♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> bitcoin, the most significant, and cruises of records. it fell as much as 9% in the past few days. the rise of a worldwide debate over the future of digital currency. here to discuss bitcoin are three experts. catherine wood, the reporter of the wall street journal, and a reporter at bloomberg news. i am pleased to have all of them at this table. welcome. let me start with you. there has been a lot of bitcoin talk.

where is it at right now? paul: it is probably -- oh, god. probably the fourth or fifth wave of interest of this thing. it has waxed and waned in terms of speculation and attention in the mainstream. certainly in terms of price in dollars, this is the biggest move it has had. in terms of interest, probably the biggest too. not totally in the mainstream but much further than it had been. jeff: is it still at hype phase? catherine: the market cap, the network value bitcoin with -- bitcoin is a little over $100 million -- $100 billion.

and has come up really fast but it is at a fraction of apple's valuation, amazon's valuation. jeff: and certainly a small fraction of the overall economy. >> a very small fraction. for all the cryptocurrencies, which there are like 1000 different digital point. it was 12 billion a year ago. it has been doing pretty well in the last few years. jeff: bitcoin is far and away the most popular. take me back a little bit if you would. bitcoin is invented in the wake of the global financial crisis. why and how? paul: release in the original -- the original white paper announcing the concept was

released in 2008 by somebody calling themselves toshi nakamoto. we do not know who this person really is. whoever it was, they had been working on it before the financial crisis they released the white paper. january 2009, they launched the open source software line. not a mono put it out in the world and let anybody who wanted to put the project on. the financial system has collapsed. the central bank had to pour in and put money into it and save it. as an alternative to the banking system. if you released that idea at the time, it might not have taken off. it could be a group of people, there are all kinds of theories. because of the timing that nakamoto chose, the thing really

took off first in the sort of hacker, hobbyist, engineer, developer communities. and then it started to get out a little more and a little more. they kept growing. by 2012 or 2013, it started to step into the mainstream. jeff: this is one of the most intriguing parts about it, the speculation of who nakamoto is. lily: a lot of people have stepped out and claimed to be not komodo. -- nakamoto. >> four people have outed -- four people have been ousted. able say this is nakamoto and they say no i am not. lily: people conceptualize this world where transactions are cheaper because they are not going through bank and more secure because they are

protected by the block chain. >> which is why the base to like it, which is in part why jamie dimon famously slams bitcoin. there has been a lot of discussion. catherine: a lot of discussion. this is increasing the public's increase minute. you have jamie dimon, public figure, very well-known along with howard marks of oaktree. interestingly, the following week after jamie's comments, the ceo of morgan stanley was speaking about it in a different tone. i think they are beginning to see trading opportunities. >> they are not endorsing it just saying we are interested in finding out more about this because the clients are asking about it. lily: the results of the ceo of blackrock who came out and talked about it.

jeff: you started introducing more folks to it, which leads to the question of i do not want to get too far ahead -- but it leads to the question of regulation. much of space and financial services being involved -- not just banks and financial services being involved, but the government being involved. paul: there are a couple of moving parts there. one, you have people working on bitcoin it else and that project -- itself and that project. initially, a lot of them were antigovernment, and i regulation. it was designed as a hacker projects that wanted to get around the system.

create a network or you do not need the middlemen. distances came in and then we can build a business on this. we want legitimacy, we will need to be regulated. they started reaching out to the regulators. the last four or five years, you have a dynamic where one group is adamantly anti-regulation and the other group that says we want to bring this into the mainstream. we think this has value for people in their everyday lives, let us build regulations around this. and then have every regulator on the planet at the point where you have to figure out what this is for the economy and how to address it. jeff: explain this to me. jamie dimon was critical but said he believed the block chain technology is legitimate. what is that? paul: that is another hour. [laughter] the concepts behind bitcoin, behind the software, have probably come to become block chain technology. 's set of ideas that is essentially taking, creating a network where anything that can be digitized to be traded between two people directly. i have an asset i want to give you, let us say a mortgage deed. give can take it and digitize

it, stick it in a transaction on this software program, send it over to you. that gets timestamps in the network. the idea -- that gets timestamped in the network. it is like sending an email. instead of sending any moment and forth, you are sending -- an email back and forth, you're sending something that has value. bitcoin is this open source, permissionless network that anyone can control. jeff: because this was verified publicly? paul: yes. what happens is every computer on the network has a copy of this letter and every transaction gets updated on every ledger at the same time so he can be verified. the process makes it transparent.

