>> from our studios in new york, this is charlie rose. rose: we begin with wall street and global markets. another volatile day for global markets. points.jones down 249 the index has a ready retreated more than 9% this year. china remains in focus.

she is chief investment officer at goldman sachs. her team remains cautiously optimistic. you are cautiously optimistic. >> we are close to the end but we're not quite there yet. until it is over it's not over. there is still a little bit more left. not a lot. so are expected return is going into 2016 was a very modest

three to 4% type return. however, with everything going on in the marketplace we're getting all kinds of calls from our clients should we stay invested? the market is down 10%. will it go down another 10% or another 30? this is one of the roughest starts to a year we have ever seen. go back to 1928. if you look at the lows we have today, that you just quoted, this would have been the worst first two and a half weeks of the year that we have ever seen if we look at the lows through today. if not, it would have been the worst since the global financial crisis. this kind of downdraft in such a short time is very rare. the question, from our perspective, is this indicating something real or is this a sentimental shift?

sometimes, if the financial markets are very volatile and you end up with huge downdraft that last a long time, they do tighten what we would call financial conditions. there is a confidence effect in terms of consumer confidence. there is an effect on ceo's as they think about their business. if credit conditions are tighter, it's harder for companies to borrow money. if financial conditions tighten too much, it will have an effect in the real economy. however, our base cases that we are going to continue having a modest recovery. we are not looking at huge growth in the u.s. or substantially higher growth rates globally, but a growth in line with what we had last year. from a global perspective and from a u.s. perspective.

charlie: you wrote about china. tell me how you see what happening in china. sharmin: to give you some perspective in terms of our view in general, we have the view that people have been particularly optimistic about china and emerging-markets. charlie: too optimistic? sharmin: two optimistic and too pessimistic about the u.s. everybody was saying this was the end of the u.s. century and the 21st century belongs to china. our theme has been people are underestimating the incredible strength of the u.s. u.s. preeminence has been our theme for the last seven years. charlie: based on what? sharmin: the diverse economy. human capital factors. labor productivity. the quality of earnings in the long run. the strength of the institutions. you can go item by item. ease of doing business. governance. when you compare them to emerging markets, the u.s. is so far ahead, and the gap between the u.s. and other parts of the

world, europe, japan, emerging markets, the gap is widening across all these factors. we wrote the china peace because we think while the outlook for china is fine for the next year or so, maybe china can grow on a headline basis with the numbers they print somewhere, between 5.8-6.8, the underlying economic indicators are lower. a lot of people say these numbers are not real. there is a lot of concern about the quality of the data. if we look at underlying economic activity, it is about 5%-6%. that's not a major hard landing. what even more important is u.s. investors are focusing on china too much. china is just not that important to the u.s. economy in aggregate. if you look at exports to china as a portion of the u.s. gdp, it is not that significant. everybody is worried about china having a subprime mortgage crisis.

when you look at bank exposure to china, it is in .8%. look at topline sales of s&p 500 companies. less than 2%. it is not that significant, the number, to warrant the response because china might appreciate their currency or china is growing slower. the long-term prospects for china are not great. charlie: long-term? even after they make this dramatic shift of their economic base from export to consumer demand?

sharmin: in fact, the title of the piece you made a reference to is walled in. china's great dilemma. because when we are trying to talk about the rebalancing you mentioned, how to shift from export oriented investment led economy to a consumer-oriented economy and implement a reform agenda from the plan they had in 2013, it's a herculean challenge. charlie: but can they accomplish it? sharmin: we are not too optimistic about it. if they go to slowly, gdp will increase. if they focus too much on the 6% growth target set by the president so that they can double gdp per capita by 2020 relative to 2010, that's a very high growth rate to maintain for the next five years. it's a very difficult to actually do that. if they focus on that, debt to gdp will be at unsustainable levels.

