carol: welcome to bloomberg businessweek. all are: we are coming to you from inside the headquarters in new york. carol: is building more pipelines the answer? oliver: paul manafort is back. the campaign manager for president-elect donald trump never really went away. carol: how the military is handling cyber security training. oliver: all of that, ahead. carol: we're here with the jim ellis. i want to start with the global economics section because europe is really getting kind of a super election cycle underway.

we're watching a referendum in italy. >> people are looking at italy because it's a good barometer of way that the voters across europe think about how happy they are with their government. even though the referendum is something that seems fairly arcane, changing the way the parliament is set up in italy, cutting down the number of senators there. we all seem to have lots of governments turning over. they have over 300 senators and they are cutting it down by about two thirds. it is supposedly going to streamline government but allows lots of things within government to change. it tells you if people are angry enough that they want big changes in government. if that happens, you will see it across the continent in places like france and have important elections later this year. oliver: it is sort of a peach or dish. that will be important for this

sort of globalization coming to a halt. >> that is one of the problems. populism has gotten a big boost because there have been employment problems, people worried about immigration. security is an issue. we have to figure out how angry people are and how much change they want. oliver: a slightly less serious topic. >> it is a fascinating story because zahra has gone from a single store to being the biggest fashion retailer in the world. you think there is a style. somebody is out there saying this is what people wear. they've put that upside down and their 350 designers in spain and they try to figure out what is hot.

they use data and information they get from countries around the world. every night, they are getting information from websites. also, they are getting information from consumers in big, major markets like moscow, new york, tokyo. what they have done is they have moved a lot of the production capacity to spain. it doesn't sound smart because it's spain. but what happens from the far east, it takes months to sell it. they want to do it much quicker so that they can turn passion and a couple of weeks. what happens is, people think it is new. i've got to buy it. this is 24/7 fashion. oliver: that is the cover story like pipeline explosion.

tell us about this narrative. >> this one pipeline basically carries gasoline for millions of people. pipeline safety has become an issue. carol: christopher leonard actually visited the pipeline and we caught up with him. >> the pipeline was built in 1962. the time it was built, it was the largest private-sector infrastructure project in u.s. history. it is a pipeline that serves a really vital role in the u.s. energy infrastructure. the pipeline begins in texas and louisiana where there is a large concentration of oil refineries, and it takes a finished fuel product by diesel fuel and gasoline all the way across the southeast, of the eastern seaboard from atlanta to new

york and ends in new jersey. amazingly, about half of the fuel used along the east coast is transported through this single pipeline. 50 million people a day depend on it for fuel. carol: 1.4 million gallons of gasoline every day go into the pipeline? >> correct. that is just the line that carries gasoline fuel. another line carries an equivalent amount of diesel fuel and other fuel products as well. carol: if you did not know about the colonial pipeline this halloween, you probably learned about it because it is a big story. there was a big explosion. >> it was sort of a follow-on effect for the large accident that happened in september. back in late september, this pipeline spring a leak, essentially. about 330,000 gallons of

gasoline went spilling out into the surrounding woodlands. event accident in september underscored the importance of this pipeline. they had to shut off the gasoline flow. and when that happened, gasoline reserves on the east coast of the united states plunged it their fastest level in u.s. history. stocks fell all across the eastern seaboard as gasoline stations realize they weren't getting supplies to come. colonial tried to fix this wiki section of pipe that spring a leak in september. they hired a crew in october to start doing permanent fixes on this aging section of pipe. what happened on halloween was really tragic. we don't have the details yet, but we know a crew of nine men was excavating earth around the

pipeline and somehow, the earth moving tractor struck a pipeline. it exploded. a column of flame shot more than 50 feet in the air. one worker was killed immediately. four other construction workers were terribly burned and taken to the nearby town, birmingham, to be treated. we saw the flow of gasoline was immediately stopped. carol: you're going to have accidents in any industry, but what is worrisome is that there has been an increase in the number of accidents or explosions in the last 12 months. >> it is an aging piece of infrastructure. about 50 years old.

in alabama, particularly, something is going on with the colonial pipeline company. they have had six incidents. six this year alone. that's as many as they had an alabama for the previous five years altogether. there has been a sharp increase in incidents just in alabama. the company would not comment to me at all as to what is driving that increase. it we don't know what going on in alabama at this point. when you pull back and look at the pipeline structure as a whole, we are also seeing an increase in accidents year-over-year. may be even more concerning we , are seeing the accidents are getting more and more expensive and doing more and more property damage. colonial, federal regulators, the national transportation safety board are all investigating at this time. but they would not tell me what is driving the increase in accidents.

