♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the unveiling of president trump's plan to overhaul the u.s. tax code. the white house considers this effort one of their biggest priorities to boost economic growth. the proposals at revealed earlier today were dramatic, they called for sharply lower rates for businesses and individuals. also eliminating key tax breaks. it represents a first moved to begin negotiations with congress. i am joined by dennis berman of the wall street journal peter , coy of business week and from

from the washington post. what did the president and trump administration announce today? >> they announced major changes to the corporate tax system and the individual tax system. they lower the corporate tax rate, the rate businesses pay from 35% to 15%. they also allowed small businesses that pay through the individual income tax system to use that 15% rate as well. they think that will create more hiring, investing, and more money to slosh around in the economy to create more revenue. on the individual income tax side they proposed eliminating tax brackets that currently exist, replacing them with three brackets. and incentivizing people to no longer itemize their deductions and a host of other things they think will help the middle class and low income people. charlie: do most people think this will stimulate economic growth? >> a lot of people believe if you cut taxes, inevitably people and businesses will have more

cash to spend and invest. but if you cut them by this much and it leads to this much of a drop in revenue, one budget forecaster said it would lead to a $5.5 trillion drop in revenue over 10 years. are you going to create such a big hole in the deficit it ends up harming in the long-term. >> that one page document was remarkable in its brevity. if i wrote a book report in seventh grade, it might not pass muster. a number of intentions. it had been rumored there was more detail about the specifics. for instance, the ability to deduct one state and taxes from federal returns. that is something they would take off the table. that is important to people who live in states like california and new york. they pay huge state and local taxes.

that document said we will start doing a listening tour around america to hear what people have to say which seems sensible to , me. but in my mind, it was a pretty overt admission that this is just the start of the negotiation. we know from following trump, if you start a negotiation, started at the extreme end. charlie: the president has said repeatedly we will do health care next and then taxes. at the same time we do health care we will do taxes and infrastructure. >> the thought was that health care would help pay for taxes. at the same time we do health clearly that is not happening anymore. it seems as though this tax plan is not going to achieve what trump said he wanted to achieve during the campaign. he said he wanted to actually help the middle class, there are be no absolute tax cut for the rich, that is what steve mnuchin said. there is a little bit of help here for the middle class.

primarily the change in the standard deduction. the first $24,000 you earn could be tax-free, which is nice. but compare that to the enormous cuts that will benefit the rich. they are getting rid of the estate tax entirely, by the way. which is paid almost exclusively by the very richest americans. they are getting rid of the top corporate -- -- personal tax rate goes down to 35%. the biggest is this idea of allowing pass-through businesses. doctors offices, lawyers offices, partnerships -- there are several types of pass-through businesses that would qualify. right now they pay the personal income tax rate on whatever profits their businesses make. instead of that, they will pay the same low corporate tax rate. it creates an enormous incentive for them to restructure their

businesses so instead of paying a salary they can claim it as business income and saving on -- save enormous amounts of money. charlie: donald trump never said he was a deficit hawk. >> no, he did not. but he did vow, he told the washington post he would eliminate the federal debt. not just reduce it, but eliminate it within 10 years. >> one thing important to remember, whenever you do tax reform there are winners and losers. this document only tells us about the winners. we do not know whose ox will get gored. italy's happens whenever you do tax reform. those are the hard questions with a have to answer. charlie: the president has talked about bringing corporate money back home, but has not been brought back because of tax laws and is sitting in banks around the world. what does he do and propose to do and what has he announced for that? >> he proposes a tax holiday.

a one-time deal, bring your cash overseas into the u.s., even though it is sitting in banks in new york city. aside from that bring it over , from there and we will give you a special one-time tax break and get those dollars to work. one thing not specified in the plan, and there are lots of them, there is no mechanism to enforce that if they spend -- that it actually be spent on capital goods, investment, employment. that is the main question from a business perspective, is the spending created by these tax cuts really going to productive capital uses, or will it be used to buy back shares in dividends, like we have seen for the last decade in corporations across the country? charlie: the price of the share goes up. >> it is fascinating, microsoft share count in the last 17 years has gone down 25%. charlie: most of their own is bought back? >> returning money to the shareholders without creating more jobs.

