♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with a conversation about technology. google announced yesterday it would reorganize as a holding company, the purpose of the new structure is to increase management and focus on its consolidated businesses. search, youtube, droid, and other internet products will be run by a company that will become the ceo of google incorporated. the other products will be managed separately, including google's investment arms, life science venture, and lab, google x, which produced the self driving car.

in a blog post on monday, larry page wrote, quote, "we like the name alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity's most important innovations, and is the core of how we indexed with google search." joining me from san francisco, the co-ceo and executive editor. brad stone is a senior writer for bloomberg businessweek. the cofounder, ceo, and editor in "business insider." i'm pleased to have them all here. let me begin with henry in the studio. why did they do this? henry: this is something a lot of people thought was long in coming. google has been making massive investments in a lot of unrelated projects you mention, life sciences, self driving cars, things a lot of wall street investors look at as a huge waste of money with an uncertain payoff it looks like

they are wasting capital. so wall street was eager to see real capital discipline. that is one. we are going to get to see what google's business looks like on its own and we will have a better sense of where the money is going. the other piece of it is that google's ceo, larry page, has made quite clear to those who have been observing him over the years that he does not have that much interest in google's core business, media and search. he's much more fascinated by the moonshot projects like self driving cars and others. now he will be able to focus on those while someone else runs google's core business. charlie: we will come back to that. he has many things, including the role of a corporation in our society. what would you add to that? guest: i would agree. i think what is interesting is that over much of google's history, larry page seems like he has been conflicted. google's mission has been to try

to run a search company and everything it does is part of its core business is to index information and work off this eta. -- data. he himself has been interested in many pursuits, and they deem google as this way to throw out cash to invest in all these other businesses. i think that this will give him an opportunity to do both things, to be somewhat involved in the main business. he will still be the main boss, i think. he wants google, inc. to do something. it gives him more scale and the opportunity to work on these other businesses that his attention might have been divided from. charlie: what would you add? guest: the name change, it's the same structure, run in the same way. it's interesting this group the way it was running before, but last year he was given the job of running google. it's just another way to state what they were already doing and it makes for great headlines,

and we can make alphabet jokes and things like that. but in general, it is a statement of what they were doing before. it is interesting a lot of these internet billionaires who created these companies want to do other things. mark zuckerberg has a social network but he also bought oculus. jeff bezos has a million other interests. it's just a statement of what they have already been doing and a restructuring of what was already structured the way it was, so not much different to me. guest: brad? : i think google faces a challenge, trying to preserve a fertile environment for high achievers or ceo types? they have had some success. they recruited -- their life sciences division brought in tony fidel. executives who can really go and be a ceo of a lot of other companies right now, they need

to keep them active and happy. it codifies some of the additional responsibilities. larry never cared for talking to regulators, testifying before congress, talking to media and telephone companies, navigating those uncomfortable relationships. eric schmidt has done some of that. but of course he has been executive chairman for five years. charlie: do you think the market will react positively to this? brad: it already has. stock is up a bit over the past day and a half. basically what investors are looking forward to is increased transparency on the business. we will see how incredibly unprofitable things like google x and calico and sidewalk and all these other interest are and how incredibly profitable the google subsidiary is. investors are looking forward to that. of course, soon we will see those challenges in keeping

advertisers happy with google and not moving to facebook and amazon. guest: what investment analysts will be able to do is evaluate separately. maybe the retail commerce business is worth of this and maybe their web services business is worth this. charlie: they did not have a bad valuation till recently. guest: now it will be much easier for google. here is what google's profitability is, now they're investing what is presumably a tremendous amount of cash flow in these different projects, which of those might be worth something and how much they might be worth, then you can add up the pieces and get two different numbers. they certainly made google overall look less profitable and what it really is is uncertainty. you just don't know. as farhad alluded to, larry page has talked about a lot of different interest. google is doing so many different things.

now it will be much clearer about how well the core business is running and where the rest of the cash is going. guest: it's going to be clearer, but that doesn't mean larry page will be amenable to what investors want in any way. he will still run the company essentially the same way and even if it is clear that all these ventures are losing money, they have promised from the start they are willing to spend a lot of money on things that may not pan out for a while. even if they're are willing to tolerate the stock market not liking that they are spending this money if it turns out that way, because they think these bets are worth pursuing. charlie: what is the biggest bet we are talking about? guest: probably the life science or the car areas. they could have just given more transparency to the unit as it is. they are part of the same corporation. we all knew these moon shots were losing money. i don't even think they will give that much detail. we will see if they do.