that is what makes the banks unnecessary. previously, you would need a third-party tracking those transactions. lily: in the original white paper they talked about proof versus trust. the system we have now is based on trust. trust a bank to keep your stuff secure. this is based on truth because you have computers that verify transactions. jeff: or a kvitova cup of coffee? -- or it can be a cup of coffee. lily: yes -- catherine: yes. people say they cannot see the cup of coffee. we have with where people can conceptualize it. i had trouble understanding that

back in the day. today we have a voice over ip. with this is is money over ip. the transition of money over ip will be free again like the analogy there. the distinction, block chain bitcoin -- in silicon valley, we heard that we like this block chain but do not like bitcoin. we were saying in terms of the bitcoin block chain, you cannot have that unless you build it out and incentivize the minors with the bitcoin. you cannot separate them unless in jamie's case wants a wild garden trusted network. so it is called permissioned. the bitcoin block chain is permissionless. jeff: you are saying it is too vulnerable to hacking. it already comes to the volatility to be sure but those who criticize it say it is dangerous? catherine: this is the same criticism we heard about the cloud when it first came out. everyone said that could be

hacked. that is true. anything can be hacked. the cloud was an open sourced system. when you have a lot of i was watching the system and a lot of people's livelihood and businesses dependent on it, you have a lot of people watching it. you are seeing what a hack start. the news travels really fast and it stops. we think the permissionless walk-ins are very robust and secure relative to the permissions ones. >> i don't think the argument is if it is vulnerable to hacking

or phising scams. you all the hacks that have happened. look at equifax recently. the systems we have built up over the past few decades are extremely vulnerable to hacking. hacking is not the real argument against bitcoin. the real argument is that it is a system that authorities cannot control. they do not control the money in it, who is using it, and what they are doing it for. jamie dimon doesn't want that because it cuts into his business. regulators need to figure out is that something we can have at least enough control over that it is not going to destroy the economy, that it is not going to abandon the government, the -- up end the government. can we accept some type of darknet transactions?

coin is somewhat anonymous as a currency. cash is a completely anonymous currency. there's a lot to be figured out. catherine: not just money, it is the technology. you have three forces coming together. the regulators want to impede the technology. they do not want to be accused of preventing the next internet. they are stepping lightly and we are even seeing very recently, within the last week, groups beginning to agree on bitcoin versus other crypto assets. some should be regulated by the sec and some should be regulated by the commodities exchange. the other thing that we see going on is fear on the part of regulators in the developed world. they are stepping lightly. jeff: what you say to investors when they are looking at

volatility? 1000 or so this year all the way up to 6000 and a span of nine or 10 months? not the first very dramatic swing up or down that has happened. you don't think i will end anytime soon? -- that will end anytime soon? catherine: we size day. out of this market right now. a captured a lot of people's imaginations. we will go through heights -- hypes and then shake out. it is being battle tested almost every day. china banning it, russia banning it. these are all tests that bitcoin has gone through and they did it came right back. lily: it is so resilient, at least in the last year or so. you now have bitcoin and bitcoin cash. people were scared before this

happens and the prices dropped but then it bounced right back up. china banmed the initial -- china banned the initial point offering that it went right back up. paul: until the point is that some -- assuming it gets -- jeff: -- any time soon. paul: that process will go on for a long time. yes, it is extremely volatile, but there are people like that kind of volatility. they are called traders. a lot of wall street traders are interested in this now because they can make money trading it. people who have been doing this for a long time our total

