ceo bob iger. back to you. emily: david westin there was disney ceo bob iger. we will talk more about this tomorrow. that's it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." don't miss sheryl sandberg joining me tomorrow on bloomberg's "studio 1.0." ♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "early rose. -- charlie rose." charlie: kurt andersen is here. his new article traces the history of today's assault on theh and fact, looking to 1960's. he writes that the election of donald trump revealed a critical mass of americans untethered from reality. your article was adapted from the upcoming book, "fantasyland, how american went haywire."

let's talk about the big book. it goes all the way back to 1500? year history going back to the pilgrims. charlie: religion is a part of the story. >> it's definitely a part of the story. smoke and mirrors, american business, show business, lots of stuff. we always wear big dreamers and true believers, believe or -- believers of the fanciful and equilibriumh an with practicality and pragmatism, yankee clarity. , in talk about in this book the 1960's, that balance went away. we lost the balance. suddenly, everybody was committed to find her own truth

and create their own reality. judge mentalism -- part of what is interesting was that part of my story, this several hundred year journey, was what happened in the 1960's. these things that happened on the cultural left, the bohemian academia,the left in and the relativism and find your on truth, it came out of that world in the late 60's and 70's, and has empowered the far right, and empowered donald. isn't that ironic? charlie: it is, indeed. how did that do that? kurt: what started in academia, san francisco, in woodstock, all of these things, these

1960's,on of the late this relativism, this is your truth and my truth, it became the american way of thinking. nonsense and preposterous ideas all over the map, including some of alternative health ideas and other things on the "left." i argue it also, more consequentially, what used to marginalize far right ideas, and more generally of i just want to believe what i want, and it enabled it on the rate. -- on the right. he started saying you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. charlie: will there be a

reaction to what we are going to now? a corrective action? kurt: we can hope. charlie: what does history tell us to expect? kurt: i worry that we can contain it, but there's probably no rolling it back. that the belief that whatever i want to believe to be true, i'm going to believe to be true, that we no longer have an establishment setting down a set of shared, factual, empirical agreement, that there may not be a hopeful end. charlie: i'm not sure whether this is new or not, but you have a president of the u.s. saying what people are telling you is not true, it's fake news, and you can believe the media. and anything that is

inconvenient to me or that i disagree with is fake. charlie: there's no objective standard we can look at. kurt: which is dangerous. charlie: because, among other whens, what happens someone like the national security council or national intelligence apparatus might recommend something based on hard-nosed reality, and the president doesn't believe it because he has created this disrespect for what people we have depended on are telling us? kurt: right. and there are decent people of integrity on the right, what i call true conservatives, were coming out to say, "we are culpable for convincing our distrust that to reality with which they disagree

and it has been going on again through talk media, television, radio, the internet, to enable people to make them think they are entitled to their own facts. if climate scientists or national security experts, and explain here are the facts, i don't have to believe that, because it doesn't conform with my opinion. denier, a believer that vaccines cause autism one that is not true, we can go on and on. charlie: and they can say that i read it on twitter. kurt: as the presidentkurt: said, more than once, i don't know, i saw it on the internet. charlie: that's another part of the scary thing. there's so much on the internet that is not believable. that is not true.

therefore -- but it gets distinguished from that which is believable. , if you have not made serious attention to the facts, you may not know the difference. kurt: that's the problem. things on the internet for 20 -- look real.ea it looks like "the economist," but is from fantasyland. it was: in the 1960's, driven by youth culture. today is not driven by youth culture. kurt: it is driven by middle-aged people who decided to pander to youth culture. it's not. that is what is so strange. it has seeped into all of american culture now for so many years. have your own truth, find your own truth, do your on thing, that it is no longer about youth. it's about the american mental operating system. thelie: what happened in

1970's to change what was coming out of the 1960's? kurt: instead of being this thing that a few thousand, maybe a few million hippies acted upon, and a few hundred or a few thousand academics, what happened on campuses and at woodstock didn't say there. -- stay there. it filtered out into the whole world. then we got the internet. cable, talkologies, radio, and the internet that gave this alternative facts world their own infrastructure. and infrastructure that i don't the virtues of the internet, but i think there are on reckoned costs. charlie: is there anything we can do about it? kurt: no.