they are not very detail oriented on wings like that. that.ngs like what they are just trying to do is answer -- this new cfo is very clever and smart and well regarded on wall street. if you notice, they did not cut any of these things or spin them off or make them separate here , they are still part of the same company. that is why i say it is somewhat meaningless. from a real point of view, it means larry does not have to talk to the press at all anymore. guest: doesn't have to go to the office. kara: there are five people alphabet -- that -- sergei, larry, david drummond, and eric schmidt. they have no pr function. he can just separate himself from everything. and let others take the forefront, which is what he was doing anyway. charlie: what role does eric play now? kara: the same. the question is who deals with the regulators at google.

are they going to have separate regulatory teams? will they have separate legal teams? google faces very stringent issues that they have to deal with. who does that? is it still larry and eric? alphabet or google? guest: eric has worked on this for four and a half years in europe, and it has been a disaster. the climate towards american technology companies is hostile. eric thought he had a settlement with the previous competition commissioner in europe. the new commissioner has filed a equivalent of an indictment against google in europe. we have not talked enough about him. he is known inside google as a peacemaker. he took over android when it was run by its previous operator and founder, andy rubin, when it was at war with other elements of google. under sooner's leadership it is and more integrated into the company. he is well respected for his

tactful list. affable is a word that comes up in relation. i expect the regulators come to you, as google goes to mountain view, as a media companies and telco companies piling onto google in europe -- i think he will join eric in taking the lead. charlie: was there some real threat that he might go somewhere else that he did not -- if he did not become a ceo at google? guest: i don't think an immediate threat a couple years ago -- twitter did approach him. he is well compensated at google, and larry has given him more and more responsibility. he is known as an operator, he delivers. he has an incredible story. he grew up in india, his family is middle-class. they did not have a telephone when he was 12 years old or atv. tv.r a to get anywhere they had to pile onto a scooter. through sheer talent and intelligence he got a

scholarship at stanford and over the last 11 years he has scaled the ranks of google. kara: he has been on every list of every ceo job in silicon valley. microsoft he was in that group. he's been on the twitter ceo list. every time there is a ceo company, his name is at the top of that list. a talent retention issue, giving everyone a ceo job or a ceo-like job means maybe they won't go somewhere else, which is a big threat for google to create that start up environment within an enormous company. they have done a pretty good job. charlie: we all agree that core business is search and advertising. where will that business be in 10 years and what will threaten it, henry? henry: the move to mobile it is threatening a lot of what used to happen on the web. commerce has not yet fully adopted to mobile.

the value of a search click is less on mobile than it is on a desktop. that is starting to erode gogle's position long-term. guest: the big opportunity for google for all ad business, all the money that's going to come out of tv and where that is going to go is a big question. at the moment it seems like facebook is in the best position to get that money. facebook is a property that -- when you use it, it feels very much like tv. you are not there to do a transaction like you are on google. it feels like you are having fun there and advertisers can target you in this native way that feels part of the platform. google is struggling to get that business. they had properties like youtube where it may be able to. many people think facebook is better positioned. the shift to mobile, we just might not search as much. our phones may be able to service information to us.

if apple takes a greater lead in that, google will be in trouble in that business. kara: search is ending, how we do search with a word and typing it into a box, that's over. it's pretty much over. the way things are going to happen, it's going to be intuitive and personalized and already knowing and smart and social. those are the different cues, and those are issues google has . what is interesting about the video part is they stuck youtube within google. those will not be quite as transparent because there's an issue of how well it's doing and how google is managing that fantastic property, one of the greatest video properties on the internet, which many people still think is under leveraged. charlie: and it may not be making much money. even though it is a fantastic property. >> it is not clear.

