♪ vonnie: coming up on "bloomberg best", the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. the dot plot thickens, more to come. >> i think the fed took a small step beyond being data dependent. vonnie: the oil outlook brightens the outlook for crude. italian banks set price targets. there is a change in the guard in goldman sachs. >> goldman sachs is making this move from a position of strength. vonnie: donald trump continues to construct his cabinet. his unconventional picks have sparked plenty of discussion. >> if you are going to be president, you should have the best people sitting around the table. >> being successful in business does not necessarily mean you

will be successful in government. vonnie: some of the sharpest minds in business share insights on the markets. >> i am probably more comfortable with shorter duration assets. i think the worries are in chinese credit growth. >> there is over exuberance about how well people are doing. vonnie: it is all straight ahead on "bloomberg best." ♪ vonnie: hello and welcome. i am vonnie quinn. this is "bloomberg best." your weekly review of the most important business news, analysis, and interviews from bloomberg television around the world. let's start with a day by day look at the top headlines. the week began on a note of optimism for oil. >> opec has sealed its first output cuts with independent producers in 15 years. oil ministers met in vienna and agreed to reduce output by 1.2

million barrels a day. saudi arabia signaled it is ready to cut production more than expected, promising a reduction of 450,000 barrels per day. russia and other non-opec nations pledge to cut production by 558,000 barrels a day by january. >> i have to say the situation is different as we go country by country, but i was pleasantly surprised to see so many ompanies respond to the invitation to participate to help to stabilize the market. >> i think the big highlight that we have to highlight, 2 highlights. one was russia and non-opec producers committing to reduce production. some of the reductions in production were happening in any case because of natural declines. i think the other big highlight, and the unexpected one, was saudi arabia saying it is ready to cut production and go below 10 million barrels a day. they are not saying they will do

it, but they are prepared to do it. >> how much lower his lawyer going to go -- is oil going to go? >> i am a cynic. looking further down the line into 2017 and beyond, why would this agreement work? none of them previously had worked. the only way it will work is if the saudis are determined and will take a great deal of pain, a disproportionate amount of pain. i am not convinced they will do that. >> they want more for their oil. they have said they will carry out what they say they will do. they will cut supply, and the price of oil will come up. you will be at $60 a barrel within 30 days. >> reportedly president-elect donald trump is close to naming his secretary of state, and the front runner comes from the world of big oil. yesterday, mr. trump tweeted the "whether i chose him or not for state, rex tillerson is a

world-class player and dealmaker. stay tuned." what do you make of this possible nomination? is it likely, and what would it mean for the state? >> he knows the details of the places he operates. he has run a big organization. he has met with a lot of global leaders. all that is clearly to the good. he has not had the public-sector experience. it is different from running that. do you remember what happened to paul o'neill? it's not exactly in the annals of bureaucratic success. >> rex tillerson, the foundation shake and quake with this nomination. >> he is an impressive guy, but when we saw michael jordan go from basketball to baseball -- >> i witnessed that personally and it was very ugly. >> you can be great in one area

and not necessarily great in even a somewhat related area. we will have to see. >> the confirmation process will be very important. mr. tillerson has relationships with mr. putin that we want to know more about. >> do you not want someone in there that has experience that could be a threatening figure to the nation? >> certainly i want someone as secretary of state who has experience in the global diplomacy. mr. tillerson brings business experience. he does not bring diplomatic or government experience that would be very helpful. >> no surprise -- the target range for federal funds moves up a quarter percentage point to arrange -- a range between 50 and 75 basis points. that decision, unanimous. the real news is the movement in the dot plot. the median projected appropriate policy path next year is 1.4% next year, which would mean three rate hikes in 2017, not two. >> do you buy into three rate increases? >> i do if inflation continues

to move higher, because the rate didn'teal increase much, if at all. i would doubt the ability of any central bank, the fed, to raise interest rates three times a year for the next several years, because the global economy and the u.s. economy relatively highly levered, and housing will begin to reflect that. >> i think the fed took a small step beyond being just data dependent. you should walk back this notion of high pressure. people said, wait a minute. are we not just seeing a slight higher expectation for rate hikes, but in addition, this could be a fed that could be tighter than otherwise. i think that is what really moved the market. it wasn't so much the statement as the press conference. >> as expected, the bank of england keeping its key interest rate at 25 basis points.