i look back at the founders. thomas jefferson eloquently wrote about how he would rather have all this nonsense, because reason will always triumph, because in the marketplace of ideas, it will push away the bad. is, inart of the problem terms of internet search for starters, the way its is that it rewards the excitingly untrue and false. because it is exciting. it's moreion, interesting to think that there are puppet masters pulling all of the strings like god, but in this case -- charlie: or the conspiracy idea of adults getting together in different places around the world to control the world. kurt: exactly. and to make it a very tightening fiction in the way reality --

charlie: they believe something, there must be some power they are not familiar with in control of things. kurt: there must be something, dark, sinistern forces in control. charlie: is that why donald trump had appealed to people, because he tweeted his own image that he was rich enough and strong enough and unwilling to back down after seeing the most outrageous things, they saw him as a figure to go to battle for them? he had been in these cabals where the puppet masters work, so he understood it. charlie: even though the facts are that he was incentivized by the fact that he wasn't part of the establishment. kurt: indeed. and thatnt kitchen --

presentation is what he shares with his base. charlie: why does he do it? kurt: the thing i have always thought about donald trump -- charlie: he was a primary target when you were a young editor. kurt: a journalist and satirist at "spy magazine." charlie: you were 25? kurt: not 25, but not much older. we observed him closely. what always astounded me about him, and still does, was his thirst and need for attention, the way you and i need water and air and food. literally like a drug addict needs drugs. thing is, he's now getting more attention than anyone on earth perhaps has ever gotten. charlie: no doubt about it, the most famous person, maybe in history --

kurt: and more people are thinking about him. charlie: back to the youth thing. by people were fueled like timothy leary, and some philosophers that were middle-aged, and musicians. but today, the youth are a smaller part of the antiestablishment. brexit, they assumed the young would vote to remain. kurt: and they did. charlie: but remain was in fact -- people who wanted to leave where the populace and anti-globalist. wanted itolder people to be the way it was before. charlie: and who worried somebody in brussels would take away their pension. kurt: right. part of what i'm talking about here is this anti-elite,

antiestablishment thing, which has always been part of the american idea. that's what i'm saying got a little bit out of control in the late 1960's and 1970's, and never got -- the establishment basically never regained full control of the discourse. that's where we are today. charlie: you think of the establishment as universities, media.a, wall street, kurt: and the republican party. the karl rove-bush establishment, now beleaguered small wing of the republican party, thought they were in control until the spring of 2016. they thought all these people that we riled up -- we will

still nominate marco rubio or jeb bush, that's one of hours. -- ours. they realized they were out of control. charlie: factor in religion. kurt: america is exceptionally religious and has always been compared to the rest -- charlie: founded by people speaking to religious freedom. kurt: that's one way to put it. religion.ic cult of so we have always been more religious than the rest of the developed world. more than europe back then, more than japan and australia and canada now. we are outliers in religiosity compared to the rest of the developed world. not just a little bit. a lot. we are more extravagantly religious. we are more religious. coincidence that we

invented mormonism and pentecostalism. ,ompared to our set of europe canada, australia, the modern, developed world, we are not like any of them. once you are more inclined as a culture to believe in magic and it will not events, stay in the religious realm. it will leach out until not believing in climate change. charlie: what is the fantasy industrial complex? kurt: it is all the things we define as the entertainment business. games, television, video now the internet and all that. in it is the way in which

america, not uniquely, but quintessentially -- everything becomes entertainment. real estate becomes entertainment. restaurants become steamed. -- themed. everything becomes part of show business. the great religious starting through the 1700s, through the 1800s and 1900s, were shown income & reuse. empressshow men, arios. they all had personalities. kurt: and in the 20th century, they began understanding, i'm using newsreels, radio, tv. charlie: they really did understand television. he would buy their own television time, and all of a sudden there wasn't one church

with 200 parishioners, it was one church with 5 million parishioners, coming together on sunday morning on television. kurt: correct. when cable came along, not just sunday morning, but all the time. is "fantasyland: how american went haywire." look at it in the september issue about tomorrow. a little piece of it. charlie: thank you for dropping by. the great curt anderson. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: the global economy and financial markets were brought to their knees a decade ago in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. parears ago this week, bnp ibas restriction -- restricted exposure to subprime assets. many consider that to be the moment the crisis began. the following year, lehman ,rothers filed for bankruptcy sending reverberations across the globe. the financial times launched an online series looking at the causes and legacy of the crisis. it will run through september 2. jillian is the managing editor.

