♪ david: you have been in that job when there has been tragedies, huge tragedies in this country. what can we do to avoid this going forward? mr. clinton: first of all, we need more help with intelligence work with federal and local law enforcement, with people who may be lone wolves. like those people let san bernardino, they were converted

to their ideology over the internet. today, we still do not know all we will eventually learn about the man who killed all the people in orlando. there are all kinds of crazy theories floating around now but it does seem pretty clear that some of the people who were in touch with him before hand, perhaps even in his own family, knew he was going to do something, whether they knew this or not. we've got to get better at that. our fellow citizens need to help us. because you have to take it seriously. it is also true in other areas. a lot of people miss clear signs in suicide, and this is something new that sort of -- you can go down to your friendly store and get an ar-15 and wipe out a bunch of people.

we need tighter security on that. and then i think that the other things that hillary said in her speech yesterday are accurate. the other things we can do to harden our efforts around the world to defeat isis and other radical groups. but i kept thinking over and over the more i hear about this, i was glad to hear the fbi director saying he was constantly asking themselves, is there something more we should have done? that is what every american should ask. we have just got to all be on a higher alert. we can't ignore someone we think is ranting and raving. they may be serious. david: you mentioned what secretary clinton, one of the presumptive candidates said. we've also have the other presumptive candidate come out

and say things, saying we should exclude people from muslim countries from coming in because some of them have this ideology and number two, if we had more people with guns in that nightclub, there would not have been that much of a tragedy. what is your reaction? mr. clinton: did you see how dark it was? david: in the club? mr. clinton: i think it is likely that more people would have been killed. all i know is this -- we had a 10-year ban on assault weapons. that was passed when i was president. i signed it and we pushed hard for it. no small number of members of congress lost their jobs because they voted for that. and for what was then a comprehensive background check law. we had a 33-year low in the gun death rate and a 46-year low in total illegal deaths by gun homicide. in other words, it worked really well.

and then, when it was allowed to expire, for a while we did not seem to have an uptick in crime. if you look at what happened with these big weapons at sandy hook and aurora, colorado, and most recently in orlando and san bernardino, it is pretty clear that if you're firing a lot of weapons -- a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time with a weapon that is designed only to kill, more people will die than if you are stuck with a pistol. if a guy had just had a pistol in that nightclub, i do not think anyone believes he could kill 49 people. that is my response. i tell people all the time, notwithstanding that terrible incident in orlando, we are less racist, sexist, and homophobic

than we used to be. we just are. we are becoming a more inclusive society. one remaining bigotry is we do not want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. either actually, or virtually. if you get into a silo like that, you are prone to believe anything that your preconceived prejudice would allow. that is not good for us. that is one of the reasons i like all of these cgi events, because people here come from every political perspective and they make a living different ways. their whole experience is different and they find it quite stimulating to be with people who are different from them, they find that what we know -- which is that diverse groups make better decisions than lone

geniuses, much less a group of totally like thinking people. we have to be super sensitive and keep looking for ways to break out of our silos because fundamentally people are pretty decent. >> unfortunately, if you are not in the boat you do not get lifted. >> we have a real structural problem today with insufficient access to the capital for a lot of underserved populations. ♪

♪ david: we are a few years past the 2008 financial crisis. employment has come up. there are some green shoots, i think it is fair to say, though not as much growth as we would like. so the question is, where do we go from here?

how do we take the world forward? bob, i want to start with you. as you look at the challenges we face, are you more concerned about wealth and income disparity, or overall economic growth? bob: i come at a lot of the broad economic issues and local economic issues from the standpoint of its impact on minority americans and particularly african-americans. if we look at the data that the pew research has put out, the wealth gap between african-americans even prior to the recession had grown to about $70,000 less than that of white americans. if you would take the median net worth of an african-american household, it is $13,000 compared to $130,000 for a white household. that is principally because of