probably the answer is no. charlie: is this politically feasible? >> i would say not. clearly, this plan is not feasible. it is drilling a hole in the bottom of the lifeboat. it is just going to kill the revenue. dennis said there may be offsets to it, but spending cuts are hard to imagine. remember a month or so ago when trump said he would cut $54 and billion in spending to offset $54 billion more in defense? the howls of outrage -- $54 billion is a tiny amount of money compared to the revenue lost that would come from this. in in order to get it done, he an in order to get it done, he would have to show that it would and not add to deficits beyond a 10 year window. hundred and if he cannot show

you a you that you have to get 60 votes in the senate. he does not have 60 votes in the senate. he is lucky to get the republicans at 52. >> do we remember paul ryan as a deficit hawk? [laughter] >> in days gone by. charlie: if in fact trump had his wishes, where we get the revenue? >> from economic growth. charlie: exactly. that is a neutral political idea. >> hillary clinton was wrong in her campaign because she would not even talk about economic growth. that has a basic appeal. to get to 3% growth, which we have been way under for a long time, it would be impressive. charlie: what would it do if we got the 3% economic growth? >> presumably we would have more tax revenue to fill the hole. but would businesses spend as they did before? charlie: be right back. ♪ charlie: we continue with a

now look at president trump's foreign policy as they near the 100 day milestone this saturday. the principles guiding his foreign policy are still unclear. he surprised the world by ordering strikes on syria in response to president assad's use of chemical weapons.

he has engaged in high-stakes issues with china. and economic policies as leverage to get president xi to pressure north korea. they have put all options, including military action, on the table as tensions rise with pyongyang. and then there are questions of ties between the trump campaign and russia, which complicate possibilities with president putin. counterterrorism, riskier raids and decentralized decision-making giving control to military commanders to make tactical choices. much remains unknown, including the fate of the iran nuclear deal and the paris climate change records. joining me to talk about this, ian bremmer, the president of eurasia group. and katty kay, anchor for bbc world news america. i am thrilled have both of them back on this program. i will begin with you. what can this president look at in foreign policy and say, this

is a clear victory, win, achievement? katty: i think the biggest achievement is that he has learned what he did not know. he has learned the world is more complicated than the policies he campaigned on. that is true partly domestically but much more true when it comes to the international stage. he sat down with president xi and realized the north korea situation was more complicated than he realized that he was prepared to admit it was a learning curve. that has influenced much of what he has done and said on the foreign policy stage. he came in with a clear nationalist, populist, america-first ideal, and he shifted on that. he shifted to one of more engagement, more realization he has to engage with america's allies to get results for america. rather than one specific thing he has done, i would say that is the most important thing, the

learning curve that he has gone through and realized he has gone through. ian: no disagreement with that from a structural perspective. but he got rid of the transpacific partnership right at the beginning, massive potential trade deal, got rid of it. bombed syria. charlie: they do not have to get rid of it, it never had been achieved. ian: but america's allies in north america, south america, asia, 40% of the world's gdp was strongly committed to it. he comes in and says it is dead, killed it. different than saying he won't name china a currency manipulator, does not do that. clearly, the u.s.-russia deal on syria, on chemical weapons abrogated or put in place -- 2013, the syrian government uses chemical weapons, he engaged some strikes. and, his most important meeting

of his presidency so far with xi jinping was treated with respect, dignity, and they bought themselves some time. furthermore, by pressuring the chinese on north korea, they have gotten the chinese to be prepared to respond with greater pressure against north koreans. there are a lot of places where trump has made big mistakes in foreign policy in terms of handling meetings and phone calls, not knowing what is going on. charlie: even extending into the last week or two as he reaches 100 days? is he still making serious mistakes in terms of phone calls? ian: i think he is still embarrassing himself occasionally and making statements that do not comport with reality. katty: obviously. ian: when he came in place, you spoke with both me and katty in the run-up, domestic policy will be hard to move the needle much.