carol: turning it into a cover image was the job of the creative director rob vargas. >> in october, the colonial pipeline -- it was hard to get an image of that because it happened very quickly. we didn't have a photo, so we turned to photoshop. as we usually do. we created this warning sign. stating pretty plainly. the on that, we emphasized the fire on the background. carol: it's not often you take an image and blowout the cover. >> from the images we did see, it did look like a small nuclear explosion. it seemed like a very intense blast.

we wanted to get at that without showing the news photo from afar. carol: what is good, you point out the company itself is also exploding as a result. >> exactly. they have had a few incidents and we want to make sure that that gets on there as well. carol: john paulson bet on donald trump when most of wall street said, no, thanks. now he's reaping the rewards. oliver: and hillary clinton supporters on wall street are changing their attitude about a trump white house.

carol: welcome back to bloomberg businessweek. oliver: in the markets and finance section, john paulson seeing a huge payoff. thanks to his bet that donald trump could win the election. carol: i spoke to reporter joe light.

>> he is famous for a big short he made before the financial crisis. subprime mortgage loans. billions of dollars. and he's moving on to other issues. carol: fannie mae and freddie mac. he's also had some interest in for a good reason. joe: that's right. at fannie mae and freddie mac are at the center of the u.s. mortgage market. there are a couple companies taken over by the government in 2008. and eventually received $188 billion in taxpayer bailout money. the curiosity is that even though the government took over the company's, they left a lot of fannie and freddie, and -- common and preferred shares outstanding. at the time, they seemed worthless.

the government has been taking all of their profits since the crisis. as the mortgage market started to turn, certain investors, paulson among them, though we don't know when he bought his shares, they started to see the value there. carol: he is making money on it? >> the share prices have risen a great deal since the drop of the crisis. one of the difficulties for paulson and other investors is that the current terms of the bailout requires them to send all the profits to the u.s. government. one of the things they have been lobbying heavily around and there are lawsuits, shareholders suing the government, trying to change the policies and see profits start flowing to shareholders again. it is very much an outstanding question whether the administration or congress will

whetherat to happen and court cases will change the policy. carol: this is where the story gets interesting. i think everybody has been trying to get their head around them for years before the crisis. are they government agencies, .ause i government agencies they were publicly held entities. it's kind of interesting. john paulson made a bet on donald trump. he was out there early, backing donald trump. it's curious to see what kind of leverage they will have, maybe be more favorable. maybe more of those profits will ultimately go back to shareholders. john paulson has been spending money lobbying or supporting donald trump and his affiliated campaigns, if you will. >> paulson became involved in the trump campaign early on when it seemed like trump didn't have

a chance of winning the presidency. he helped host -- he has given more than $300,000 to not only trump, but also to the republican national committee, different organizations. but even before becoming involved in the trump campaign , they have been spending thousands of dollars on lobbyists. basically trying to get in the halls of congress, get in the ear of lawmakers who have influence on proposed reforms. to try to convince some of those guys to change the policy. congress, fannie and freddie, it does not fall along the partisan lines. democrats want to save fannie and freddie, democrats who want to eliminate them and the same on the republican side, they have been trying to convince

some lawmakers to go to bat for what paulson would say are the rights of shareholders. the right to a share of these future profits. carol: some clinton supporters are coming around to the idea of president trump. >> it's not that they suddenly dislike clinton and love donald trump, the reason is they think trump, the reason is they think they will have things go well for their wallets. they are expecting tax cuts, to be deregulated, interest rates to go up. they might've had their feelings hurt during the campaign when trump was making fun of them, but now i think they know to look at their wallets. it is out of self interest that they are getting happy. we had one person say to us, i'm really upset about the things donald trump says about muslims,

women, the things he says about immigrants and then i get greedy and i know things are going to be good times. it was amazing to hear someone say that to me in an interview. at least he was being honest. he was saying what a lot of people are feeling. if you work for a big bank, you come through this era where bankers had to deal with a lot of regulation. the dodd frank act was put in place to prevent a global financial crisis and it meant some of the rules of the road would change and people will expect those rules are going to change again and will make life for the big banks a lot easier. oliver: it doesn't take a genius to look at trump when he talks about whether or not it's going to be good for financial markets and banks. why this sudden epiphany that this guy is going to be great for us -- they had to know that