also, keeping its purchase plan at 435 billion pounds, the vote was 9-0, so a unanimous vote. >> they illustrate the dilemma mr. carney faces. they think they will have higher inflation and they expect slower growth. >> at the november meeting, that boe made this shift from an easing bias to a neutral stance, basically saying they have a limited tolerance for above target inflation. since that november meeting, sterling has risen 6.5%, and the boe acknowledged that and said that gain could mean less of an overshoot above its 2% target. that does not mean it's willing to look through inflation. limited tolerance was still mentioned. >> yesterday, bloomberg reported that verizon was taking a hard new look at its deal for yahoo!. one possibility was verizon taking $1 billion off of the purchase price. is that realistic? at this point, might verizon

want to take the opportunity to get out of the deal and go hunting for bigger game? >> the hacking scandal is a real problem for yahoo!. if nothing else, it will give verizon the opportunity to come back to the negotiating table, and look long and hard at the books once again of yahoo! to determine if yahoo! is seeing any decline in the user base, which would drive profitability and value for the company. it might be difficult for verizon to walk away. that may still be on the table. what is more likely is that verizon will be able to come back and renegotiate the terms of the deal, including price. >> take us through the options for verizon at this point. what are the realistic options for verizon? >> the most likely is they extract their pound of flesh and reduce the price. the other option is to walk away from the deal. that would have to show discipline from rising

verizon management if they walked. the other thing is to create some sort of legal entity where they can put aol and yahoo! into that entity to try creating a firewall around an unbelievable amount of liability. you don't know how big the infection is here. this is pretty ugly. vonnie: later in the program, we will dig deeper into donald trump's cabinet nominees. will their business credentials translate into success in washington? plus, a new task force addresses the financial risk of climate change. up next, more of the week's top business news with an italian bank taking bold steps to put itself on sounder footing. >> this is a comprehensive plan try and make the bank leaner and maybe meaner. vonnie: this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ vonnie: this is "bloomberg best." i am vonnie quinn. let's continue our global tour of the week's top business stories in italy, where a major bank unveiled an aggressive plan to boost profitability. >> italy's biggest bank has just announced plans to raise 13 billion euros in a rights offer and cut jobs by 2019. why does the bank need to do this? we have been tracking the woes of the italian banking sector quite extensively. >> what we're seeing today is a large comprehensive plan to , de-risk the bank. they are operating on a number of fronts. we saw asset plans with unicredit selling pioneer asset management. that was for about 3.5 billion euros. that is the asset sale front. they will also try to write down a lot of the nonperforming loans, increased coverage ratio,

and they are going to be letting go of 6500 positions in the bank, adding to 14,000 net jobs to be terminated. this is a comprehensive plan to try and make the bank leaner and maybe meaner. >> talk about the capital, where is that going? >> it will quickly disappear. they laid out 12.2 billion euros of one-off charges in the fourth quarter. a lot of that is provisions for bad loans. they're trying to get a number of loans off their books, so they are writing those down. this capital will be used up pretty quickly. it is to reset the bank, get a lot of the bad stuff off the table, and start over with growth. >> goldman sachs has promoted cfo harvey schwartz and david solomon as co-presidents to replace gary cohen. quite a bench at goldman sachs.

at the same time, it is steady as she goes, isn't it? >> goldman sachs is making this move from a position of strength. their mantra from early in the decade was live to fight another day. goldman's revenues have not grown much this decade, but they have preserved the franchise. since 1869 when goldman was founded, the key the franchise is serving clients well. you have 2 co-ceos. one that has done a lot with clients in the investment banking side, david solomon, and the other doing a lot with the trading side, harvey schwartz. who, for the past two years, has been the cfo. >> is this a great time to take over? they've come off a lean period where they have weathered well. or, is it a bad time? look at the stocks since donald trump was elected. is the only place to go is down? >> this is a fantastic time. now we think revenues grow, and