charlie: video is the most and -- important thing happening. kara: absolutely. guest: when of the things we have seen over the last couple years is these amazing video platforms. facebook has four billion videos a day. snapchat has 3 billion video plays a day. there's room for competitors. youtube has failed to lock up that market the way you guessed it would have a few years ago. charlie: tell me what the role of sergei is in all of this. guest: sergei is the president of alphabet. i suspect things will not change a lot for survey. he has had free reign to pursue his own interests. he's head of the google x lab. still includes things like project blue. if anything, larry is joining sergei and being able to see the forest through the trees and to try to get these longshot technology changes that might yield huge businesses. charlie: he cared more about being a ceo at the time. kara: i think neither one of them have cared about being a ceo, though he has been a competent ceo for sure. charlie: clearly he cared more about being a ceo than sergei

did. when he ascended to that job, it was because he wanted to, period. kara: he wants to still set the tone. he's going to be running that company and what he wants to happen is going to happen. the big challenges for google are in the future. cars, self driving cars are critically important to health care is another area, and drone stuff. i am fascinated by their experiments in the drone and low-level satellite area. charlie: larry mentioned berkshire hathaway and the model there. is that an appropriate model he might aspire to? guest: it doesn't quite work here because what is happening here is this is something like a venture arm. google, inc. is sponsoring all these other companies.

it's not like archer hathaway where you have well running, well functioning companies making money. guest: they are doing r&d on a grand scale. guest: essentially they are taking billions of dollars. as an economy or members of economy, we should be glad that a corporation is doing this and we should be glad corporations like amazon are making the huge -- bets they are and differing profits. so many of our corporations are so stripped down. we have become so obsessed with return on investment, maximizing quarterly profitability, companies like google are actually differing some of that profitability and saying let's make a big debts on the future. kara: except they are public companies. it's great that people tolerate this, but they are in public companies, the shareholders. on some level it's amusing, but these are being paid for by

shareholders and shareholders are tolerant of that comment -- are tolerant, so that is great. if not, it's not like it is the government doing all these things. we'll see. i don't know. guest: stocks already jumped as a result. kara: i think it is still the same google. it's the same amazon. these people could care less about profits -- i think going public was a one-way station along the way of what they are enjoying, which is really exciting innovation. we will see how it goes. charlie: is there something to be learned from apple posix -- not apple -- microsoft, when

apple was on top of everything and had more money than god, and all of a sudden they lost their place. did they lose their place by any of the reasons that might be motivating google and amazon and others? guest: absolutely. microsoft, top of the world 10, 15 years ago. invested a lot in microsoft labs and innovation labs, had their moon shots. i remember visiting microsoft lab and seeing all sorts of interesting things. they did not commercialize any of them. it seems like google, aside from trying to avoid the microsoft mistakes, has said we are not going to do that, we are not going to sit on the next thing. larry keeps elevating himself to be able to really focus on that. guest: it's incredibly difficult. microsoft surfed the pc wave perfectly. google caught this wave perfectly. the growth of desktop internet, they have done well in mobile but it's not the same.

facebook caused social. when we look at these companies, well, you obviously blew it. we underestimate how hard it is when you build a battleship and suddenly a little speed boat is going after new opportunity and growing so fast, you have to worry about your core business. kara: they all want to be startups. no one likes to get old. for all intents and purposes, they are old in silicon valley. all they want to do is be in the start of an here started mentality. you will hear google saying this, the most powerful and sometimes frightening company on the planet saying, we're just like a startup. it's a heart of what they want to be, they want to be young. maybe this gives them a little youth and innovation. charlie: thank you, kara. we will be right back. ♪

charlie: he served three terms as governor of new hampshire and chairman of george w. bush's presidential campaign. he was his chief of staff from 1989 to 1991. in a new book he offers an account of the former president's time in office, "the quiet man, the indispensable presidency of george h.w. bush." guest: thanks for having me.

charlie: i think the beginning of the book is about george bush. guest: it has been one of the products of the bush -- and now another bush running for president. who would have known? it's interesting to see how similar they all are and how different they all are. each one has their own positive attributes and i think they have all made great contributions to the country. charlie: you think jeb has a chance? john: i think jeb has a chance. i think the country need someone who has been a chief executive in a state to ask the mess he will run into in washington, someone who has handled the legislature, made isolated decisions of a chief executive. charlie: you are describing the kind of man that defeated george

h.w. bush. john: and the kind of man frank -- franklin roosevelt was. and the man bill clinton was. it's the key to getting a successful agenda through. one of the problems the current president is having is he never had to do that before. it's an art form. when i became governor, the first thing i had to learn is that the inefficiency of government is one of its greatest strengths, and that you have to work with that inefficiency to bring all sides together to get something done. charlie: we have taken that too far in washington, haven't we? john: nothing happens in washington without the presidential leadership. neither party functions well without good presidential leadership. the president has to burn political capital to lead well.