along the way? was it the toxicity of supporting trump in a major urban area? how come the sudden change of heart? >> i think a lot of people just didn't think he was going to win. they were preparing for a clinton presidency. there is also a third dynamic that hints to what you're talking about. trump is inconsistent. he talks about rolling back dodd-frank. that's what i'm her firm to hear when i say bankers expect life is going to get better for them. and of course doing things like a moratorium on new regulation. on the other hand, the republican platform for 2016 has in it that there will be a new glass-steagall which would be really disruptive to wall street. glass-steagall put up a wall in the wake of the great stock crash when the great depression started. new glass-steagall would be pretty annoying for citigroup which would be putting together

with travelers. when citigroup was created, they were doing it illegally with the expectation that the wall was going to come down and it did. that is what we still have citibank. if it comes back, these banks are in trouble. you can say the bankers really believe when trump says he's going to lower their taxes and deregulate their industry. they do not believe him when he says this populist rant against wall street and the republicans suggest a new glass-steagall. that is my understanding after speaking to these people. carol: do autocrats know how to lead a democracy? we'll take a look at what's happening around the world. oliver: paul manafort reemerges as a player at trump tower. ♪

carol: welcome back to bloomberg businessweek. oliver: you can also listen to us on the radio. 1200 in boston. 99.1 fm in washington, d.c. carol: and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. in the features section, a controversial figure in trump land emerges. oliver: we spoke to reporter bob coulter. >> steve bannon was supposed to be the mastermind that was going to bring trump of victory. he resigned in august. it seemed like that was going to be it. and we would never hear from him again. what i've reported out is the idea that he never went away. he stayed close to trump all the way through and he articulated the strategy that brought trump

the victory. steve bannon was making noise with fringe groups. in order to get the real center of america to go on trumps side, that was all paul manafort. it speaks to his power as an unseen force for decades. i take a look at the scope of his career and evaluate what might be in store for him in the future. carol: the trump administration, we believe he will be antiestablishment but it doesn't seem like it will ultimately work out that way. paul manafort seems to be the ultimate washington insider. >> insider is the perfect word for him. he came up in the 70's in young republican circles and health of -- helps with the gerald ford campaign and ronald reagan campaign and invented the culture of lobbying donald trump seems to make a lot of noise about not liking.

manafortnna for who -- who brought these controversial foreign figures to the bush white house. he worked on the dole campaign in 96 and trump turned to him because he couldn't find anyone else to help him when his primaries looked like the end of him last spring. oliver: he popularized the phrase "influence peddling." it's a synonym for lobbying. the irony of this election is most of the time, he likes to be below the radar. he is a flashy and well-dressed guy. but he is he's not a public guy. he's not flamboyant. when he was brought into congress during this hud scandal in the late 80's, he played a part in the directing of federal funds. he said flat out to the public

that some call it lobbying and some call it influence titling. -- peddling. it depended on how you define it. kind of glib statement that has defined his career. he has made a lot of money doing this. you profile him. he's a nice dresser. he has homes across the country he has lovely places. , he is a low-key guy but he is involved, from one we are hearing, still, in the trump administration. >> he was in touch directly with trump on how to handle the jim comey revelations that the fbi was going to look again at hillary's emails, and he was one of the ones that said you need to go back to michigan. you can win michigan and trump did win michigan. oliver: tell us about the background and how they got to know each other. >> they met in the 70's through roy cohn of all people.

this is one of those works of fishing -- fiction where people meet it other across pads. defending his casinos against indian casinos that were going to come up. he knew him that way. trump came and visited in there and took a look at the campaign operation. he was very impressed and started to get a feel for the sort of thing paul manafort did. years later, he has a home in trump tower, they probably see each other in the elevator from time to time. at least two friends of his say you have got to get him to work on the campaign. he called them and pick them up and the rest is history. carol: why trump conflicts of interest may become the new normal. oliver: and 700 thousand immigrants currently shielded

from deportation in the u.s. . .

speed always wins. especially in my business. with slow internet from the phone company, you can't keep up. you're stuck, watching spinning wheels and progress bars until someone else scoops your story. switch to comcast business. with high-speed internet up to 10 gigabits per second. you wouldn't pick a slow race car. then why settle for slow internet? comcast business. built for speed. built for business. i've spent my life planting a size-six, non-slip shoe into that door. on this side, i want my customers to relax and enjoy themselves. but these days it's phones before forks. they want wifi out here. but behind that door, i need a private connection for my business. wifi pro from comcast business. public wifi for your customers. private wifi for your business. strong and secure.