we increased our estimates since the election by over 15%, and we think the stock price hits an all-time high over the next 6-12 months. great time to take over. >> the viacom-cbs deal has collapsed. sherry redstone withdrew from the two companies. shares fell as the merger plans dissolved. dissolved. how much of a surprise was this? it seemed like for many indications at least full steam ahead, then -- >> i guess it is a bit of surprise. we picked up that that les was reluctant to do a deal. he wanted assurances that he was the sherry andl sumner redstone. he wanted to know he could run these combined companies which are big and would need a lot of work, that he could do it without interference. our sense was that she was reluctant for that. the reason the announcement came out this because she, her lawyers, her side, wanted to

make it look like they were out front and the reason the deal fell apart. >> you have these dueling visions. you have les moonves's vision. viacom, what is his vision? what happens to paramount? >> the two main things is he will have to clean it up, so there will be some restructuring and job cuts, and he will push more into international viewing, a place where they might be able to boost themselves and return profitability. likely both companies feel pretty good where they are. >> two japanese companies have seen their stock drop today after being targeted by short-sellers. it has been a pretty active session for the stocks. what has been happening? >> an interesting morning in tokyo in terms of activist short-sellers. we had a report by a local activist short researcher just 30 minutes before the market

opened on a large, but not maybe too well known company called smc corporation questioning the accounting, the earnings outlook, the auditor. about an hour later, we saw a report on the japanese company, and he's gone quite big, a blue-chip japanese company run by a billionaire. again, questioning accounts and asking whether the organic growth is really there for the company. stocks fell quite a lot. not as much as the other one, but it fell about almost 6%, then trimmed the losses by 2%. >> alphabet announcing it is separating its self driving car business into a new unit called waymo in the alphabet family. john krafcik made the announcement. that was at an event in san

francisco. alphabet has been developing autonomous self driving technology for six years. as part of the google x research lab, how does this change things for the self driving car unit itself? >> they will probably have a commercial product soon. they have been talking about "graduating," a term they use for a stand-alone business. i think some of the delay is that alphabet, google parent, is figuring out the logistics and what it takes to build these stand-alone companies. >> shares in sterling have soared after a consortium , including morgan stanley offered as much is $5.5 billion , for a takeover. >> what are the details? >> this offer has been brought by the pacific consortium, 30% share for morgan stanley, kkr, and macquarie group taking up 10%. the consortium is offering $40 to $45 per share.

that is $5.5 billion. they would separately sell their wagering and gaming business. the investors would get cash and a stake in that new business. that would be valued between $1 and $1.60 per share. the consortium will hang on to the lotteries part of that business, which generates two thirds of revenue. >> where does that leave the bid made a couple months ago by tabcorp? >> where indeed. this offer was made in october, $4.5 billion, which it was valued as not as appealing. the fact that there are now two bids on the table illustrates how attractive the space is. >> billionaire rupert murdoch may finally get what he has wanted for years, complete control of sky. 21st century fox has agreed to take over the european broadcaster for $14.6 billion.

no premium to the preliminary offer. what is going on? >> i don't think anybody would expect that they would bump at this time. going forward, fox would need to get 75% of the rest of the shareholders to approve the deal. we reported a couple of days ago that they are open to bumping if they have to. i'm sure fox would prefer to get the deal done at the offer they made, but they are open to bumping, and they might need to. not anything major, not several dollars or pounds, i just think you will see a 2%, 3%, 4% bump if necessary. >> sanofi in talks to buy a swiss drugmaker. that is according to people familiar with the matter. they say a deal could be announced as early as next week. we are hearing this news after j&j walked away from talks. i want to kick off with a chart i've got for you here, very simple. it shows how a number of drugmakers have eyed actelion

for years. obviously, this is an appealing target. does it look like this potential deal has the material to perhaps be successful finally? >> it sounds like the negotiations are very advanced. sanofi is excited to get this deal done. to cross the finish line. whether or not they reach an agreement, anything is still possible. we know that the management is very demanding. they almost reached an agreement with j&j. that fell apart at the 11th hour. let's see what happens with sanofi. ♪