but foreign policy could be really volatile. there has been learning as katty suggested, there have not been any crises so far, but he has handled issues confident. flynn is gone, mcfarlane is gone. bannon is off the committee. those moves make people who understand foreign policy a little more comfortable. charlie: he listens to mattis and tillerson. ian: in addition to tpp, we do have trade moves against canada. and we clearly have a more hawkish -- charlie: we have trade moves against canada? ian: i think so, there have been big issues with canadians in terms of dairy farmers that need

to be addressed that were not being addressed. soft lumber is certainly not new. if you're going to pick a fight on trade in the run-up to 100 days you do not want to pick on china right now because number one, you bought some time and are waiting on how north korea will play out. also, it could go badly. you pick on a canada with an issue you have leverage on, you can say i have done something for my base, and at the same time, it is not a disaster. charlie: nafta remains to be seen. ian: you have two anonymous sources in the administration saying he is thinking about an executive order to withdraw the u.s. from nafta, that is absolutely not happening. that is stagecraft in the run up to 100 days. it shows pressure on canada, mexico, but no way to do it. katty: it is unlikely. all the language we have seen

shows they want to renegotiate nafta. it is an odd move, it moved the canadian dollar and peso down. share prices were off. it is a slightly rash thing to do if you are not intending to pull out of nafta, to leak to members of the press they are drawing up an executive order that is considering america withdrawing from nafta and also leaking to the press it was drawn up under the auspices of steve bannon. you are right, the personnel moves on the national security side are probably one of the other big victories that we have a more normalized national security team. a respected national security team. general flynn was seen as someone whose appointment was curious, to say the least. it shows there are odd things

the administration can do. charlie: back to china, do we know what was achieved in that conversation in palm beach, other than two world leaders of the most powerful and important nations in the world getting to know each other, which is a crucial thing to do? katty: the chinese came and made offers in terms of investment in the u.s. that the white house turned down. they said the problem between us is too big, we are not going to take a few billion dollars as a way of solving this and make us look indebted to you. the other thing is the pressure on north korea. the white house went in and said, you have to put more pressure on north korea. if you do not, we will take retaliatory action. whether they can do that under wto rules is questionable, but

they seem to have got something from the chinese in terms of action against north korea, which is the biggest foreign-policy challenge the president faces. ian: the u.s. had taken taiwan off the table. trump took currency manipulation off the table. more broadly, they're looking for market access. charlie: back to the one china policy, no longer talking about currency manipulators. ian: they are looking to access china that the chinese have more in the u.s. the chinese not ready to move on that, but the u.s. says we expect you to take north korea seriously. they are increasing their nuclearization capabilities and their cyber attack capabilities, which is dangerous. the chinese never thought obama would escalate. they recognize that trump might. charlie: we believe, understand

that china appreciates and shares the united states' idea that something has to be done about north korea, having deliverable nuclear warheads? katty: it shares shares the idea something has to be done. it suits china to have some instability on the korean peninsula. they do not want the collapse of the north korean regime they do , not want a unified korea or a holdover of american forces on their border or north korean refugees coming across. there are lots of reasons, china and america seem to be cooperating on north korea. but it would be a mistake for this administration to think they have identical purposes. ian: a couple things will happen, you will have an -- a south korean election. the outcome of that, you will have either a left-wing president or center-right president, both of whom are more

attached to beijing. they have challenges with the u.s. defense position. the second point, wilbur ross, who is not gary cohn, he is clearly more hawkish, a more economic nationalist than the markets would like. he has 100 days to work on china to get more market access, come up with a better deal. i suspect that the end of this 100 days when the chinese are getting close to their own chinese leadership transition in beijing, you will not have meaningful cooperation from the north koreans, even though the chinese may be trying to bring it about. and you will not have a significant deal between the u.s. and china that they both think is acceptable on trade. i would advise trump, give them another 100 days. if they do not do that now you , have an executive order on steel, maybe one on aluminum, where they are showing they are

dumping, giving unfair supports -- toward the end of this year is when i would expect it would be much harder on day 200 to say u.s. and china are on a reasonable path. katty: for them, the nuclear arsenal is an existential issue. kim jong-un sees the country's survival as being based on that. charlie: what has happened to russia? the sanctions are still in. trump came in, refusing to say anything bad about putin or russia. katty: he did not. he has talked about russia, but as far as my memory serves me, he has not said anything about putin specifically. even since the syria attack. but clearly the relationship -- ian: tillerson went to moscow, putin did not say he would meet

with them but at the last minute, did. the message has been sent that they would like to see if there is an ability to engage. the nature of politics in the united states with the ongoing investigation into a number of the people around trump, the conflicts of interest, make it virtually impossible to get a deal done between the u.s. and russia. charlie: where do those investigations stand? katty: the fascinating thing over the last 24 hours, jason chaffetz coming out and giving a tough line on the white house, saying we have to get this documentation on general flynn and why he did not give an accurate account of himself and his dealings with russia and turkey when it came to his national security clearance. charlie: he did not provide information he was receiving money from these governments. katty: no, he filled out the forms and they took him at face value.