charlie: george bush 43, that's what he said at the beginning of his second term, i've got political capital and i intend to use it. to a great extent one of the reasons the presidency of george herbert walker bush was so successful is he was willing to burn his political capital for the good of the country. charlie: he said in his convention speech, i'm a quiet man, but i hear the quiet people others don't. what did he mean? john: it had to do with the way he conducted himself in public life. i related back to an admonition from his mother. george, don't brag. bend your knees when you volley. there's two messages in that he took to heart. he did not like to talk about himself. he did things in hope that people would notice them rather than making sure they notice them.

the second part was also part of george bush, been your knees knees when you volley. what she was saying there, when you are doing anything, there's a right way to do it. whatever you do, do it the right way. that was the president i knew and i worked for. charlie: i assume that's a serve-and-volley in a tennis court. john: yeah. and he lived his life that way. when he did something, he wanted to find out the right way to do it and then execute it that way. charlie: tell me about him, the man rather than the president. john: let me tell you what he's not. remember "newsweek" called him a wimp? charlie: it made him so angry. john: this man flew 58, missions, was shot

down, rescued by a submarine. the iconic moment, if someone had a camera and was able to take pictures of him being rescued on the submarine -- he was a strong man, he was a quiet man. charlie: dropped out of college to join -- john: he finished high school and enlisted and became the youngest navy aviator. and it broke his father's heart, but he did it and he came back after the war and he went to yale and finished in 2.5 years. he had an interesting and important attribute for a president. he had no qualms recognizing that other people knew slices of issues better than he did and he wanted to hear from them all the time. and he did. charlie: what was his most outstanding achievement as president? john: there's two. i think his broad foreign policy achievements that everyone gives him credit for, nurturing the collapse of the soviet union and the gulf war.

i think he deserves a special credit for how successful he was as a domestic policy president. george bush passed more domestic legislation, proposed and passed, than any president except lyndon johnson or right -- franklin roosevelt. he passed more conservative legislation than any president in history. charlie: which of those pieces of legislation do you think he's most proud of? john: the budget of 1990. it turned out to change the budgeting rules, put a cap on spending. it required pay-as-you-go. it had three and a half times as much cuts in spending as the tax ransom of tax had to accept it and it created the surpluses of the 1990's and the growth of the 1990's. even though he was criticized for it, it's one of the most important things a president has done for this country's economy.

the clean air bill, the civil rights bill, the americans with disabilities act, his crime bill, his deregulation of energy which we are now really reaping the benefits from. he took a big chunk of the subsidies in agriculture, created centers for exports, and really pushed our agricultural economy into being the biggest exporter of agricultural goods in the world. george mitchell was majority leader. he had 55-45 in the senate. tom fully with speaker of the house. he had a majority of 260-175. it was tough sledding, but this president worked hard at creating the personal contact and personal interaction that was necessary to get things done. we were doing the budget, the chairman of the ways and means committee was danny rostenkowski.

we had him to the white house about two dozen times for one-on-one meetings with the president when we were struggling to negotiate the budget. they haggled out the details with the president and chairman of the ways and means committee. charlie: the defeat was hugely devastating. it was personal. john: ross perot got 19% of the vote, 2/3 of which should have gone to george herbert walker bush and i would have made the -- and that would have made the difference. there are a couple of things that have to be looked at to try to explain why history rejected a second term for the president. one of which is the historic fact that since dwight eisenhower, no party has held the white house for more than eight years except once. that was the four years of george bush after ronald reagan. we seem to build up a pressure in this country to change our presidencies on a cyclical basis. if that cyclical theory has any

value, it really built up extra strong after 12 years. ronald reagan and george bush really worked in tandem to bring about some of the major changes. george bush recognized that ronald reagan's build up of our national security system, the defense structure, the peace through strength component of policy, had created the opportunity to deal with the soviet union. you saw a soviet union that could not keep up with the u.s. that is where his personal artful diplomacy made a big difference. charlie: that was his natural place, he had been ambassador to china, he had been ambassador to the united nations. john: that's why i call it the indispensable presidency. he was the right man at the right time to take full event of the opportunities created by the

reagan buildup, gorbachev's presence, and a group of leaders in europe that he was able to work with. the issues were not simple. when a big issues in an whole process was reunification of germany. margaret thatcher and françois was not eager to see that. yet bush was able to work with them and create a partnership. helmut kohl was part of it could -- of it. getting them on board really required a president who was able to gain respect and trust by those world-class, world leaders. and he was able to do that. charlie: george w. bush's book expressed confusion at the time as to why bush senior did not ask you for your resignation. john: his description of that