if they try to do the reforms too volatile. we have seen the reaction to market volatility. on one hand, they want stabilization. on the other hand, they want to control the currency. they say they need full currency but not full comfortability. that's why it's very difficult to accomplish what they want to accomplish on the scale they want to accomplish on the scale they want to accomplish it, and that is why their debt to gdp has skyrocketed?

charlie: any impact on u.s. treasuries? sharmin: the reserves are going down. they will diversify and sell them off as they address the issue of their depreciating currency. everybody expects it to depreciate around 10% this year. maybe another 10% next year. the people want to convert their currency into dollars. in response, the government has to provide dollars, so they are drawing down on their reserves, and that will affect treasury. charlie: has the federal reserve handled it right, in your judgment? in terms of the interest-rate hike? sharmin: it's quite incredible. janet yellen said that when the fed has been early, they have prevented a recession.

a recession has not necessarily followed every fed tightening. we have looked back at all the cycles that have not resulted in a recession. what have they had in common? one is being early. the other is the labor market. the other is inflation before was high. they are being prudent a little bit. they're watching the numbers. if the number slow down, they will adjust. they may raise the rate by 100 basis points by the end of 2016. they are doing a little bit, seeing how the market reacts. if we think about the issues that are driving the market, we do see that concerns about china are a little overblown. we see concerned about oil prices. obviously, oil was a drag on the energy sector, on earnings, and having some impact on employment in the energy sector, but in aggregate, we are not going to see that kind of a down drop. but people are very focused on it. we think that contributes to the volatility.

and uncertainty. nobody likes uncertainty. there is the economic uncertainty index and when that goes up it is a drag on growth and investment. uncertainty does create a bit of a drag. it has that type of an impact. charlie: i'm interested to note that as you talk about your forecasting, a lot of it is a reading of history. sharmin: yes. we believe history is a useful guide. it's not that it ever exactly repeats itself, but people will benefit by better understanding history and having historical perspective. for example, in 2008 in 2009 when everybody was saying this is the death knell of the u.s. economy in the end of the american century, all we had to do is go back in history over the last 40 or 50 years and see how many times people have called for the american century or the death knell of the u.s. time and time again.

charlie: the decline of the american experience. sharmin: exactly. and time and time again, they have been proven wrong. with china, we think japan provides a useful guide. china has bad demographics. they're working age population is going to decrease every year. it's similar to what china had going into 1990. when china could do no wrong -- japan. and japanese management was incredible. we all had to learn from their management style, their quality management. see what happens since 1990 in japan. demographics is a huge drag on growth. charlie: were they slow to react? sharmin: very slow to respond.

that's a big contrast between japan and the u.s. the u.s. reacts to its problems very quickly. in all cases, very resilient. the banks are doing well, the banks deleverage very quickly. the banks in the united states deleverage so much. chinese banks didn't deleverage for over 15 years. if you look at their unemployment rate, it didn't change. the unemployment rate in 1990 for the last 15 or 20 years didn't change that much. japan tends to be very slow to respond and china is being very measured and incremental and how they respond. charlie: what is going to happen to the market the rest of this week? sharmin: if i knew, i wouldn't be sitting here. realistically, what we tell our clients is that they need to be patient. they need to be thoughtful. they need to be long-term

investors and not be swayed by the extreme sentiments of the market. we are thinking right now that this is too much of a shift. there is nothing in the underlying fundamentals of the u.s. economy that has changed so much to justify a market that is down as much as 11% to the trough we had today. charlie: oil prices are now below $30. going further down? or will it begin to rise maybe six months from now? sharmin: short-term, it could definitely go lower. i think the momentum is strong in the geopolitical tensions between iran and saudi arabia are so vocal and they keep on talking about their respective market shares. that could mean prices could be lower for a while. but by the end of this year, demand has been pretty steady. people say there is not enough consumption. in fact, consumption has averaged 1.2 million-1.3 million barrels a day for the last five years. last year, was actually up 1.7 5 million barrels. even in china where there are concerns demand has increased. the question is oversupply. nobody knows exactly what the number is, but if u.s. production is lower by about 500,000 barrels and iran does

produce an extra 500,000 barrels a day, the market will come in balance by the end of the year. charlie: so your principal advice seems to be to be patient. sharmin: yes. and have a well diversified portfolio so they can afford to be patient and withstand this volatility. charlie: thank you for coming. it's a pleasure to have you. i hope you will come back.