i am not sure how the white house security processes were, they will come under scrutiny. the investigations continue. so far, there is no evidence anybody close to trump, with trump's knowledge, cooperated with the russians to change the outcome of the american election. charlie: no evidence that anyone close to trump cooperated with the russians. katty: with trump's knowledge or jared kushner's knowledge to affect the outcome of the elections. we still do not know if carter page or paul manafort did. but every time the white house appears obstructionist on this issue, as it did today, saying we will not release documents to the intelligence committees, a gives people who suspect there might be something there more reason to think the white house is hiding something.

charlie: people and now will be called to testify in the house and senate, i presume. ian: we will see. they have been slow in rolling it out. katty: you had the top senators saying he would not give immunity to general flynn. at least on the account of general flynn, they won't give him immunity. these are not going to go away, these investigations. nor is the fbi's investigation. this will hang over the white house beyond the 100 days' mark. some things they are doing has not made the story go away. charlie: it seems they're trying to slow it down. katty: what are they trying to do nothing and this is a reflection of president trump having said he wanted a better relationship with president putin, than having admiration for him personally? it is not clear what the white

house is trying to hide, if it is trying to hide anything. its behavior has not been totally transparent. ian: on the issue of taxes, they clearly do not want -- all they see is downside by actually releasing it. yes, a lot of people are suspicious, but they have the ability to say fake news, biased media, all the rest. we saw today from the treasury secretary -- there are not many. mnuchin came out and said we said before we are making it clear, under no circumstances are we going to release these taxes. we have been transparent on finances. if i was advising, i would say that is a winning strategy. on the case of spicer saying it is too much to give all the phone records of everyone flynn talked to. it is unreasonable for him to

say that, yet it is a reasonable strategy. trump quite popular among republicans, you can say in a democracy you should not be doing it. but that would also be true with the conflicts of interest ivanka and jared have with their businesses. it does not mean he will be politically punished for doing it. it is not a feasible strategy. it will not go away. but the real issue is that it will not make traction with russia. the danger is not so much a smoking gun we will find out in six months. the danger is to the extent putin can cause problems for trump, he is likely to. if there is information that could be leaked, i suspect it will start coming out. you will see it get ugly. charlie: then we had erdogan in turkey winning that election, achieving more authoritarian

power. what role does he want to play and how does that affect the united states? ian: as with putin, trump has the idea that erdogan is a good guy to be cozying up to. that was after erdogan won that referendum specifically attacking the west. europe, but the west generally. katty: he called him up to congratulate him. there is something about trump's session with strong authoritative figures. ian: what does erdogan want? i will say he stole the referendum. he won by 1.5 points. there were shenanigans around the ballots, and the media, organizing opposition rallies, none of it was allowed. you now have opposition parties in turkey saying it is not

acceptable, we want to go to the tribunal. erdogan has packed those courts, it is not going to happen. he does not get control until he wins the election. until that happens over the next year this will be ugly. , charlie: a lot depends on what the chinese are prepared to do. a strike is not necessarily an attractive alternative. turning to the iranians and the iranian deal, trump said he would withdraw from that deal. he has not talked about that much. has he changed his mind? katty: the iranian deal is another part of the administration's learning curve. he has not talked about it publicly. but we are a long way from the iranian nuclear deal being "the worst deal america ever signed." he may have said that about nafta, too.

the understanding has been during the course of the last 100 days, it is a deal he would like to renegotiate if possible. it is not clear he can actually do that because there are other countries involved. but he went away from just pulling america straight out of it. charlie: they are essentially adhering to the deal. the question always raised, what are you prepared to do about iranian behavior? ian: he has been prepared to put additional sanctions to the iranians. their missile tests are in breach of the un security council and they are on the terrorist list, they support hezbollah, and the rest. it is clearly an administration taking a tougher position toward iran, the saudis, the sunni monarchies and egyptians are