keyboard cowboys. they love this thing. they stay up all night and traded and they do not care if it goes up or down. they are looking to make money off of it. part of bitcoin's attraction is it is volatile. there is still a small group of people trading and they are true believer tight and a lot of people are buying and holding it because they think is going to a $50,000 price. bitcoin is a one to some -- is a one-way trade. to some extent, they think there is something going on with the company. it is not like that yet. catherine: we found a way to measure it. if you do it on a 12 month

moving average basis, it had come down quite significantly. we compare it to twitter's stock price. it dipped below that and dipped below gold and volatility last year before this next run up. volatility compared to where was an 2000 11, 2012, 2013 has come up quite -- jeff: what is the difference between buying and mining? lily: buying a cryptocurrency is literally paying money to have a digital point. -- coin. mining is a process -- i liked it think about it is people sitting around in their basement around the computer. they're looking at transactions happening around a block chain to digitally time stamp the

reactions and make sure there is no double spending happening. if you have cement counterfeit a dollar, they can spend and two places. jeff: talk to me about what is associated with bitcoin currencies. >> there is only one way we can gain exposure is a registered investment company to bitcoin. it is only bitcoin we can access. that is through an over-the-counter security. we are just rating and the -- just trading in the stock market echoes over-the-counter. lily: the fees have changed over time for bitcoin. one complaint is what people call the scaling debate. basically, people are concerned that bitcoin transactions are

getting too expensive and slow, and that is actually why bitcoin split in two. the two rival camps could not come into agreement and there was argument about high fees and the slowness of the network. they moved some of the transactions off the network. if i am buying coffee for a couple bucks and i pay for a credit card now, mastercard and visa will take a couple percentage points and american express will take more, where is the money going? obviously, the money is going to starbucks or whoever you buy the coffee from. who else is taking -- paul: you were talking about the fees. with the coin was designed, -- when bitcoin was designed, there was a fee. there was always a fee. it goes to the miners. this is a process transactions. it is the design of the network. in the early days, the transactions were so small that

it didn't matter. that fee, a voluntary fee that i would offer the miner --you did not have to offer them anything because there is a strain on capacity. this year because there were more transactions, you are getting bottlenecks. what people were doing was offering higher fees to get their transactions put to the front of the line. jeff: some countries are embracing and some are banning it. including china. paul: china seems very anti-bitcoin. russia -- south korea, north korea. although north korea might be stealing it. south korea is starting to embrace it.

in switzerland, they are pro-actually the u.k. is interested in it. if you talk to government types, they see there could be some value their and something they want to help build out. -- value there and something they want to build out. every country is trying to come to grips with it. catherine: howard. that is why china did it. they were trying to get capital out and control that. the regulators are thinking about monetary policy. they are thinking about capital movements. the technology, they have to do a double take because they are saying if we ban this, we are banning this potential engine of innovation like where the internet was in the 1990's. do we want to do that? no. especially in the developed world. you're seeing a careful analysis.

one person believes it is going to be extremely disruptive and she came out saying so a few weeks ago. because she gains credibility by calling a spade and spain, i think a lot of people set up and notice. ♪

jeff: an accomplished writer and editor in the series final

and a lifelong fan of the chicago cubs your his new book -- chicago cubs. his new book tells the story of the team from its founding to its triumph at the world series. a lens memoir, reporting, history and baseball feel itchy to explore the long-held question, why can't the cubs win. i am least to have rich cohen back at this table. life is great. you can die in peace. the cubs did win. rich: the road trip ended so we are searching for meaning a little bit. jeff: you still want to win this year. rich: more than anything. people ask me why i am a cubs fan. i don't know. it was given to me when i was a kid but it becomes so intense you try -- jeff: the doctors are good.

rich: i -- the dodgers are good. rich: i am happy living in the past. jeff: honestly, how long does it last? was it as satisfying as he thought it would be? rich: it was disorienting because the cut had not won in 108 years. losing was so regular and happens in such weird ways that we turned it into a kind of religion. i thought being a cup span major kind of better because they were kind of like buddhists. you have given up on the idea of ambition. you are just enjoying the game. when you wore the cubs hat, you told the world my kingdom is not of this world. we won and i think the red sox and went through the same thing. the identity changes and you realize your children grow up in a strange world where they think the cubs are a great baseball team. rich: with it -- jeff: was it early banks who said it was never a curse but a fear?

