from a great depression. in 2008 to 2009. and becoming responsible for the heavy lifting. it looks at the world from that perspective. that central banks cannot continue being the only game in town. charlie: monetary policy will not do it. >> we're close to the point of chairman bernanke, the benefits

are exceeded by the costs and risks. we have been experimenting for seven years. in europe, 3 trillion euros of debt will be trading at negative yields. which means you, the lender, are paying the borrower for the benefit of that risk. if i want to tell you a central bank like switzerland establishes its whole reputation on stability and predictability they would end up shocking markets in january and cause a 40% lowland currency. all that has happened. charlie: corporations since early 2008 have been sitting on a lot of cash and not investing. they would argue because it was the lack of stability and predictability in terms of how they invest. it is one thing to do something

and another thing to make a significant capital expenditure. or a serious increase to fill it. why not generate increased market share or the other conditions of success? >> risk-taking is low. companies can't change their minds quickly. they think they can. i call it the illusion of liquidity. companies need some clarity. they need clarity on demand. they need clarity on how they will be taxed and operated. and in these days, it's very exciting unless you are the one being disrupted.

i think airbnb has created more hotel rooms without building a single hotel than starwood and hilton have combined. they are sharing economy. uber. the core competencies that are alien to the industry, they can come in and disrupt you. companies feel that they need to be able to respond to that. they need resilience. put together not enough demand and not enough clarity on the operating environment. and feeling they have been disrupted from another world the problem is that the shareholders say, wait a minute. give it back to me. you see activists that involved. do some defensive m&a. companies are finding it very hard.

on the other hand, tremendous pressure to spend it the wrong way. charlie: is it a bad thing or good thing? >> on average, they are good. on average, it's good. it does not mean that every activist is good. but you need someone to remind the co and the board -- because they can be co-opted. they think you are active. we will have this cognitive diversity. charlie: when you left, what did you want to do? >> i want to do what i'm doing now. when i made the decision to leave in june, it was going to be in the next few months.

i was in control of my schedule. a part-time advisor to the parent company. i find it wonderful to discipline my thoughts. we get involved in global development issues. we get involved in the start up. being with people that have the passion of startups are amazing. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

angie: hitting the heights. the s&p 500's it's another record -- hits another record with a bond selloff. dingdong, avon hoax. it shares surge and sink on a bid that proves to be false. and not so sharp. job losses are in the pipeline and another lifeline for lenders. welcome to first up. i'm angie lau. in bloomberg quarters hong kong and