much happier with trump than with obama. he shook that hand, it was not merkel, right? katty: a fantastic guy, right? ian: what has he accomplished? the support of authoritarianism? he also has a really good relationship with abe, and that is not authoritarianism. it is based on concern about china, about abe said i am your buddy, the first that will come to visit you, i am a major head of state, focuses on the strong military, did not hit him on the economic side. katty: the worst visit he had with angela merkel. he has since called her to talk

about north korea to talk about russia, it is part of the learning curve realizing you do need your allies and that the world is more complicated than you might have thought it was. it was reflected in the call he have this week to angela merkel. charlie: a chinese national in palm beach said to me that trump listened and listened and listened to xi. ian: it reminded me of when trump went to the oval office and assault obama the first time. he suddenly understood the gravity of the situation and needed to change his operating principles. xi jinping coming to mar-a-lago, same thing. after the meeting, the tweets and all of that -- it may not be presidential, but the idea he can act like a responsible adult when it is truly required is something we should appreciate. katty: foreign diplomats that have had dealings with the white

house, i am hearing them say, the italian visit, it feels like a more normal white house to deal with. people who were going in and out of that building in comparison to how it felt 97 days ago or whatever it is, there is been a noticeable change. there has been a distinct difference. there is still a major issue in staffing, not enough personnel in the state department. but in terms of the dealings. charlie: thank you for coming, great to see you. ♪ charlie: james ponsoldt is a

writer and director of a new film "the circle," it is an adaptation of dave eggers' 2013 will best-selling novel. emma watson discovers the dark side of the corporation and the seemingly benevolent cofounder, played by tom hanks. here is a look at the trailer. >> i am a believer in the perfectibility of human beings. at the circle, we can finally realize our potential. when we are our best selves, there is not a problem we cannot

solve. we can cure any disease, and hunger. imagine the human rights implications. the possibilities are endless. >> your payment. $78.13 and the bill was for $78.31. >> you got the job at the circle. >> have a drink, have a good time, and stay excited. you are at the circle. >> you will get the hang of it, believe me, you are doing fine. >> come visit me sometime. >> they would think i was there to clean the toilets. but no one really likes you. >> your work has been exemplary. but you are missing from several events. my dad had an episode and i had the help out. >> is that related to his ms? >> we looked into your parent situation and we have an idea. he could come onto the circle's health plan. >> you are a valued part of the circle, we care about everybody

you care about. mae has only been with us a few months, but she has made quite an impression. mae, do think you behave better or worse when you are being watched? we have cameras in place all over the world right now. >> we used to go on adventures, have fun, and see things, now it is filtered through this. does this seem ok to you? charlie: i am pleased to have james ponsoldt at this table for the first time. give us a sense of what it is saying about high-tech companies. james sure. : it is an adaptation of dave eggers' novel, the journey of a woman in a dead-end job, living with her parents, a millennial adrift who gets her dream job working with a hypothetical tech company that subsumes its competitors. it is a story about transforming

mae from a dream job to a religion to a glass prison of celebrity wins chee becomes the -- celebrity when she becomes the public face of the company. charlie: she goes from step to step to step, from great love or enthusiasm to something less and that? she is a surrogate for us, the audience and our own relationship to technology. she is under a magnifying glass because she is working in a tech company. charlie: what was dave eggers trying to tell us? james: dave was writing a satire, a darkly funny book. he was asking a lot of questions about the world we have created. that recognizes all of the wonderful things technology -- charlie: the idea we can do everything and solve every problem. james: who doesn't like the idea about going to the moon, exploring the bottom of the ocean, understanding the mind, curing cancer? why do these exact same companies also have to monitor

us, gather our data, and monetize it? why is that part of the transaction? charlie: why do they have to be all-knowing? james: it helps them market to us, be better consumers, that is one thing. charlie: when you decided to make this adaptation to film, it was so big and such a success. what were the challenges and what are the risks? james: a great novel like the circle is a big, unwieldy, ambitious collection of challenging ideas, characters, and plots. to literally adapt this book into a film would've made it a miniseries. for me it was focusing on the central journey of the protagonist. her hopes, dreams, wants, fears, and focusing in on those things to focus more on the character than on the company. charlie: did you write the screenplay on the spec? james: i did, and then dave and i worked together after that.