charlie: coming up, john dickerson is here to tell us what the politics look like going into the iowa caucus on february 1. stay with us.

charlie: michael froman is

here, the united states trade representative and the lead negotiator for the transpacific partnership. it is a trade agreement among 12 nations that eliminates more than 18,000 tariffs. president obama urged congress to pass tpp during the state of the union on tuesday night. president obama: america will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies, but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us and make sure other countries pull their own weight. that is why we forged the transpacific partnership, to open markets and advance american leadership in asia. it cuts 18,000 taxes on products made in america, which will then support more good jobs here in america. with tpp, china does not set the rules in that region. we do. you want to show our strength in the new century, approve this agreement? charlie: i am pleased to have michael froman at this table for the first time.

you are the guy he is talking about to lead the negotiations, which you have. explain it to us. michael: first, we live in a very open economy in the united states. our tariffs are low. we don't use regulations as a barrier to trade. but when we look abroad to asia, we face much higher tariffs and many other barriers. what tpp does is eliminate or greatly reduce those barriers so that we can keep production in the united states, grow production, export more, and create more good paying jobs for the united states. charlie: what do they get for reducing those tariffs?

michael: they get access to our market, which is already open, and they get a strategic partnership with us where, together we are helping to set the rules of the road, whether it is intellectual property rights, discipline of state owned companies, a free and open internet, and for a lot of these countries, joining tpp is a good seal of approval that will help them attract economic activity as well. charlie: give us an example of tariffs we impose. michael: we have tariffs on footwear or apparel that may be 20%-20 5%. we have tariffs on automobiles. charlie: why only those products? they want to make them more expensive so that --? michael: for historical reasons we have protections in these areas. we wanted to come up with an agreement that the producers could be comfortable with as well as the people importing the apparel.

charlie: in doing the negotiation, what was the biggest gripe that you heard? michael: there are multiple gripes. we have gripes domestically between different parts of the u.s. economy that may have differences amongst themselves. from other countries, they certainly want to make sure the u.s. involved itself in the region, embedded itself in the region. they want to make sure the u.s. is a close partner of theirs. charlie: democrats on the left have oppose this and their argument has to do that they have not done enough to protect the environment, protect wages, protect workers in other

countries. could you have done more? michael: this agreement is the strongest ever negotiated when it comes to labor and environmental protections. it takes issues like the right to negotiate, the right to bargain, the rights of workers and brings them to bear. on areas like environment, it has negotiations on wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, overfishing. all of those are new obligations and they are fully enforceable. charlie: then why aren't you supporting it? michael: trade is a politically difficult issue. traditionally, trade bills have worked their way through congress largely on republican votes and then there is a critical mass. charlie: does this benefit business? michael: business can benefit, but so do workers. we have seen the national association of manufacturers, the business roundtable and the chamber of commerce, but also the american farm bureau, the technology community all come out in favor of and endorsing the agreement. charlie: can we with trade legislation influence the rule of law in other countries? michael: i think we can.

in areas like labor and environment, making sure they are enforcing laws that implement international labor and environmental obligations. charlie: companies like google, microsoft have had some difficulties entering the european markets. is that trade tariff kinds of things or is that something else? or is it they believe they have an unfair advantage? charlie: it is not tariffs, per se, but the issue of the digital economy is one that tpp takes on for the first time. preventing countries from saying you have to move your company to our market and build your infrastructure here in order to serve that market. those are the kinds of obligations we have been able to get in tpp.