time and my description in my book are the same. i went to washington knowing that the half-life of a chief of staff was eight or nine months. it was the end of the third year. the press was really giving me a hard time. i had a conversation with george w., had conversations with andy card. i thought if i left at that time the lightning would follow me, went home over thanksgiving, thought about our discussions, and on monday i told the president -- it was my decision in the context of a lot of conversations in which we all mutually agreed there were problems for the president. charlie: you being chief of staff. what were they? john: at that time the press was going after me on travel issues, even though i was traveling under the directive of a presidential order that reagan had put in place that said the chief of staff or the national

security advisor are prohibited from flying commercial. even though we were flying under the rules that were a mandate, it became a political issue. i stepped down. but i retain a great friendship with a great president. charlie: when he looks back, what do you think he regrets the most other than not getting four more years? john: in an odd way, the way things have turned out, i don't think he regrets much because if he had gotten four more years, there may not have been the presidency of george w. bush or the governorship of jeb bush and so on. he's a great believer that things work out in the long run, and so i would say at this moment as he looks back, he may have liked to have one but i don't think he looks with regret

at the way things worked. charlie: it reminds me of church hill after he lost in 1946. his wife said it was a blessing in disguise. it turned out to be a hell of a disguise. john: the churchill effect is the second reason why bush lost. remember winston churchill was the heart and soul of the english defense against nazi germany. charlie: he gave voice to the entire effort. everyone acknowledged that it was his victory. look at what happens with bush. he nurtures the collapse of the soviet union, kicks saddam out of kuwait. he loses. mrs. thatcher is dumped by her party. mitterand loses. japanese prime minister loses. the australian prime minister loses. there is an exhaling on the part of the electorate when a dramatic shift occurs in traumatic international affairs and a look to another party. charlie: i will ask you about

three people. it is difficult to understand ends andrge bush in -- jim baker begins. john: jim baker was a great friend of the president, a very smart lawyer who understood the workings of politics. great political figure. he met george bush on the tennis courts. they were inseparable, in my opinion. they were amazingly close. we had a very close white house. that was catalyzed by the president. charlie: at the time george bush was running for reelection, people thought that cuomo would be the democratic nominee. john: yes, in 1992.

charlie: a lot of people thought cuomo would be it. he did not go to new hampshire. bill clinton won. you say that you thought bill clinton would be a tougher opponent to cuomo. that is because he had the fire in the belly. john: that's correct. i've known bill clinton for a long time. we were governors for six years together. he was the chairman of the national governors when i was vice chairman. bill clinton is the consummate politician. he's a good politician. charlie: he's a friend of the bush family. john: he is. he's a friend of mine. he understands issues. i think the country should be grateful to him for having sustained the battle on getting

welfare reform. that is one of the great achievements this country had and it probably needs another cycle of that now. clinton wanted to be president and it was clear to me that he would take no prisoners if it was a hard primary. charlie: the book is called "the quiet man, the indispensable presidency of george h.w. bush" by johnson and new, former governor of new hampshire. thank you. ♪

charlie: colin quinn is here. he is best known for his former role on "saturday night live." he is starring in his fifth one man show, "the new york story" of the cherry theatre. it addresses two of his favorite topics, new york and race. it is based on this new book. chris rock says after reading it, you realize colin quinn is the white richard pryor. it doesn't get any better than that. i'm pleased to have colin quinn at this table for the first time. it doesn't get better than that, does it? colin: no. richard pryor is the ultimate. charlie: i talked to comedians all the time about not so much how to be funny, but the history of comedy.

they will all tell you a certain regard and homage to richard pryor. colin: pryor and carlin were the two to me growing up. i would always used to say pryor could do a kkk guy, and when he's doing the character he would make him a human being. everybody had humanity when he would be doing characters. colin because he was so precise, try to figure out how the language was affecting the world. charlie: is it anyway part of a true line that included lenny bruce? colin: bruce a lot of them to become who they became. charlie: who did you set out to

become other than yourself? colin: those guys were my earliest influences. speaking of chris rock, we started together and we used to write little notes. those are the two references to us. this is when we were open mic guys. this was in the 1980's when we started commenting -- comedy. charlie: i did a 60 minute piece about larry david, it was never quite what he wanted to be as a standup. colin: i knew him as a stand-up. charlie: you would go to clubs and he would stop and say, i'm not doing this. colin: he would say, can i use the two-form with you people? charlie: how did you get involved in doing these one-man shows? colin: standup is great, but the