good for a door. and a network. comcast business. built for security. built for business. carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." ankara massar. --i am carol massar. and why it might be impossible for president-elect donald trump to remove conflicts of interest. >> and the main tool corporations have to fight sexual harassment. carol: it is all ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." oliver: we are here with editor jim ellis. one that is interesting is about what is happening in london and the chinese investment in london. it seems like a strange time to be doing that.

givenis a strange time post-brexit, so many people are worried london's time as a financial center is at risk. a lot of people are talking about not investing in london or reducing staff, servants are going to -- so the rents are going down. that is scary to new developers. the chinese have decided a bunch of chinese banks are putting money behind the huge financial services development in london. that will basically be the home for lots of chinese businesses in london. they continue to believe london will remain a big financial market. and also, they can play the fact that maybe they can make a lot of money on real estate as well. it is sort of counterprogramming. but if it works, sometimes it works make. carol: canary wharf. >> they are hoping that will not happen. they think because they have so many of their own companies that need to have london outposts,

that gives them pull. carol: in the technology section, this is an uber want to be who said they raised a lot of money but they had not. it is a serious story but there are some fun elements. >> it is a fun story because we hear so many people who want to get into the right hailing startup business. this company has a lot of press. it is based in london. it was supposed to have raised $250 million. it turns out they only raised about $40 million. they spent as if they had raised $1 billion. they were spending big on offices on multiple continents. they had parties. they had -- the c.e.o. had a party in las vegas that had everything from free-flowing champagne to exotic dancers. all this on the company dime. there were cars, all the things that gave the impression big money was here. it turns out it did not work.

thise same time, the app was supposed to go for did not work as well. so this is a true story of investors and markets getting ahead of themselves. oliver: let's talk about something in the opening remarks section which looks at how we might be able to ascertain what donald trump is going to do as president. you look to a particular type of leader, the sort of autocrat already in place around the world. jim: what was interesting about that is everybody keeps saying , we have never seen anything like him so we do not know how to react to him. the notion of the elected autocrat has been done a number of times across europe. everyone from mussolini on. we have seen it in italy. we have seen it in russia with putin. people who have come in with strong, right-wing authoritarian leaders but have gotten elected to those posts as opposed to

seizing power. themes andthe common that gives you a hint of whether we could see trump follow the same thing. carol: in politics and policy, you dive into why unwinding donald trump from his business interests is not so easy. jim: it will be almost impossible. one of the problems is trump is his business. is a giantis, licensing machine that trades off of him and his persona. that makes it very difficult to think about how you can take trump off all of the buildings they're trying to get people to may for rent or office space because it has trump's name on it. a lot of those might contractually need to have him involved. the other thing is he does not want to separate his businesses, so that is a big problem. he wants to maintain all of his

structure and keep his children running them. i will not even say the word conflict of interest, but we have never had anything quite like this before. in the past, presidents typically take their assets and put them in blind trusts. oliver: very little precedent but a lot of questions. carol: you kick off your story saying if donald trump's sold his business interests, it would get rid of the conflict of interest problem. walk us through that a little bit. right now, he has these business partners coming to visit him in trump tower as he is making transition decisions and going forward he will have all of these business ties with these guys and others, as well as ties to lenders. everybody is concerned about how that could affect how trump

governs. all of this is up in the air. what we are trying to figure out is what, if anything, he could do to distance himself from those businesses that could pose a lot of problems and minimally keep everybody questioning why he is doing what he is doing as he engages in countries where he has these business ties. carol: selling his businesses is not so easy. >> no. arep's businesses incredibly unique. you have trump golf courses. you have his licensing deals with international partners where he is giving his name to owner/developers of buildings and they put his name on the building in hopes of getting higher prices for condos or hotel rooms. thes hard to separate trump

man specifically from that business. do i want to own the rights to put trump's name on things when i am not trump and do not get to control what trump does or does as president? there are other things where he is a minority partner in a couple of buildings. he would need to get their permission to sell that. a whole bunch of quibbles and problems in trying to sell these businesses. carol: also, the fear gripping immigrants working in the u.s. legally. you begin your story talking about an individual. who is he and why is he nervous? >> he is in his 30's. he is an engineer at a silicon valley company. he does not know whether he is going to lose his permit to work and protection from deportation within the next couple of months. he is someone who in many ways could be a poster child for president obama's the action for childhood arrivals program, who was brought here as a