charlie: you said international diplomacy is not elegant. michael: trade is a very difficult set of issues to negotiate. you have one set of interests against another. one with import interests. one with export interest. you have 11 different countries, from some of the most developed countries in the world to some of the least. finding common standards that

can apply to each has been very complicated and it's one of the reasons it is taking so long. charlie: what happened in doha? michael: the doha round launched in 2001. since then, the economy has changed a great deal. the doha round said countries, emerging markets, don't have to take on obligations that industrialized countries do.

but after 15 years, china is certainly an emerging market but also a globally competitive environment and one where we have concerns about fair practices. michael: this eliminates tariffs on everything from auto exports

to vietnam, to beef exports. this will make us more competitive in the region. other countries like china already have agreements with some of these countries and face much lower tariffs. charlie: when you look at china in terms of the economic impact of its slowdown, is it having that dramatic of an impact on imports? michael: it is. part of that is due to reductions in global demand, including in china. for decades, trade grew faster than the global economy, and trade lead global growth. now trade is going at the same pace or even slower than global growth. that puts a premium on eliminating whatever barriers we can to get trade going, spirit on. charlie: i am from north carolina. our economic base for a long

time was tobacco. gone. and textiles. gone. textiles primarily moved offshore. could that have been stopped by trade agreements? michael: i think if you had agreements -- charlie: or is that part of the economic cycle and looking for cheaper labor? michael: technology has affected the kind of jobs, the kind of industries that have succeeded or not succeeded in the u.s. over time, but it's a mistake to conflates globalization and trade agreements. there are a lot of factors.

michael: what it means in a fact is that the cost of doing business around the world has come down so much, the containerization of shipping, the spread of broadband, the emerging markets in china and europe, has made it easier for people to move construction to other companies. we need to level the playing field by reducing the barriers to those market so we can produce here and export there. and secondly, raise the standards of those countries. right now, we compete against low-wage labor all over the world. charlie: richard haas, the president of the council of foreign relations said trade is central to foreign policy. without the deal, the so-called pivot to asia will be hollow. the pivot to asia was a central part of american foreign-policy.

michael: he was an excellent student, by far smarter than the rest of us. charlie: was he really? michael: yes, you could tell them that he had a very special intellect and a special set of leadership skills. charlie: are you saying to me that people in the law school thought he would be president? michael: i think people thought he would do something very significant in politics. even when he was trying to bring together different camps at the harvard law review. charlie: what were the factions? who would be fighting him? michael: there was quite a bit of a political split. charlie: like the supreme court and the question of the ideology of law? michael: the federal society was growing on campuses. there were different camps and professors of different camps. charlie: which camp were you in? michael: right in the middle. charlie: were you really? thanks for coming on.

♪

charlie: steven avery free was wrongly convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985. he spent 18 years in prison until his conviction was overturned due to new evidence. a new netflix series documents his wrongful conviction. it was called compulsive and unpredictable. here is the trailer. [video clip] >> the people that were close to steve knew he was always happy, happy, happy. he always wanted to make other people laugh. >> they didn't dress like other people. they didn't have education like other people. >> the avery family didn't fit into the community. >> he always owned up to everything he did wrong. >> penny bernstein was everything stephen wasn't. think of the two of them

side-by-side. >> there was no real investigation done by the sheriff's department. >> he wanted avery convicted of this crime. >> there wasn't one iota of physical evidence to connect stephen avery to it. the sheriff was told by police you have the wrong guy. >> steven avery spent 18 years in prison for something he didn't do. >> 18 years. >> dna indicated he hadn't committed the crime. >> law enforcement officers realized they had screwed up big time.