clubs are very -- the fact that people have to keep ordering drinks, it changes the dynamic. the tables, you are facing each other. here is the stage. there's a whole different physical dynamic that is telling you, pay attention to the community but also food and drinks and each other. a great comedy club night is the best vibe in the world. but the whole illusion we had of that smoke-filled room was gone anyway. charlie: people who go on to other things still look to stand up as something very special and often want to go back to it. colin: everybody goes back to it now. everybody who lasts goes back with few exceptions. charlie: to replenish their sense of the cutting edge of it?

colin: you can't gain more knowledge -- the problem with let's say movies, they keep writing and they go, what happened in the movie? you're not in touch. we're not in touch at a certain level. we go back to a comedy club, they are not going to laugh, so you had better get in touch. the audience is such a part of the process that you need -- no comedian has figured out how to write their whole act and perform it and get laughs. you need the crowd feedback the whole time. charlie: the only way you can do that is through hard knocks. colin: yeah, going out there. it gives you some humility too. the crowd is right a lot of times. charlie: the crowd is always right? colin: i will give them 50%. charlie: to be wrong is something is funny and they don't get it? colin: or you are not freezing

-- phrasing it right or you are distracted by some nonsense going on. every comedian will tell you the story about you are in the middle of a great set and that suddenly youhen have "happy birthday" and some other table has a lit birthday cake and they are singing "happy birthday" right next to you. then you turn on them. the crowd is saying, why are you turning on them? it's a birthday. as the golden age of stand up in many ways. charlie: is it really? colin: it is so popular -- i know everybody is going to throw up when i say that phrase. charlie: where is it happening? colin: online. a lot of it is clubs. they have an alternative scene. they have regular comedy. all sorts of scenes. charlie: do you find out what you are good at by saying, i'm really good at standup but not sketch comedy, or i can do sketch comedy but i'm not very

good at standup? is there a different gene there? colin: i think standup -- sketch is more character. you are talking to each other sometimes. standup you're talking to a live crowd. charlie: what about what you do now? colin: that is stand up. it's definitely standup. it's not just in one theater. sometimes i will not have a body mic, i will have a regular mic. charlie: what is it that people who have not done it don't get about doing it? a lot of people think they can do things. i could do that if i worked hard to create jokes. i'm a funny guy. but they're not. what is it that those who succeed have? is it timing, is it something else? colin: there's a few things. one of the main things is you

have to have the ability to know you are not a genius and you are going to bomb in front of that crowd. you cannot be somebody, you know, it tests your ego, that part of you -- the first time i got up i was like, it's going to be great. and then you bomb and you keep bombing. bonds -- bombs. you have to be like a rewriter. charlie: almost like an editor. colin: the crowd helps you edit. charlie: to write an hour of comedy -- you must have three hours of comedy to whittle it down. colin: sure, but -- i will give you a perfect example of a joke that i never thought -- i used to do this joke, meaning i still have it around -- my friend does not get sarcasm. we come out of the gym and i say, i'm ready to fight mike

tyson. he goes, yeah right. it never got a laugh. i was like, why would they not get a laugh? but then i started adding -- i started adding myself. i realized, to audience you still need the catharsis. you have to represent them. they are dealing with somebody who doesn't get sarcasm. what do you say back? that is the thing. after 20 years in the business i did not know that until i was doing it and suddenly it started working. you find out fun things about humanity. charlie: how long did it take you to get it so that you knew you could write stuff that audience would like? was it a year, five years, 10 years? colin: 10 years. it differs. i would say 10 years before i could consistently right where i -- write where i had a higher percentage.