♪ vonnie: you are watching "bloomberg best." i am vonnie

quinn. a climate change task force set in motion by g-20 leaders released its recommendations this week. they are designed to address financial risks posed by climate change and develop climate related financial risk disclosures that companies can use on a voluntary basis. the task force on climate related financial risk disclosures is chaired by michael bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of bloomberg. the parent of bloomberg news. he was joined by mark carney in an exclusive interview with bloomberg's francine lacqua. >> g-20 leaders asked for this task force. they asked for the private sector to find a solution. michael has led the work of the private sector. the solution is by the market, for the market. the expectation is voluntary adoption. i think one thing to remember -- you had $3 trillion u.s. in private capital. you have $20 trillion today

endorsing these recommendations of private capital, so it's that demand. this is the report that is filling the demand to help make the market work much better. >> capitalism will make this work because the investors, the employees, and the customers of companies want to know what they are doing from an environmental perspective. whether they want social investing or impact investing or whatever you care about, if they they are going to make bets, they have to have information. so, it would be difficult for companies to say i will not contribute. the implication is -- what you argue -- are you hiding? >> the election of donald trump means there is less sympathy to this kind of guidance. does it impact -- >> it is hard to argue that trump can cut back what the federal government in america has been doing to address the possibility of real serious climate change.

they have done nothing, almost nothing. the president has tried a handful of things with executive action, but fundamentally all of the progress in america to reduce greenhouse gases, and there has been enormous progress. we have a chance of making our 2021 goals in spite of federal governments and state governments. it has been done at the city government level, but mainly by the private sector, companies and individuals who have adjusted their behavior to try to minimize climate damage and adjusted their business models and their living models as well to what happens in the worst case. >> the new administration can in no way actually deter companies? >> they can make it worse i suppose, but you are not going to bring back coal jobs. the world is stopping burning coal. you can subsidize the coal industry, but not to the extent you will get people to turn around. if you live downwind from a

coal-fired power plant, forget about what is going to happen in 2050. your kids and you right now are having your body damaged, and people are starting to realize that. the same thing has happened with smoking, sugar drinks. the public is a lot smarter than, i think, elected officials have given them credit. they read about this stuff and say that it makes some sense to behave in a slightly different way, modify our behavior to protect ourselves. vonnie: still ahead on "bloomberg best", president-elect donald trump is stocking his cabinet with ceos, and many nominees have ties to big oil. we explore the pros and cons of this approach. next, global perspectives on the state of the markets from some very heavy hitters. they are not sugarcoating what they see. >> europe is in a sad place. low growth, a broken banking system. vonnie: this is bloomberg. ♪

.

♪ vonnie: welcome back to i am vonnieest," quinn. we re-examined in eight number of the interviews. starting with blackstone's jason gray. >> tell me what you expect from industry. >> as we said, i think there will be more of a business focus. more of a push to accelerate growth. i think what we will see is a reduction of taxes both corporate and individual.

some sort of physical stimulus around infrastructure. i think you will see a pullback from regulatory issues. when you look at that, that is likely to lead to higher growth going forward. the challenge for all of us as investors is, what does it mean around deficits, what does it mean around inflation. trade whichtes, they are focused on. you see it playing out in these stock market today. the stock market is an boost about the growth story but in the bond market you see people getting nervous about interest rates and inflation. has this changed the calculus if you well inside the meetings where you and your colleagues and others that blackstone make these investment decisions? what are you doing differently

today then you might have say, six or eight weeks ago? >> well, we had been in the lower for longer environment, low rates, low growth, low inflation. we were beginning to see a tech -- tick up in terms of wages. if growth is higher and interest rates are higher, it does have an impact. showing real estate in particular, you would say " i am probably more comfortable with shorter duration assets, apartments and hotels, am morearket and i nervous about owning a 20-year lease office building which feels like eight bond and does not have the in a fit of rising cash flows as the market moves up." >> rise in cash flows, but also the potential to charge higher rents? >> exactly. >> but you know, it is beyond