>> we were getting ready to bring a lawsuit, $36 million. the sheriff and the da would be on the hook for those damages. >> they are not handing that kind of money over to steve avery. i told him, be careful. they are not even close to being finished with you. >> do we have a body or anything yet? >> i don't believe so. >> we have steven avery in custody though? >> are you kidding me? >> the disappearance remains a mystery. >> everybody is listening. what do you want to say today? >> i'm innocent. >> if convicted, he will spend the rest of his life in prison. >> the key was the dna. he was released on it. >> what's going on? >> if he did this, it's good he was imprisoned all this time. >> it was extraordinarily disturbing. >> we went through this 20 years ago and we are going through it now again. >> you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. >> the truth always comes out.

charlie: joining me now are the directors of "making a murderer," laura ricciardi and moira demos. how did this start for you? >> in 2005, we were graduate students at columbia school of the arts. steven avery was on the front page of "the new york time's," and the headline read, "freed by dna." we recognized him as somebody who had been failed by the system and now found himself back in it. charlie: when you looked at it and looked at his conviction for the second time --? >> at that point, he had just been charged in the murder of teresa hallach. the idea that this man who had been failed by the system for 18 years -- there were opportunities for the system to correct itself and it hadn't, and now he was stepping back in 20 years later.

in that 20 years, there had been advances in dna, legislative reforms. there was a lot of talk that wrongful convictions don't happen anymore. this was a thing of the past. we didn't have dna back then. it was an opportunity to test that theory. at that point, we decided to go into production. we went to wisconsin. we moved there and documented this new case as it unfolded. the series sort of gives you the opportunity to use -- it's like

20/20 hindsight. it's very easy to look back on something. charlie: when you want to make the film, did you have a deal to do that? >> absolutely not. it was the two of us corralling some family and friends. it was all self funded. charlie: why do you think everybody is talking about this? what hasn't been said already that makes it so compelling? >> i think for the most part people understand that the criminal justice system is imperfect. but i think what this really demonstrates is what happens when it goes wrong. the cases in this series are a stark illustration of that. one of the major characters in the series was pulled into the system and became a codefendant. he was 16 years old at the time and incredibly limited. his iq was somewhere in the range of 73.

>> after a decade of really working hand in hand, i think we recognize different things as we are experiencing it, but going

through the experience, going through the footage, doing additional research, digging through primary source materials, we end up in the same place. charlie: do you think steven avery killed theresa? what i don't have a way of answering that because i have so many unanswered questions. the issue is despite this being the largest criminal investigation and wisconsin's history, i am still left with so many unanswered questions. i don't know. charlie: you just don't know because there are too many unanswered questions. how are you going to answer those questions? laura: also, i don't think the system is designed to deliver certainty. one of the takeaways for me with respect to our process was, you know, part of our inquiry was to what extent can the system deliver on its promises of truth and justice? i really came away from this process thinking that the system can do a better job of delivering justice, which is a process.

we have been criticized recently for not including all evidence in the series. what i would say to that is this is a documentary. it is not playing out in real time and so we have to make editorial choices about the evidence against him, but even a

jury in a criminal case doesn't hear all the evidence that either side would like to offer because the judge is making decisions at the pretrial stage about what type of evidence is reliable, what might prejudice the jury. charlie: is one of the questions that is unanswered for you, was somebody so upset at steven avery because he filed a lawsuit that they set out to ruin his life?

charlie: take a look at this. >> they weren't going to just let steve out. they weren't going to hand him 36 million dollars. they weren't going to be made a laughing stock. they weren't going to do all that. they are not handing that kind of money over to steve avery. >> we told him he could expect people to say this was an effort. private things are become public. don't be surprised if people say things that are just plain false. what we didn't tell him was that you have to be careful when you bring a lawsuit against the

sheriff's department in the community where you still live because you could end up being charged with murder. charlie: it raises the question, doesn't it? >> absolutely. >> stephen himself could not make sense of what was happening to him. he could not understand how he found himself back in this position. i think in an effort to try to make sense of what was happening, he looked to the lawsuit he had filed that was pending, that was going well for his side, and thought perhaps law enforcement has done something here, something improper to try to derail that lawsuit. charlie: the 2007 trial lasted how long? moira: just over five weeks. charlie: 200 hours.