seven-year-old on a visa he and his family then stayed past the expiration of. has spent almost his whole life in the united states, and was not able to work legally until 2012 when he was covered under this program initiated through executive authority by president obama, which so far has shielded over 700,000 people who have been here a long time and came here early in their lives, from being threatened with deportation and has provided them work permits. me, abouted, he told applying for the program in 2012 because he worried about what would happen if mitt romney got elected. now he is in this position of reckoning with what this and expect to victory by president-elect -- unexpected victory by president-elect donald trump will mean for him. carol: his address and everything the government now has, correct? >> right.

he like hundreds of thousands of others provided information to the government which people involved in the program have confirmed will now be information available to president trump and his government. he has committed to take a more aggressive approach when it comes to forcing people to leave the country. oliver: what exactly has trump said about this specific program? what has he said about repealing it, addressing it? how specific has he been? >> he has said he is going to and it and other executive moves by president obama on day one. what remains to be seen is how literally and specifically he chooses to keep that pledge. be swayed by others, including people in the business community to change his view. among the questions is whether he would revoke immediately,

instantaneously, all of the work authorizations. meaning someone who was legally employable one day would be unemployable the next day or whether he would allow them to run out. and also, how much of a deportation risk there will be for people who previously were protected and have provided information that would make it easier to track them down. carol: next, why elon musk is the target of fake writers on the internet. oliver: and how ibm is preparing for cyber warfare. ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. oliver: and i'm oliver renick. carol: let's begin by talking

about shepard stewart. who is he? >> he is a fake op-ed writer. his byline appears on a website -- websites, particularly politically conservative websites. whoever is behind the identity is very much intent on criticizing elon musk, the very well-known tech entrepreneur and mobile affiliated with companies withgul affiliated companies like tesla and spacex. he has some enemies in the world who want to attack him but do not want to do it in a straightforward way. oliver: you delve into one corner of the internet which seems like opposition he faces from an industry-specific standpoint. people whose best interests may not be aligned with elon musk's. tell us about where these people are from. >> my strong suspicion is his commercial competitors perhaps

at a couple of levels removed have hired firms who have higher firms who are putting websites up, hiring fake op-ed writers, and so forth. but i was not able to connect all the dots so i can tell you the coal industry is behind his thing. in some instances, you can identify what group is behind a website. there is a website called "stop aon from failing again," relentlessly negative website that portrays him as somebody who sucks up federal subsidies and does nothing in return for it. that website is affiliated with a conservative group. that group is a 501(c) four group so it does not have to disclose its donors, so you do not really know who is providing the money. carol: are they making up stuff? >> for the most part, they are

aggregating stories with bad news about his companies. a rocky,nies have had up-and-down history. in addition to that, you get k editorial. it is very negative opinions about everything he does. his companies have received incentives from government at different levels. that is a fact. is that a terrible thing or smart policy to encourage solar energy through his company, solarcity? he is not the only person receiving those incentives. that is a matter of opinion. on these sites and with these writers, the opinion is always negative. tour ofiley takes a ibm's component of cyber wargames. understand the world of preventing cyber attacks.

>> i think there is increasing awareness among corporations and major companies. we have seen companies like where it can be a huge and brand-damaging event. companies thatne do not do security are prepared for. take target for example. thatack happened around -- hack happened around christmas time. it turned out the company overlooked warnings that could have prevented the whole thing. by the time that leaked out and there was a couple of months of coverage, the c.e.o. ended up resigning. i think what is going on in cambridge is ibm has taken the

initiative to try and create a simulator that you can put in a bunch of characters that would be involved in a big breach like a c.e.o. or the security team itself. put them in a room and run them through a complicated scenario that illustrates what a company deals with when it deals with a massive breach, and just see what happens. carol: you write about what ibm is doing. they have set up a cybersecurity training center. is not just about technology but also crisis management. tell me what you saw. >> it is impressive. they spent a lot of money creating an environment that can realistically create not just the conditions of an actual breach but all the things that happen afterwards. they have this amazing technology that can create all the traffic that goes along with the corporate network, so they