i am pleased to have her. how did you measure with the 10 years should be delineated? >> the reason why>> this event is important was that was the moment investors could wake up and realize they are the reason markets -- that fun run intohe bnp problems was the moment that confidence began to crack. he became contagious. it became a bit like the financial equivalent of a food poisoning scam. what started to happen with people woke up one day and realized there were some dodgy securities and systems. no one knew where the rotten securities were. just like a food poison crisis kidsparents panic and stop

eating all burgers because a few cows got sick, suddenly investors panicked and stopped dealing with the financial system. charlie: we know that a year earlier, u.s. house prices reached their peak. >> is a classic example. andone goes off their cliff they are in the air with legs running, and they look down and suddenly crash. there have been signs from the middle of 2006 that the housing market was overextended. there were dangerous things happening. i had a column saying this is complete madness. and yet when the music is playing, we all keep dancing until suddenly they look down. confidence began to evaporate. hsbcie: in thousand seven, announces losses tied to the u.s. subprime mortgage is this. they knew they were in deep trouble. there werenew

problems but could not identify where they were. , they built such a complicated system that nobody knew how the innerworkings were operating. -- inner workings were operating. it was really a panic about what people didn't know rather than what they did know that started the whole crisis. charlie: if you don't know what you don't know, you have a problem in terms of trust, credibility, everything else. absolutely. as always, the things that caused biggest crisis are not always the things everyone knows are risky. is what comes with a triple a label and what seems so normal. what's amazing about the crisis is that this stuff wasn't hidden by any kind of plot. this is actually happening in

plain sight, but everyone chose to avert their eyes. charlie: because they had never seen it go down. gillian: they didn't question it. subprimea new century lender filed for bankruptcy in 2007. gillian: at that point, we are looking at subprime lenders filing bankruptcy. what happens to the extended loans? people were too busy dancing to the music. charlie: in june 2007, hedge funds were in trouble.that's when i began to notice it . the mainstream media began to talk about it. gillian: what became clear if people did not understand what was happening. remember at the time is that i would have central bankers call me up and ask what i thought was going on. charlie: bankers?

gillian: on both sides of the atlantic. covering the weeds -- charlie: that's like having janet yellen calling you up. gillian: it wasn't quite janet yellen, but i had been running the financial times in london, and i was looking very closely at the financial system, one of the few people warning about it. there was such a lack of knowledge about what was happening that central bankers were calling up, saying do you know what these weird products ,ith funny acronyms extraordinary moment. charlie: august 9, 2007, bnp paribas sets access to investment funds who had large holdings of subprime mortgages. gillian: the moment is important because that is when the european central bank stepped in and tried to quell what it saw crisis bylly a small

providing support to the markets. no one noticed at the time, but if you look, that was the beginning of a decade-long experiment. the central banks had not done that kind of emergency crisis. andstepped in, very badly, set the stage for a lot more action by central banks later on your. charlie: after that it was too late. it wasn't too late? gillian: in summer, the markets calmed down in the autumn. in the u.k., you had a collapse, the beginnings of problems. the real storm in the u.s. did not happen until a 2008, when there was a serious of missed opportunities. was that whatem happened in the u.s. after the loss of confidence was the american authorities trying to

sleep it under. -- sweeping under. they tried to provide vehicles to freeze that assets in the system. to avoid having to face up to problem, we the will write it off quickly. the japanese had been through the crisis a decade earlier. because surely they got what the americans have to do is wake up, face the problems, and create a support package. but washington tried to sweep it under the carpet for years. charlie: some people did try to speak out. try, but thereid was an overwhelming belief in the superiority of the american system. i was working in japan a decade earlier and i had seen what happens. i know you grace is the worst

enemy of financial stability. the american leadership was convinced that it would be fine. gillian: charlie: most people believe paulson, bernanke, got there -- timothy geithner, saved the american system. do you believe that? gillian: i think they did a pretty remarkable job after the event started. it took a long time to act. if they had acted earlier, they could have staved off a lot of the crisis. end,hey did come in in the and by early 2009, after the lehman brothers collapsed, the agi frasca -- fiasco, they were stepping in. they were supporting financial markets. charlie: even some who didn't want to, like j.p. morgan. gillian: exactly.