he was a wonderful collaborator from the very beginning. dave's urging was to not be blindly or literally adhering to the book. he said his favorite film adaptations were ones that respected the themes of the book but had their own sense of invention and understood that novels and films are completely different mediums. charlie: is a satire, horror? james: it is satirical, it has a sense of humor, a dark sense of humor. it is a character study, a drama, thriller, of the paranoid conspiracy theory variety. charlie: today it is more appropriate than when it was written. james: when it came out they ore calling it swiftian orwellian, and strangely that is what has happened in the world in the last year. whether it is revelation about

us being surveilled, or what is happening in europe. charlie: or fake news. james: it has really shifted. who plays god and who does not? james: what god do you worship? charlie: how about casting? james: we were fortunate to have emma watson as our lead. i love her, i have seen all of the "harry potter" films. for the people her age, the people that populate these companies, she is their age. she is someone they have grown up with and i admire choices she has made both in careers, and her own personal -- she is a political figure, a voice of her generation, speaks her mind. she is a wonderful collaborator. and tom hanks was a dream to have. charlie: why? hanks isr myself, tom my favorite actor of all time. "big" was the first film i watched over and over. i was 10 years old, i had to

keep watching it. he is america's most trusted person, one of our favorite actors. he is aware of that image and able to play a role like this, a different version of the film, he would be a mustache-twirling villain. but he plays someone utterly sincere in his democratizing the world with social justice. he wants to make information available to people equally. but he is perhaps a fundamentalist. you can see why people would follow tom hanks. charlie: indeed, the idea is that these are good ideas but he wants to be the messiah that brings them to us. james: his character is someone that in a different generation would've been at the forefront of any protest movement. someone are deeply believes in equality and technology's ability to bring it to us. he is at the forefront of a

company making a lot of money as well, which makes that idealism and utopianism muddy. charlie: and makes you think you are all-powerful. james: i am not a technophobe, i love technology, have plenty of friends at work at tech companies. but there is this sense i have gotten visiting them, it is like being at an undergraduate student protest at times. there is something idealistic that a cynic could say is naive, lacks experience. the difference is, if you are at a company worth billions of dollars, you can really impose your will on the world, for better or for worse. charlie: there is the threat right there. let's take a look, this is when she meets with tom hanks and patton oswalt for the first time. >> tom and i want to talk to you about an idea. but before we do, is there anything you want to tell us?

>> i have been here before. >> lies get us in trouble, the things we hide. i know you have been in here before. now that i know your secret, do you feel better or worse? >> better, relieved, actually. >> i am a believer in the perfectibility of human beings. when we are our best selves, the possibilities are endless there is not a problem we cannot , solve. we can cure any disease and end hunger. without secrets, without the hoarding of knowledge and information, we can finally realize our potential. charlie: when you look at this and the idea you're being seen, what was the impact of that on you? james: it is a great question.

one could argue, some of the characters in this film, it makes you your best self. when we have seen these ideas put into practice, i think of stories i have heard about the night of the cold war, when they have the greatest collection of data on their citizens known to man, roughly 1/3 of the population were informants to the government. everyone would be on their best behavior. it made them their best selves, makes for a superficial way -- charlie: the lives of others. james: a great film. charlie: in terms of making the film, was there a sense -- what was the risk you are trying to avoid? james: in films that are slightly speculative or deal with technology, sometimes they

fetishize the idea of the future. or they fetishize the gadgets when they should focus on the characters and relationships in psychology of the people. if you cannot see yourself in the characters it is just a lot , of shiny objects. charlie: you saw yourself as mae. james: absolutely. i always approach of film from the position of not judging the main character. even if i wildly disagree with their bad decisions, i want to at least give them an opportunity to articulate themselves and empathize with them and try to understand them. in the case of mae it was easy. it is easy to see myself in the parts of her that her idealistic, it is the part of her that is desperately afraid of not making her mark on the world, feeling like she is not connected enough to people around her, the desire to be known, that essential loneliness she thinks might be

cured by being connected more and more, those parts of her i think are very human and a lot of people if they are honest with themselves -- charlie: are these opinions about technology or human ambition? james: both, technology can give a platform to who we are, better or worse. it can amplify your humanity, whatever that means. the aspirational qualities that people use, connectedness, it is a pseudo-spiritual bent. it is us trying to make better versions of ourselves through technology. charlie: what is the journey from coming in and recognizing there is something about this place and not accepting it, to where you are accepting it and are fully in? what is that transition? james: for mae, she got a dream job. i do not know anyone in 2017 that would not want to work for a company like this.