that. >> it is what will the energy sector look like. we have seen the banks rally because they may not taste the same restrictions as before. i don't think anybody has a crystal ball, but a lot of us are trying to spend a lot of time focusing on this so we have the best look forward on how to deploy capital. >> what is the tenor in the last four weeks since the election? >> what we have seen since the election actually has been a very significant pickup in volumes and equities and also a rotation. the rotation has been out of defensives into cyclicals. we have seen some energy companies, and we have seen infrastructure, companies that people think will have an infrastructure angle. we have seen a lot of activity around those. >> banking and infrastructure, expectation of a change in

legislation, but oil, energy, or energy policy will be so different that it will change demand? >> i think what you have seen it is a lot of expectations about the president-elect and his policies. things like regulations, financial services, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and people are thinking about them and re-rating them. in a sense. cory: the selloff in the stocks is one of the other characterizations when you look at the s&p and the 50 basis point difference. the initial speculation was maybe trump would go after social media, tax amazon, or regulate netflix and youtube. >> technology traded down, but it was a little more rational in terms of why it traded down initially. because if you look at technology, technology companies

have the highest percentage of foreign trade in terms of exports, so when you look at potentially trump coming in and having a protectionist policy, there was some fear over retaliation in some areas, so a lot of the big global tech companies got hit. but i do think there is a lot of anticipation about the large private technology companies coming in 2017. and, i think, you know, if you think about the size of those companies and the potential size of the ipo's, investors are thinking about positioning. >> what is the biggest risk to 2017? is it monetary policy does not deliver or the banking sector? ?runch time >> i think at the moment it and the way monetary policy is sensible.le quite evolving is working. i think we are in a gentle tightening phase, even the ecb reducing the amount of qe somewhat. and i think on the whole, that is quite good from a banking perspective because the yield curve is rising.

and unless you have a positive sloping u-curve, thinking is kind of a difficult business. i think the worries are more elsewhere. i think the worries are still in chinese credit growth. i was in beijing last week and undoubtedly, things are still moving forward, but it is coming at the expense of a large expansion of credit, something we have to keep an eye on. >> on china, what is your biggest concern? you have this trinity or trilemma or what everyone to call it. renminbi going down, outflows accelerating, and reserves going down, how do you fix this? >> will i think the chinese at the moment are sticking plaster to it and taking various measures to reduce the outflows, whether preventing people from using their credit cards in hong kong or whatever. there are micro measures going on, but in due course, we are going to have to acknowledge that credit is too high, and they will probably have to raise

rates. >> two of your rivals, j.p. morgan and bank of america last week indicated they were having a very solid quarter in trading. how are things going for morgan stanley? >> things are going fine. i think there is over exuberance about how well people are doing. underlying, the flows, yes, they have picked up since the election, but only marginally up on the year. we are getting an increased share of that, particularly fixed income, but i don't think this is a significant pickup and activity since last quarter. >> you just returned from europe. what did you pick up there? >> europe is in a sad place, low growth, broken banking system. 80% of lending and continental europe is inverse the u.s.,

where we have a vibrant capital market. there banks are not capitalized or have not gotten rid of nonperforming loans, they are a drain on liquidity for the economy. there is some real sense of despair as a result, particularly in italy, to result the banking issues. clients want to buy into the sector and see a way ahead, so you are seeing a repair of the bank balance sheets. the downside is that probably because of brexit you won't see development from capital markets for a while. >> what worries you now about brexit? >> just the uncertainty. i mean i think you can model almost every option that you think might happen. the sooner there is some clarity and direction of travel and what the ambition is means you can discard some options and prosecute other ones.

to make sure that for clients and staff that are impacted, they can begin to plan their affairs and it can be business as usual. the sooner we get to clarity -- >> what kind of clarity? or example, a buffer. we know mark carney was working on some transitional agreement. with that be helpful for banks? >> we will see if that is in the planning. we think it needs to be. for instance, when you think of the regulatory reforms we have been through, when the reforms are finalize, there is two years of implementation so people can collect information and presented, so it is difficult to think that something as significant as changing the relationship with europe that you can sort of say on day zero we are moving from that system and on day one you can accommodate everything that has changed within your system and so on. so i think there has to be some time of transition and again, in

terms of the planning, if there is not a belief that there will be some transition, you have to plan for the fact that there will be none and that in fact accelerates the decision. ♪