lack of savings and investment, lack of home ownership, and obviously the impact of loss of jobs from the recession, and the historic fact that african-american unemployment has been double that of white. when you look at that in a global economy, with competition on a global scale, it is very hard to see how you integrate economic growth in the african-american community without some expansion of capital access, some change in government policy that increases opportunities for african-americans, and corporate policy for that matter in job creation and job access as well as education. so to me, anything that happens in this country going forward has to address the fact that minority americans are going to be the largest population group. unless you put that population group to work in some way of creating wealth and being

productive, you are going to have to pay for them and you get this need of transfer payment. one of the biggest crisis of this country, people say why are we paying to support people who are not productive? the people don't want to be not productive, they want to be productive but the necessary ingredients -- access to capital, jobs, retirement savings are just not there to bring a level playing field. that is my primary concern. david: if we had gdp growth in this country of 4% rather than sub 2%, how much would take care of it self? how much do we need intervention? bob: that sounds a little bit like a trickle down. or a rising tide lifts all boats. unfortunately, if you are not in the boat, you do not get lifted. that is the problem with african-americans. you go to the department of

labor and statistics -- for the past 50 years, african-american unemployment has been double that of white unemployment. there is something else there that needs to happen to create more opportunity, and it is a change in -- education, i cannot they enough about it but we spend more money on education for minority americans than ever but still has not moved the needle. as a business person, i think it is access to capital. we have got to put more capital into the communities where african-americans live, give african-american entrepreneurs access to capital. that comes in the lending from the banking institutions and others. those are the kind of things from a business standpoint. social programs and policies work to give the so-called safety net, but if you want productivity, it is an economic model. david: steve, he took us right to your doorstep. you are a banker.

what is your experience in california? steve: the issues bob is talking about are pervasive in california. it is not just african-americans, it is small business owners and latinos. we have seen the evaporation of tens of billions of dollars of lending and capital access for small businesses, consumers, and entrepreneurs. if you look at california today, the fastest growing entrepreneur starting new businesses and creating new jobs are latinos and female businesses. they are starting from the ground up with small businesses. the problem is the traditional sources of banking, a lot of them cratered during the financial recession and the capital dried up so we have a real structural problem today with insufficient access to capital for a lot of underserved

populations. it is not just ethnic populations but entrepreneurial populations. david: how much of that is a regulatory problem? one thing we hear from time to time is that because of regulation in washington, it is much harder to venture forward, to take risk in making loans. steve: you are seeing a secular shift in the banking industry where those large banks used to be the drivers of economic growth, are now more confined with a lot of the regulatory actions that keep them constrained, and a lot of the policy guidance. there is an emergence of those regional banks and the community banks that have the ability to fill that gap and that are in fact filling the gap. when you look at growth in lending to small businesses, for consumers, most of that is coming from this new class of

banks that are not subject to the same too big to fail limitations but can still access the community and serve those underserved populations. i think one of the big drivers is really refocusing the conversation on, how do you let the regional banks that do not have the same political considerations and too big to fail considerations -- how do you unleash them to be able to continue their growth in their lending to the most underserved communities. david: alex, you have been serving underserved communities. when it comes to growth versus income disparity, what are the problems we are facing? >> as a media company the most important thing we trade in is information. you are talking about access to opportunities and capital. for us, it is access to information. there are whole neighborhoods, communities, groups of people that do not have access to just

the basics, computers, internet. one of the things -- as the rest of the industry has been trying to scale, one of the things we focused on a couple of years ago was called connect to compete, where we offered low-cost internet to underserved neighborhoods as a partnership with the government. carlos slim was involved but we launched it in california and it has been very popular. kids that could not have internet have a reliable internet connection that they can use. sadly, a lot of the ipads that are donated to these neighborhoods gets old very quickly, so we need the hardware but we try to provide the connection and information. david: bob, how do you feel about that? is there a specific initiative to address the issues you're concerned about. bob: anything that corporate america can do to have a triple bottom-line effect is going to

change the impact of wealth disparity within minority communities. but it has to be done in a way that is going to be sustained. we go back the war on poverty, we go back to all kinds of other programs, that if they are not sustained or if we do not consider them to be a compelling national interest, they tend to wane after, sometimes administration, sometimes philosophy. mr. clinton: if you get groups of people with diverse experience and expertise, who just want to get a job done, more often than not you find a better way to do it faster and better at low cost. ♪