rich: i think in one of the last interviews with sports illustrated, the points were the curse became serious was 1969 where they had an incredibly great team up by seven games in september and they collapsed. i asked what is the curse. he said it is not voodoo, it is fear. when you have never one in your team has number one and you -- when you have never won and you get into high-pressure games in the season you do not know how to win and you choke. the owner of the cuts that to me the reason he thought they did not win was because you build a baseball team to win over a 162 game season and you get into the playoffs and it is a crack it. -- crapshoot. to increase your odds, you have

to go back multiple years and they never competed in the playoffs since the early 1900s. also, this is their third straight appearance in the nlcs. they had a chance to be there at the end. jeff: it is a fear among the players, the ownership, the fans. it is pervasive. rich: i think it is almost like a psychosis. one moment that was hard for me was the bartman game where the fan reached for the ball and the cubs fell apart. the fans at wrigley, whom i love dearly, instead of taking out their anger at the players, in the field they turned to bartman, the fan. it is like something is happening to you and you'd don't know what you did to deserve it. -- you don't know what you did to deserve it. jeff: i am a bills fan. i'm waiting to get over that hump. how did the cubs come to be, and it certainly wasn't the same way back then than it is now. rich: i am not really a sportswriter. is american history -- it is

american history shot down in a way you can understand it. i am saying if you tell the story of the cuts correctly, you are telling the story of america in a fun house mirror. baseball came out of the civil war and away -- in a way. in cincinnati, they put together a team full of ringers. the team came to chicago and beat the crap out of the great chicago teams. they were like, do you think you are better than us? they put together another team of ringers. they were called the white stockings. -- they beat the red stockings. the real source of the curse is their first great captain created the color line in baseball. they had a famous double-play

combination. in 1906, they one 116 games -- won 116 games. they were like the yankees became in the 1940's. they dominated. jeff: how did they go from that seem to falling off the end? rich: they say good. they won 700 games and eight -- in eight seasons. they went to the world serieschm that team to falling off of it -- off a bit? throughstay good up world war i. they would routinely be in the world series, but they would lose. it was a corporate thing.

not necessarily make sense as a business unless you love the sport and want to win. william wrigley wanted to win. his son really didn't care about baseball. when asked about his favorite sport, he said craps. i didn't even know it was a sport. maybe if you really get your arm moving back and forth you can make us -- can break a sweat. he was like i don't care about the sport, but he wanted to bring people out so he made wrigley field. jeff: what a sensational post season though. in terms of the teams you have, you have the biggest teams in new york, chicago, houston all

competing here. three of them have fantastic pedigrees. houston, with what happened with harvey, with the team that is young and dynamic and exciting, i have to imagine major league baseball is pleased with what they have seen this fall. rich: not only that, i think personally baseball is ever then it has ever been. the games are maybe a little too long. i have little kids, and i know you have little kids. the move away from football and where will those kids go? baseball is really athletic now. the cubs are a throwback to the dead ball era of baseball and how athletic the teams are. jeff: even with all the excitement -- and my son is huge into baseball right now, he was in the local sports store the other day and he said football stuff still outsells baseball stuff 10 to one. rich: it is hard to accept as a parent, all the head injury stuff with football, letting

your kid damage their brain. baseball always was america's sort of first sport. the cubs are the first pro team in america. it is so linked up to american history that there is something special about it. even the chicago bears. george callis,by because he started as the right fielder of the new york yankees, billed as the right fielder, then started the bears to distinguish them from the cubs. jeff: what did the u.s. team do that no one has been able to do for 100 plus years? rich: what theo said to rick was , are you willing to let this team get bad? so bad he cannot have dinner out in chicago. the thing he said to me was, the team was owned by the tribune company and they were airing the games. they wanted the team to seem like a plausible contender. they never let them truly fall apart like they needed to do.