♪ vonnie: you are watching bloomberg best. i am vonnie quinn. donald trump moved forward with several key cabinet nominations this week. a team with considerable expertise in business but not so much in government. let's go over some of the choices the president elect made this week in the vigorous debate they and spark. >> trumps cabinet is starting to look more like a boardroom.

more like a board room than a cabinet. rex tillerson is a likely secretary of state nomination. wilbur ross, commerce secretary. have you ever seen anything like this with this injection of senior business leadership in washington? they may be watching right now. >> there is no doubt that it is a different group of people coming in to run the government. we will see what happens. i do know many of these people. they are successful business people. being successful in business does not mean you will be successful in government. being successful in government does not necessarily mean you will be successful in business. sometimes this is people going to government and they do well, and sometimes they do not do as well. >> you have the cabinet looking like a c suite, the corporate tax rate lower. they are going to grow like the corporate tax rate go down. they will do well. is that the correct linkage? >> in the euphoria postelection, everyone is happy for who won the election. they look like they would do well in government, but you don't know.

when i worked in the carter administration several hundred years ago, no doubt before you were born, jimmy carter had a democratic congress and we thought we would get all these things through congress. it turned out the democrats in congress have their own ideas. it may turn out the republicans in congress have their own ideas as well. >> how many times have we heard people say, i am going to blow up washington, d.c., and change things. these people are not creators. i am going to create things. someone comes along and says i'm going to create an administration like an all-star c-suite, troy? >> it is hard to see it as a negative. there were a lot of people who were career politicians in the past administration, organizing, things that had nothing to do with job creation or the people in charge of defense to not have military backgrounds per se. not that it makes it better, but

doesn't it make sense to have someone in charge of the nsa or other organization to have spent their career in security? overseeing security, you know, someone like linda mcmahon head of as ba she has really experience creating jobs. >> you are talking about wwe. right? >> hey, it created jobs, entertainment industry, but here is a woman who was successful in the private sector, try to run for senate, but could not win. now is in a position where she can help create jobs for small businesses, jobs for people in small business which is very important for growth, as you know. >> president-elect trump's cabinet is coming together. rick perry, considered friendly to the oil industry will be nominated as energy secretary. >> big oil is dominating this, whether it is the liver it strategy or just coincidence, it

is pretty amazing how many people from the energy sector are going to run this government. >> you have the most senior u.s. oilmen as the most senior u.s. diplomat, and people will ask what that means for u.s. foreign-policy. if anything. you have these other texas,ments, mostly from an oil-rich state. you have rick perry at energy, the former attorney general of oklahoma at the epa, and the oil friendly guy interior. so people are asking what that means. it means probably a lot less regulation. >> is that what it means? we have some problems we probably need to fix. these guys probably understand those problems. maybe what we are talking about is changed regulation. >> there will be our lot of regulatory change, that is for sure. they back coal production, want to see pipelines built. to move oil down from canada and around the u.s. i think it will be a much more friendly environment for the oil and gas industry.

the real question will rex tillerson's experience at exxon especially in russia where he did a lot of deals. will it translate into a changed relationship with russia for the u.s.? >> the rhetoric is that all of a sudden you will get land opening up, new regulations for oil, oil flooding the markets in the u.s. is that the correct story? >> i don't think that is. what we have that is unique in the united states is that oil markets are driven by supply and demand, as opposed to opec that might make a decision on cutting supply because they are national producers and have the ability to control it. here in the united states, you have producers who are responding specifically because they can make a profit or not. >> if we see less regulation, less onerous climate regulation, that they have to comply with will they change their , longer-term business plan and model aced on those kinds of

things? >> no, because what they are fundamentally looking at over the longer term is what kind of profitability do they have. if regulation is imposing significant costs that affects their competitiveness, that could be an issue. but today, for example, the area of production most likely to come back into production quickly is more unconventional production, shale gas, shale oil, in the united states particularly because ironically the decision by opec and non-opec producers to cut supply, which is going to bring the price of oil back into a range where the average price of production of unconventional production is once again competitive. >> the cabinet will test the theory that ceo's just by virtue that they were ceo makes them better at business. they have some magic sauce they can put into government. >> give me an example of why there is so much more difficulty? how much harder is it?