they were forcing write-downs. today from the vantage point of europe, if europe had done that at the same time as americans, the european banking system would be much healthier. another big lesson is you have to act decisively quickly and early to make the crisis better. charlie: that is the lesson of the u.s. and japan. gillian: japan took a long time before they realized it. they delayed a decade. charlie: where are we today? gillian: we have a financial system that is a lot healthier, particularly in america. charlie: with more regulation. now the president would like to eliminate some of that. he wants to roll it back. some of the regulation was sensible, some was not. the problem is we do have a financial system that has become addicted to incredibly cheap, if not free money, from central banks. it is unclear how it can go back to anything resembling normality.

the financial activity is not happening in banks, it's happening outside banks. hedge funds and the like. gillian: it is still a very distorted financial system. with theuestion federal reserve raising rates is what on earth is going to happen as rates begin to go up and normality returns. landing,e be a smooth or will we turn around and discover actually the whole system today is propped up on confidence in central banks? monday chairman of the ecb made a famous statement, we will do what it takes -- they gave confidence to the system. years, that last 10 confidence turned out to be more durable than the confidence in private banks a decade ago. charlie: china is a big problem.

support of central banks is a big problem. gillian: one of the big issues is cybersecurity. nobody has yet to work out what would happen if -- charlie: why did they do that? i do understand why they can't figure out what to do if there is a hacking of some significant financial institution. gillian: there is a very unequal power balance. the banks are doing a remarkable job hitting better in the west. charlie: there are attacks all the time. gillian: absolutely. but the reality is the world is becoming a lot more unstable politically, and we should be grateful there have not been more shocks. is whatr big question

on earth is going to happen if we see more geopolitical instability? equity markets are discounting that. we have a soaring stock market. charlie: explain that to me. all these things we are are very dicey. the stock market is exploding. gillian: i think the financial system is a lot more robust than it was a decade ago. charlie: timothy geithner sat at this table and others, and ben bernanke, and they said that the thing that stunned them the most was how fragile the financial system was. gillian: as i say, there's a reason why the roots of the theit market comes from meaning to believe. you have to trust. up and realized they couldn't value anything, everyone is today, just like

2006, everyone had investment portfolios indirectly dependent on subprime mortgage. almost everybody has some element of a chinese exposed asset in their portfolio. we live in a very connected world where contagion can spread quickly. it is very opaque still. the other issue which i keep coming back to is the bottom markets. we had bonds now i extraordinarily -- at extraordinarily high prices and interest rates at low prices. everyone is saying i'm so confident that the economy will the governmentd will pay back my money, and i will lend the government money and get almost no return back over 5, 10, 20 years. that requires a leap of blind

faith because bond prices are so low so people are taking. charlie: when equity markets are hot like today, what happens to the bond market? , that implieslly there will be growth. bond prices go down. bond yields, which move in opposite direction, though up. -- go up. one of the most remarkable things is that equity markets are high and bond prices stay high as well. right now, there's a lot of money swirling around the system . that has pushed up equity prices, on prices, real estate prices. charlie: do we have to much liquidity? i would argue yes. after crisis, it's like throwing fuel onto the fire. the central bank is kept putting

more fuel on the fire. now we have the beginning of a flame. the risk is you end up with too much fuel. it's a bonfire they can't control. the central bankers themselves know about the problem. they want to adjust to more normal situations, but nobody in history has ever done anything like this before. from $1ral reserve one trillion on the balance sheet to $4 trillion. can you trim that back?they are trying, but it is where the rubber will hit the road. not just stopping the financial crisis, it's getting back to normal. charlie: what's the likelihood of that? gillian: i think they've done a good job so far in terms of the experiment. i have a sad degree of confidence.

i certainly wouldn't bet on that happening without any more many -- mini squalls. the best way to go out against a financial crisis is to have small regular crises. not big enough to block the entire system, but not so small no one notices. human nature is we all have short memories. you need to have a little bit of a shock every few years to keep everyone on their toes and not become complacent. charlie: lack of enough of a to theo you go doctor for an examination. thank you for coming. gillian tett, u.s. managing editor of "the financial times." they are beginning a series looking at the financial crisis and the present state of the global economy.