rick said yes, but he also wanted to be the one to win the world series. in chicago, if you broke the curse, you would go to heaven without a stop in purgatory. he signed on to that. if you are watching the cubs in those years, they were some of the worst cubs in history. lost 100 games. they never let the team fall apart like that. it is really an interesting thing. the story is power of a narrative. the cubs as lovable losers had an effect on the mentality of the team. that is what they said. joe girardi was on the cubs then. he said look at the pictures around the locker room and pictures of guys standing on the mount celebrating the world series win. i pointed out that there are

pictures of wrigley, but they're celebrating individual accomplishments. jeff: do you think there is that much psychology to it? rich: i do, especially in baseball. i think the cubs are a great and the best team in baseball, probably because i am a cubs fan. they have a fatal flaw where every now and then they stop hitting. i want to go yell at them to wake up. it passes from player to player and they go flat. that is why they were swept by the mets. momentum is a big deal in baseball. that is why they always fall apart right at the end of the season. every cubs fan has one team that almost killed them. in 1984, the cubs team almost killed me. that is why i became a bears fan. the bears were penicillin for a wounded cubs fan. they were about five or six out and its away,

seemed strange that they could just not finish it. arnie banks was talking about. rhino, larry the boa constrictor, once every four or five days, steve trout on the amount. i remember arguing with my father that bob, the center fielder, was too soon to tell, but it looks like he would be a better center fielders and joe joeenter fielder than dimaggio. i should say my father is a yankees fan. he grew up in new york. he took me to my first cubs game and after the game he made me promise not to become a cubs fan because he said that he will ruin your life. he said he will have diminished expectations and expect all human endeavor to end in defeat. jeff: talk a little bit about your kids. rich: they are cubs fans, and i did not do it intentionally.

we're watching a game, and the cubs were falling apart. they were in their cups -- their cubs jerseys, and we were watching them fall apart. i looked at them, and i got that feeling and i looked at them and thought, oh my god. what have i done? i am a monster. this is child abuse. jeff: it is obviously easy for them now after they won. rich: they won when i was 48 years old. if they won when i was 16, i would be taller and much more handsome. jeff: how is the dynamic between the cubs and the white sox? rich: white sox fans are going to hate me. i feel like, from my friends, the white sox fans have resentment toward the cubs and the cubs do not care. they are another incredible franchise. they have the same architect who built wrigley field who created

them, but they will always be fixedam in my mind that the world series. jeff: what is it like writing a book like this as an outsider, not the cubs' beat reporter? rich: my whole thing is i do not want to be inside. i want to be outside. i want to get into the grandstand and be with the fans. i want to be sitting next to the guy drinking beer in the bleachers. he would broadcast from the bleachers and he would get increasingly drunk as the game went on. you felt like there was no way he could actually see what was happening. he was 380 feet away and describing everything wrong. one of the enjoyments of zynga cubs game was the despair -- of game was the

disparity between what was happening and what he was saying. they had no light, which meant they played all day games. if you lived on the north shore, you can get on a train and get down there for the third inning and that was your first taste of freedom and being part of the grown-up world. it will always mean that for some of us. jeff: some of the dodgers' world series that they are back. rich: why was earnie banks mr. cubs? skilledrobably the most player, but also he had the best attitude. the fact that he was so optimistic in the midst of all this failure -- i think anyone can be gracious when they win or the person who can be gracious when they lose is the real aristocrat. that is how people react when they win or when they lose.

when the cubs won the world series in game seven last year, i was so excited, but my focus immediately went to the cleveland indians dugout to see them. that is who i identify with. that is the side i have been on my whole life. jeff: the author is rich cohen. great to see you. rich: go cubs. ♪ is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? 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. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.