people i went to college with peace corps,or would absolutely work for a company like this. when you have health care for you and your family, free concerts, free food, the best and smartest minds coming in, everyone would want that. mae has really lucked out, won the lottery in that regard. during the course of the film the noose slowly tightens. there is a doctrine, a pseudo-spiritual bent to it, a cult of thought. a groupthink and a pressure to share more. charlie: do they pull her away from friendships and family? james: she does it to herself. to some degree, yes. because why would you want to leave when life is that good at work? that is perhaps one of the great ironies of surveillance and privacy. we have assumed or in the entertainment we have watched it would be the government that is surveilling us, taking our information. but in fact, we have been complicit and happily, happily given up all of our information

for the ease of modern living. charlie: in writing this did you go to dave's book or seek out conversations with people who are living in the world that you are writing? james: the primary resource was dave's book. i talked to hundreds of friends that work at these companies, i visited some of them. there is a scene in the film when mae goes in for her job interview, which is a series of seemingly schizophrenic questions. who is your favorite beatle? sushi or soylent? would you go on a date with me? how would you explain what you do to your grandmother, who does not use technology? it is not the answer but the thought process. the seeming inanity of the questions, there is a tricky logic to it. charlie: tell me about the worldview of the tom hanks character, eamon.

and the worldview of mae. james: it is a great question. mae in the beginning of the film says she is afraid of unfulfilled potential. she has met someone that believes in our limitless potential, the ability of technology to just share everything, and that we can meet it together communally. believes,at eamon that all information should be recorded and disseminated. it is a very democratic and radical -- charlie: helps you realize your potential. james: a very disruptive notion. born out of the best of desires. mae by the end of the film she has both adopted that mindset and taken it perhaps to the next level. she does not have the memory we all have. or that we are all haunted by, being able to live a completely private, un-surveilled life.

she knows a much different existence, and her children will know a much different life. charlie: what is your moment of awakening? james: she makes a mistake, she is challenged by a friend of hers in the film. he is a 25-year-old who works with his hands, a hipster who makes deer antler chandeliers, a neo-luddite. i do not think that is a viable alternative, either. it is not a tenable existence. he called her out on not being honest to herself. she goes out and makes a big mistake, is arrested, and almost dies. she is potentially going to lose her job and then she volunteers to be a guinea pig for the company and wear a camera and document her life as someone that works at the circle and share everything all the time. charlie: this is mae broadcasting her life to millions of people.

>> good morning, everyone. the sun is shining and i definitely need my coffee. we are in my third week of transparency and we're up to 2 million viewers. did i tell you i am not a morning person? among all of those viewers -- hi mom, hi dad. say hello to everyone. >> hi, circle. >> we match. >> this is great, very stylish. goodbye. >> i love you guys, see you later. you are fascinated by great writers. a very good writer, you also did david foster wallace. the challenge there was?

james: obviously he spoke with you, an interview i admire. in terms of adapting, there was a desire to get things right. what we had in that case, david lipsky, a stranger to david foster wallace, had written an account of his time and very subjective experience in his company as someone who admired, from a place of insecurity, fear him a little. david foster wallace understood the exact game that was being played because he wrote the exact sort of profile david lipsky did. it was like they were performing for each other. it was a very subjective take on someone just a couple years younger than the other, but perhaps wanted the life the other person had. charlie: i get more comments on that interview, it is in the top five of 25 years doing this program.

the top five, maybe because of what he meant to them. maybe because he did so few interviews. james: having watched that interview 50 times, what strikes me, you seem to get along so well. at a certain point he begins talking about movies. he was reviewing the film. seems to be a moment of recognition, and my just about to critique the movie? he is a tough reviewer and then apologizes in a midwestern way. you seem to admire the quality of his mind in a way that is wonderful to watch. charlie: great to have you, much success with "the circle." ♪ alisa: i'm alisa parenti, and

you are watching "bloomberg technology." house republicans are under pressure from the white house to vote on their stalled health care bill this week. house speaker paul ryan said today there has been real progress in winning over skeptics. former national security advisor michael flynn's speeches are being probed by a pentagon a watchdog. you the defense department is investigating whether he obtained approval for remarks russia-backed media network. in 2014, he was told he was prohibited from accepting payments from a foreign government without approval. two u.s. service members were killed and another wounded