back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: the presidency of donald trump has led to a wealth of opportunity for political satirists in late-night television programs. "full frontal with samantha bee," has received critical and

commercial success for the commentary on donald trump. the new yorker called samantha bee america's new comedian in chief. in the new yorker, one of the few comforts of trump in the white house is the fact that bee is there to hold him and the rest of us to account. this series is nominated for seven any awards -- emmy awards. they were also nominated for outstanding variety special. in last week's episode, samantha traveled to curtis dan where she found a surprising amount of support for donald trump. >> did you say donald trump is your best chance? one donald trump says to black people, what have you got to lose, that is true, no one else is going to do it?

charlie: joining me is the creator and star of "full frontal," samantha bee, jo miller, and miles kahn. is the success of this making you giddy, and you are having too much time, or is it so hard to be funny? week, you have a no time to do anything about comedy. samantha: it is all the things you just said. [laughter] it's amazing and fun, and of course we're giddy, and we also work incredibly hard. it's difficult, because anything we -- worth doing is incredible difficult. charlie: is donald trump making

it easier? samantha: no, he blows up our show every day. [laughter] we had a show around 8 p.m. tuesday night, the earliest we had gotten it done. and then he had fired comey. [laughter] charlie: you couldn't let that go. jo: we went into the control room for rehearsal, and then someone said that trump just tweeted a ban of transgender soldiers. charlie: but has satire changed? is it different than it was because of trump, because of the times changing, because we have so much late-night comedy today? samantha: there are certainly more people. i don't think satire has changed. i think our process has intensified. fear andur level of anxiety has intensified. charlie: fear and anxiety.

we were screaming a long time before the election. brexit, remember our screeching? [laughter] samantha: nobody ever listens to us. charlie: you tried to warn us about brexit. is that because of your european audience? [laughter] yeah, nobody ever listens to us, and this is the result of that. so people should get on the ball. charlie: where do you draw the line? there is a definition that this site is activism. this site is an agenda, and on this side is people who want to make you think and laugh. everything in the show is very intentional. it is not free bolling.

we walk that line very carefully. charlie: you did something for the committee for journalism? jo: we do a lot of campaigns to raise money. if there's an opportunity to raise money for causes. fors: we raise awareness getting phelan writes back in florida. rights to vote back in florida. we do it as a way to put a package together in the field and say, listen, we need to do something for the people. we have to amplify the message. we have to make it funny. we can't do the activism part if it's not funny. we bought a newspaper once, too.

[laughter] charlie: expensive? samantha: not very. [laughter] if we do something like that, it has to be very authentic to the show. it has to come from an organic place. line?e: what is the what is it you try not to do in terms of not being preachy? you don't want to be. samantha: no. it's not fun. miles: it's not funny. jo: we don't send a partisan message, because it's tedious. charlie: but is it partisan in the end? there is a kind of edge that says left of center. samantha: on a lot of things, but not everything. it just emerges the way we want it to. we don't care what other people think. charlie: but do you think of

yourself as a political animal? samantha: not really. jo: everyone in america is a political animal now. samantha: we have to be political animals now. charlie: when you get into a cab, what do they say? i love talking. i love talking to people in taxis. charlie: but nothing surprises you anymore? samantha: i always get surprised. depthsurprised by the that we can to send to. scend to. jo: i never realized before how much predictability made our job easier. we had been doing this at "the daily show."

we had seen where things go and we knew where they would land. miles: there's a cycle to it. there's a cycle to the news. you can sense when you can take a breath and process. maybe the accidental genius of this administration is that every two hours it is a new breaking news story. charlie: but it may be changing because of kelly. miles: he sent out like a dozen tweets. he started trashing blumenthal. [laughter] it's raining outside, tee time got pushed. [laughter] charlie: i thought kelly had him go through a filter. but kelly and went on vacation with him? samantha: it didn't help anything. i don't feel like we have found the bottom. i don't think we have even come close. kurt andersen is

coming on the show and he will talk about his take on the trump administration. can you imagine what it's like on the bottom? samantha: i have a complete failure of imagination. we tried before the election to see what the bottom looked like. she reminded us you are not there yet. had seen what had happened with vladimir putin, so she was thing you can't imagine before until you see it? miles: yes. and children who are born now think it is regular. it's a normal if you have grown up there. charlie: tell me about this. this is dana rohrabacher. i think in the nixon administration as a young age --