he goes to washington and tries to make the same kind of decision. >> you could take over almost any major company today with a relatively small team and you have the board with you, and you can make changes in that company. in a relatively short time. in government, it is different. you go into these agencies, because so much of it is directed by the policies of congress and the oversight by congress despite the fact the republicans control all that, unless the president has some magic sauce, the republicans in congress are just going to roll over and agree everything he proposes and every limitation is on them vis-a-vis's these agencies and their policies. they implement the policies and the laws the commerce and the president agreed to. so i think that is the difficult challenge for these people who are used to going into a company like wilbur ross taking over a company that is distressed and being able to make fundamental change very quickly.

it is not the way it works. >> i think if you're going to be a president, you should have the best people sitting around the table. i think it is a mistake for the american public to constantly be told if you work for an oil company, a bank, that that automatically makes you bad. you want the best team. and so, you know, honestly i think it is a good thing because a lot of these people are very qualified people who are patriots who want to help the country. they will not try to help their former company. that is not what they're going to try to do. they are going to -- these are people with deep knowledge who will hopefully do a great job. >> do you think now when you look at that shift in terms of wall street that this is a bit of a reset moment for the industry more broadly in terms of what the american people are expecting or likely to see? >> i think it is a reset moment for how businesses are going to be treated. so, i have always believed, you know -- 145 million people work in america, 125 million work for private enterprise, 20 million work for government. ok? and we hold them in high regard,

firemen, sanitation, police, and teachers. but if you did not have the 125 you could not pay for the other 20. so, i think business is a huge positive development for society, and for years it has like theybeaten down were terrible people or something like that. so i think it is a good reset. ♪

♪ >> i am just taking a quick look at what is going on with the bloomberg screen, a function that is an old favorite of mine, the function. i'm buying the bbdxy, the bloomberg dollar index and selling the euro index. if i take it down to a one-day trade, the spread is blowing out. >> there are 30,000 functions on the bloomberg, and we always enjoy showing you our favorites on bloomberg television. maybe they will become your favorites?

quic for fast insight into timely topics. this week, driverless cars. ♪ >> the thought of cars without drivers is both exciting and terrifying. there is now little doubt that robots will one day be behind the wheel, hope for the elderly, disabled, and bad drivers. car companies like bmw are pouring billions into developing vehicles that use sensors to react to traffic and people. luxury lines have already taken the lead, they've added features like hands-free driving and self parking cars. a driverless feature is so appealing that it is not just automakers. tech giant google has logged over 2 million miles testing its cars.

the guys who make iphones are involved too. it is also a technology that saves lives. >> driving accidents are the number one cause of death for young people. >> currently driver error is blamed in 94% of crashes. globally, around 1.2 million people die every year on the roads. here is the argument. this speed of invention is overtaking the ability to regulate. the first car capable of talking to each other will be driving soon, but the rules of the road have yet to be finalized. vehicles being tested came under scrutiny after a fatal tesla accident. there is also a major ethical dilemma. can we really hand life or death robot?n-making over to a hit?oes it

the question of liability can also disrupt the insurance industry. the big automakers see a changing dynamic between vehicles and human. they see autonomous pods replacing the family car in the driveway, reducing pollution, easing traffic, and saving lives along the way. ♪ >> that was just one of the many quic takes on the bloomberg. you can also find them on bloomberg.com with all the latest deals and business analysis 24 hours a day. that is all for "bloomberg best" this week. thank you for watching. i'm vonnie quinn, this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: he is an author and national correspondent for "the atlantic," where he writes about politics and social issues. his latest cover story is about president barack obama. it is called "my president was black: a history of the first african-american white house and of what came next." i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. it is great to have you back in america. congratulations on the national book award. ta-nehisi: thank you.