basically can simulate all the traffic of a major corporate network. you have the security team in the room trying to figure out an email is after opened or trying to track down a hacker in real-time. to have these other things -- they have these other things that put the management team through their paces. it is a beautiful room that has a huge screen on the front of it , this technology that comes from hollywood. they have a studio where they can do mock interviews upstairs. they will start throwing things into the mix like a leaked to to the pressleak or f.b.i. investigation and see how the team handles it. carol: next, the psychology of why more women do not come forward to report sexual harassment. ♪

oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." carol: you can listen to us on and other stations. oliver: and in london and in asia. in the features section, a three-part look at sexual harassment and how companies try to fight it. oliver: why more victims do not come forward. carol: and how the victims describe it in their own words. >> sexual-harassment is something we have talked about a lot as a country recently. the first thing was roger ailes at fox news. recently, megyn kelly, her book alleges he made advances to her about 10 years and she never said anything until carlson sued. on top of that, president-elect

trump has been accused of also harassing or groping women. he has been caught on video actually saying that himself. i wanted to look at the state of harassment in the workplace specifically and why, despite decades of lawsuits and scandals, people's careers have been ruled over this, why this is still so common. i was surprised at what i found. >> how did you find these women? some are connected to cases that have played out in the media. but some not. >> yes. some of them have sued their employers. i found them through looking at old news articles. and then i put a call out for this. i had friends of friends, complete strangers contact me online. it ends up being easier to find people than you would expect.

i received a flood of responses. carol: how many people responded? anecdotally, but i had friends not in the story tell me things i did not even know and we had been friends for years. i have been a reporter for over 10 years now and i have never gotten the response i have from this article. oliver: you mentioned the surprise inherent in putting the story together. tell us about that and what you saw is the biggest takeaways that took you by surprise. >> to understand sexual-harassment, it is a broad term, it was coined in the 1970's and meant to mean all the ways women were made to feel and leeringble at work from to groping two propositions for sex. from a legal perspective, that

is very broad. is overas surprised at the years, the courts have cut it down to a couple of things. one is quid pro quo, which is you do this or you lose your job or do not get a promotion. i thought that did not happen much anymore, but that is what gretchen carlson accused roger ailes of. they settled out of court. he has never admitted to it, but it is done now. then i thought maybe that was just an unusual situation. i talked to attorneys and women. it turns out that still happens. anyone,ually women, for about 16% of harassment claims are made by men, who do not have the sort of power in their jobs that you or i have. a lot of service workers,

farmworkers, that sort of thing. obviously, it can happen at major establishments as well. so i was surprised by that. then there is something called a whiche work environment is where he will not necessarily was a paycheck or anything monetarily but this is a general atmosphere you have to work in. that is what a lot of women complain about. most of the complaints today are hostile work environment. carol: most big companies have policies. a lot of companies in general have policies. and yet, the way employers deal with it, some can be very supportive of the women making the claim, and some are not. >> pick any company off the top of your head. you can find a policy that says they have no tolerance for harassment. some of them stick to that policy. some of them do not.

the way i have described it to people is when someone asks you, what is it like when you work, you do not say, "according to the employee manual." you talk about the people you work with, the thing your boss made you do recently that you did not like, the person in the mailroom, all of that sort of stuff. that is really what makes a company culture. that is what women think about when they decide whether they will come forward, and that is the real and stated policy of the companies. oliver: what is it about these -- what has emerged? >> companies do not take it seriously at all. i talked to women who had very egregious violations happen to them, and nothing really happened. ofgive companies the benefit the doubt, i think most of them know this is a problem culturally and want to do something about it.

but when it is brought to their attention, it is unfortunately shet of the time a he said/ said situation so they are faced with potentially firing someone over they do not have proof about. oliver: "bloomberg businessweek" is available on newsstands now. and online. unlike the story that looks at autocrats. we are trying to figure out what type of president donald trump will be. marketsd at developing where there have been autocrats elected. these are people elected on their personality and charisma who controlled the media. it breaks that down. i thought that was fascinating. oliver: i think i'm going to go with ibm in the tech section because it was a nice relief from politics, looking at how companies can prepare for cyber attacks. it is going to be a huge part of the market. ibm buying up these companies.

this center sounds like it would he a fun place to visit. carol: more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪

terre: we asked some of the best minds in the world from business, government, the arts, academia, what are the most urgent problems facing humanity, and how do we solve them? the result is "big problems, big thinkers." what is the number one major problem facing mankind? >> i think is the lack of education. >> politics has been getting dumber and dumber. >> there is a balance of green spirit. >> if we don't have a more sustainable way -- >> everybody has the capability of making a difference. >> remember your humanity.