moira: something around that. that's how the math works out. charlie: so you have to decide what to include and what to exclude. moira: sure. his trial takes just over three hours in our series, and that includes press conferences and out of court scenes, so not even three hours of courtroom footage. charlie: what is the biggest question you have now having gone through this? it is much talked about in terms of a media conversation. laura: i guess the major question i come away with is to what extent are we as a society going to step up? charlie: whatsit going to take

to change the system? laura: right. a big part of that is trying to recognize and injustice as it's happening and trying to rectify that. if we don't in that and it leads to a wrongful conviction, that also necessarily leads to a wrongful acquittal, which means an innocent person is being locked away while the guilty person is left free. we see that in the first episode with steven avery and gregory allen, who went on to attack women for 10 years while steven avery was in prison serving gregory allen's term. moira: my biggest question is how can we come together on this? i see a lot of talk in response to this series, people taking sides, debating guilt and innocence, when that's not what this series is about. it's about failures within our system and why those are happening, and how can we do better?

there is so much we could unite about or unite over about this. as laura mentioned, a wrongful charlie: what is so addictive about this? moira: i have been hearing a lot of people watch it over one days or the course of two days. it surprises me. it's a very dense series. charlie: it is. but after you see one, you want to see another, because until the very end, there are questions. moira: we are not giving you the answer. we are asking questions. the goal is to start a dialogue. charlie: 10 episodes of "making a murderer" are available on netflix. ♪

he appeared on this program numerous times. here is a look at those conversations. alan rickman: there is a huge fear factor you have to deal with in theater. at least on film, if you screw up, you get another take. and it doesn't go away, the fear.

charlie: i read that you sent that, that somehow still, with all that you have done, the fear factor is still there. doesn't go away during the run? alan: if you can get it to push down to the right place. i guess it's connected to adrenaline and focus, energy and all those things. but it's a useless thing. it's not really very positive. it's just like a little grim that sits on your shoulder and tries to make you fail. charlie: [laughter] alan: and often succeeds. charlie: really? alan: i am seriously trying to find some hypnosis to get over it because it's very useless. charlie: hypnosis to get over fear of being on stage coming from one of our best actors. alan: well, i'm not alone.

charlie: we are talking about more than just forgetting your lines. alan: it's a lot about that. but then it becomes a self generating problem. unless you can get your concentration to the right place, a little gremlin comes out while you are speaking and says, you know this line, but there is a line coming up in four lines that you don't know. your brain is going backward and forward.

he said it always amazes me when i come back to see something, especially when you are dealing with great text like this, the thing is, you will never be as good as the play. i thought that's sort of relaxing, in a way. you will never be as good as this play. whenever young actors now say to me what advice do you give me, i am thinking about training, i want to be an actor or whatever, i say forget about acting. and i really mean it. at that point in time. because whatever you to as an actor is cumulative. so i say go to art galleries. listen to music. know what is happening on the news and in the world. form opinions. develop your taste and judgment so that when a quality piece of writing is put in front of you,

your imagination, which you have nurtured, has something to bounce off. charlie: and your uniqueness. she is there on her ted talk holding up the brain and saying here is the analytical side and here is the imaginative side. it made me think that one thing actors, dancers, singers, and musicians do is to actually use both sides of the brain at the same time, because you have to hand yourself over completely to whatever the emotional demands of the part -- certainly on stage, there is a kind of geiger

counter, a laser or something, that is at exactly the same time assessing what is happening out there and what is happening there to the person you are talking to. did this word land or no, that one didn't land, now i have to pick up that one.

taking the rest of your body into this strange pace that it finds it hard to recover from. charlie: alan rickman, dead at 69. ♪

rishaad: china's economic overhaul is taking hold. veteran investor george soros disagrees. he says a hard landing in china is inevitable.