charlie: is the writing more important than the delivery? colin: it's really important but there's a lot of great comics that nobody ever heard of that don't have a delivery. they do the hard part. they wrote, they are great joke tellers. they are keeping a wall of in some way. they did the hardest part, writing and going in front of a crowd. somehow they keep a bit of a wall. instead of opening up. charlie: vulnerability is part of it. colin: yes, vulnerability and the understanding that there is no point in trying to hide now. charlie: nothing between the two of us. you are watching me deliver comedy, you are testing me. laugh at what i say. i'm funny. we are going to find out together. colin: yes, and that's part of the thing. and possibly bombing, which i never thought that was part of it until one time i was on "snl"

and i was talking to lorne michaels, and he goes, that's part of the whole thing. the risk that you might bomb, so it keeps people laughing. that's part of the energy of the room. i'm saying i'm funny. charlie: they don't give up on you if you bomb. colin: no, the worst thing in audience could be is if they feel sorry for you. if they feel sorry for you, then you are dead. they are disgusted by the weakness, because they feel it. charlie: why did you turn to this type of thing? colin: some of it is storytelling. some of it is stand up. i could not even write this until i started doing a standup , because i was so spoiled from being a standup that i'm used to reacting. even a one-man show, until i perform i could not write the book because i'm so used to -- i'm spoiled and i'm used to getting reactions to what i say. when you are writing a book you

are writing chapters -- i want to hear this every night from different people. charlie: tell me about this homage to new york. colin: i'm obsessed with old new york. i grew up with here -- up here. it was a hellhole but there was something in the personalities i miss. charlie: something no longer here. what is that? colin: i feel like -- it is what i say in the act. i feel like this was supposed to be the open city for people to be authentically -- to be able to speak like now, i feel like we are creating a society of rehearsed platitudes and people speaking in the general -- i say in the show, it's fine for the

west coast, that's how they should be. down south they always say people are polite. new york was not supposed to be that. but now we have become like this. you speak in this overall terminology of positivity. new york is not supposed to be a place for positivity. california, that was the old joke. charlie: it was the new york attitude. colin: that is what i discuss in the book how it became known as , the new york personality. charlie: what would you like to do that you are not doing? colin: i would like to get her a be moreays wanted to rich than i am famous. i was like, i hope i'm never more famous than i am rich. i curse myself.

my whole life i have been more famous than i am rich. charlie: how can we turn that around? colin: it's your destiny. charlie: do you go out and watch other comedians? colin: sure. you learn from every comedian. first of all you learn you better keep writing. the new guys coming in -- you think jokes that at this point there are so many comedians, you think it all has to be said, every observation. there is new stuff all the time. it's not just about technology or whatever changes. it's really about human nature. charlie: tell me about "train wreck." colin: amy wrote this autobiographical movie, her aunt -- -- and judd. she wrote this movie about her life. a very personal movie. her father was a mess. father was a wild man, got ms, and he is been in a wheelchair since he was 62. she goes to me, can you go to a reading? can you read for my father's part? i don't want to play a father.

i know i'm in trouble because her and her sister were like -- i was like, dammit. i'm not an actor. i studied on and off but i'm not an actor actor. she goes, i want you to read for the part. i was going to read. but i said, why don't you get somebody else? she's got a will. the great thing about amy, she's not only hilarious, but just looking at you -- she goes, i want you to at least come to the screen test. they still have screen tests. it's like 1930. i go to judd and i'm trying to was sayingecause he something about it, i thought, colin, he thinks i'm too young

for the part too. i'm trying to tell him without her hearing, hey judd, i get it, i'm too young for this part. all he hears is one of those movie things. he thinks i'm trying to say you think i'm too young for the part but i really want it. he goes, i think you can do it. charlie: that's a great routine right there. colin: i'm trying to tell one thing, he's hearing the other thing. i go and do the reading, but when you don't care about something, you're great. it emanates. if i had been wanting it -- once i got it -- [indiscernible] then when i met her father coming on so happy that inflated. -- happy i played in it. charlie: what does that mean? colin: he's a guy that was a wild guy, like a real -- he is stuck in an old age home and he's the youngest one there, and he's got ms. he charms all the nurses. all his energy -- he's realistic , he's brutally honest.

charlie: "the coloring book" is the book. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ morning mrs. -- this is "trending business." ♪ here is what we are watching this morning. a $.10 jump, the most than a month. streaming services take off. the easily beat estimates. hands off, or on, china says it wants market forces to play bigger force in the yuan, then steps in when it doesn't see what it likes -- doesn't like

what it sees. at least 17 dead and hundreds wounded, and how long it may be out of action. includee on twitter and #trendingbusiness. thee are watching all about yuan once again. we have seen asian currencies hair their commodities. we are seeing some gains coming through in the chinese sharemarket. it was down 1.1% yesterday. just in the last 20 minutes we have seen a pickup in the shanghai composite. let's have a quick look at what is driving some of those gains. t