aide, then became a congressman from california. what did he do in moscow? jo: remember the republican meeting when somebody quit there are only two people in the pay of vladimir putin, rebecca and trump -- dana rohrabacher and trump? -- left andn left said not to repeat that. charlie: here's a clip. samantha: -- >> if someone says to you they want to give you information, there's nothing wrong with that. that was a legitimate thing to ask, and determine, absolutely, there's nothing wrong with -- by the way, i am the chairman of europeope, asian and, and eurasian subcommittee,

including emerging threats. [laughter] samantha: you are? jesus. somebody get him off. you have slurred your piece. i'm sure the rest of your colleagues would like a turn. myi appreciate it so much, very good friend from california. nice crowd you guys got there. i haven't seen that many empty birthdayce ted cruz's party. charlie: you do a 30 minute show once a week. we never want to do more than one per week. can you imagine?? charlie: some of your specials, people say it would be so good if you were on for one hour. samantha: nobody wants to watch an hour of me.

you can sit back a little and watch the stories emerge in a different way.you can also have a bit of a life. jo: what? [laughter] samantha: you know, you can go to kurdistan. there's a little leeway to do more things. jo: you can do things more in-depth and digest them. newsweek is a good thing. nobody wants it to be the size of vogue. samantha: it's good to sit back a little bit. charlie: less is more. jo: twitter can handle the one-liners. we have a social presence. charlie: does the internet make it easier and more fun, because of twitter, everything that's possible? because it has created a class of people who knows what everyone else is saying. samantha: it is fun.

it makes everyone engaged. miles: it's terrifying for me. i wake up and i scare myself. the first thing i do is i scroll. withe constantly bombarded information. it is fun and terrifying. jo: someone said the other night, i feel like i can't go to bed because twitter is still on. [laughter] but it does mean that we can expect a level of basic knowledge in our audience. people used to say they got their news from "the daily show," which they shouldn't do, but they did. now we are getting it from twitter so we can build on a base of knowledge and we don't have to tell a story. so we can assume they have read it and we can tell the jokes. show,": is "the daily perfect training ground for what you do? samantha: certainly.

we all come from there. charlie: what did you learn? samantha: you learn how to tell stories, you learn timing, the stories you feel passionately about. charlie: do you learn the difference in what is funny and what is not funny? you don't get the job unless you know that. samantha: that comes from within. charlie: is it changing other than the readings growing? is anything else changing? i know you are traveling. samantha: that was always a part of it. charlie: was that a part of going in, or is it something you just thought of one day, let's go to russia? the big part of the thought process behind creating this show -- miles: we have to get her in the field. it is what she is good at. i don't feel it we are changing. jo: everybody is getting better

at their job. samantha: we did a musical. the not tell me about the white house correspondents dinner. how did that come about? samantha: i was sitting in my and outright, another one of our producers. we were having a fun conversation. -- grid -- new green grinch newt gingrich said something about the past. -- the. and we were wondering if the white house correspondents would exist. charlie: what's amazing, we do

the same thing. we see someone in the paper and decide they would have to be a guest. but from small acorns, big trees grow. one big idea from newt gingrich. samantha: that's why the show works. charlie: take a look at samantha's opening monologue. samantha: as much as i might love poking fun at the media, and as much as you all kind of deserve it sometimes, i know your job has never been harder. potus convinced 88% of his fans that you are an enemy of the people. you get -- get to stand in a cage while a geriatric orangutan screams that you. zoo. like a reverse but you carry on. you expose. you continue to fact check the president as if someday he might get embarrassed.

[laughter] [applause] so tonight is for you. tonight, the president screams tur is notat katy in. aarlie: she is now writing book about her experience. samantha: we will have to fight over her. [laughter] charlie: when you sit in the room to talk about these things, do the ideas come flowing out? they do. and they come out on our computers, too. it's a pretty democratic experience. miles: the office is like a creative incubator. everyone is throwing lines out. charlie: thank you. it is great to have you here. much success. "full frontal with samantha

bee," is on wednesday night. thank you for joining us. ♪ is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? [ phone ringing ] hi mom. it makes you wonder... shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. [ laughing ] so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. call or go to xfinitymobile.com introducing xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money.

♪ >> new fears about north korea. defense experts say they have succeeded in putting nuclear warheads in ballistic missiles. stock volatility is back as the s&p 500 fell the most in a month. >> the bank of australia beat profit forecasts. should be able to survive the money laundering scandal. >> disney missed estimates. it is also dumping netflix