♪ david: take us through that initiative having to do with mortgages and housing in detroit and how it worked. mr. clinton: i had a real interest in detroit and wanted to help. we just got a lot of people together for two or three days, some of whom were physically located close to each other and some were from out of town. they put their heads together and came up with this idea of

how a second mortgage could be issued that would enable the homeowner to make the home habitable and that the repayment could be structured in a way that would not cripple them financially. that is what we did. it will put 1000 people in more homes. i think it will be the beginning of something that may well have application in other areas in the united states. and i hope so. we figured out how to basically close a gap in the fabric of our housing market. and that is really what i was trying to do when i set up my foundation 15 years ago. i just wanted to figure out how to solve problems better, faster, and at lower cost. i saw this a lot. there is a great deal of difference between passing law and changing lives. there is a great deal of difference between appropriating

money and changing lives. you have to know how to do things and i think that the more complex and interdependent our society gets, the more premium we will put on people who find a way to answer the how question, and we find and have for years that if you get groups of people with diverse experience and expertise who just want to get a job done, and do not really care about what their politics are, they are just trying to get a job done, more often than not you will find a way to do it faster, better, and at lower cost. david: as you say, you have a track record and a body of work. what have you learned about what sorts of problems can be addressed, solved by this sort of cooperative effort and which ones do not fit so well? mr. clinton: let's start with the second category.

there are some things that require a threshold level of investment from the private sector or government, without which you can't do what you would like to do. let me give you an example. you told me you are from flint. flint is nowhere near the only city where children have elevated levels of lead in their blood. we have done what we could to help flint, but it would take a national commitment to a real serious infrastructure program to take up all the rusty pipes in america and give all of our kids a healthy future. it would be a very good investment. interest rates are lower than inflation now and it would create a lot of jobs and have good income. there would still be particular problems in particular places we could help, but that is a threshold thing.

we can now, because solar and wind power are relatively cheaper, dramatically cheaper than they were a few years ago, we can help put together coalitions to accelerate the income benefits as well as the climate benefits of solar and wind power in many places. but if for example you want to help the poorest americans who are still native americans living on indian lands without casinos, a lot of them could be making a fortune out of this but they can't afford the transmission lines to carry the power from where they are to any place that is strong enough to receive it. those are the things that you can do. the things you can do largely involve getting people to rethink what they are doing and

see if they can be faithful to their responsibilities with their assets, and do it in a way with more social benefit. david: what happens to your initiative if your wife is president? mr. clinton: i think right now i just want to say what hillary did -- we have to cross that bridge when we come to it. if she wins, we want to think about it. clearly politics is different from what i do. i just try to get partners together and make something good happen. the government should do more of that, and the president is trying to involve more people from the private sector in a lot of his decision-making. but you have to be careful to avoid actual potential conflicts of interest. david: that is the issue. people have raised that. even donald trump raised that, and things like that. lots of things get raised. it gets dicier if your wife is president. mr. clinton: we will think very clearly about it and we will do

the right thing. and explain it to the american people, but i will have to wait. first, i do not believe in counting your chickens before they hatch. david: i will resist the temptation to ask you who you are going to vote for for president. ladies and gentlemen, president william jefferson clinton, thank you very much. [applause] mr. clinton: thank you so much. ♪

♪ emily: he is tech's biggest outlaw, under house arrest after a massive raid by new zealand commandos. kim dotcom is known for his outrageous personality as he has trotted the globe from germany, to hong kong, to new zealand. now he is the target of the biggest copyright case in history, accused of trafficking in pirated music, movies, and tv shows, as he awaits an extradition hearing to decide his fate. joining me today on this special edition of "studio 1.0" from auckland, new zealand, megaupload founder and self-proclaimed ruler of t