♪ jeff: "one of us" is the new documentary from heidi ewing and rachel grady. --reflects the acidic hassidic community in brooklyn and follows three former members who have been harassed and shunned for leaving. it will debut friday, october 20. >> i was living a double life for a little over a year. i called my mom and said hey, mom. can i talk to you? i said, are you sitting down? i said i am not religious anymore. she said ok. then, she just hung up. and then we didn't speak for seven years. ♪

>> i looked in a mirror and saw something i didn't want to be. so, i chose a different path. i don't know anything. i had to learn how people live. google? what the hell is that. i could not google, because i did not know how to google in the first place. >> anybody who leaves will end up in jail. they never make it out there. lived 12 12 years -- years with a husband who beat me, broke me. i never responded. i am breaking all religious laws if i press charges. i cannot do it anymore. if you do not show up in court, then you lose your children. >> we can no longer retreat. >> nobody leaves the community a

-- the community unless they are willing to pay the price. >> 911, what is your emergency. >> there are people at the door banging at the door. i am home alone with my children. >> you know these people? family.are my husband's jeff: thank you for coming. what first brought you to this subject? >> my codirector rachel and i are new yorkers. i used to live in this old, orthodox neighborhood. rachel lives adjacent to this hasidic neighborhood. as new yorkers, we interact in some way -- we share a city with the community. there is a curiosity about the group who is identifiable by their dress. they are often not making eye contact with us. really, it started with a point of curiosity. jeff: not making contact with you by design? >> yes. designidic community by

does not interact with outsiders unless they absolutely must. jeff: how big is the community? >> 350,000 in new york. the majority in brooklyn. jeff: what is the reasoning? >> it is very interesting. the community was started in eastern europe in the 1700s. in eastern europe, the community was not as insular as it is today. the vast majority of hasidic jews were exterminated in the holocaust, partly because they refused to blend in. they kept wearing their clothing, and they were loud and proud about their identity. the vast majority died in the holocaust. when the survivors came to the united states, they became more suspicious of outsiders.

the theory is this is a community that is traumatized by the holocaust and passes that down generation to generation. that is their reasoning. they would like to be left alone. jeff: you mentioned you followed three different people as they tried to leave this community with varying degrees of difficulty. one of them is ettie, who has seven children. this is ettie talking about the strict rules for children. >> you not enter a secular library for any purpose. a lot of rules. so many rules. [inaudible] >> my son was in second grade. the hasidic schools are

using this book. female scribble, female scribble. how are they not putting a yarmulke on? how did he know which was which? reading and education is so deprived of the community. that is how they keep their control. jeff: how old is she? heidi: ettie is 33. she has seven kids. jeff: she had her first child at 18? heidi: that is right. jeff: when did the recognition come that she didn't want to be a part of the community? >> she never really intended to leave the community. years, suffered for 12

suffered abuse from her husband. she wanted a divorce. it is discouraged to go to secular courts, to call 911, to rely on secular institutions. there are the rabbis that she talked to, counseling and things like that. a courtly, she wanted order. she went to the authorities. that was a breach of protocol. that was considered a betrayal. the community looked at it as a betrayal. it was a quick house of cards after that. seeing the film, she was pushed out of the community and they attempted to take her children from her. she just wanted a divorce. jeff: she no longer has her children? >> she no longer has her children. jeff: how did you get to know ettie and the others, and how do

they give you this kind of access? >> there is a reason you have not seen a film about them. how do you find people who will speak to you? my codirector and i were secular women, so we never thought we would make a film like this. we read an article about an organization called footsteps. they have been helping people transition into a more secular lifestyle. they guard their membership information very strictly. their address is not listed on the website. it is a private space where people were thinking of leaving the community. six months for them to agree that we could come and hang out in their lobby and that was with no cameras to just talk to people.

through those months and months of showing up in talking to people, we were able to find them. jeff: the organization that shepherds these folks through the process when they decide they may want to leave the community. >> that is right. they are pretty much the only one. jeff: what sort of threats or challenges does footsteps face? >> they are despised. they are looked at as a group that wants to remove people from the community. we observed neither of those things to be true. in the community find that you have been to footsteps, you are out. it is not like you telling when you have been inside until you are positive you want to leave. jeff: talk about what happened when you used some of the clips from 2011, a speech given, warning about technology and the internet as it relates to the community and what these rabbis would like to see. >> this is a massive anti-technology rally. the rally made him curious about the internet.

the community is very anti-technology. it is a cottage industry. businesses in the community that can filter your cell phones, filter your computer, so that you can only do searches perhaps for a local shopping experience. it is very guarded. the genie is out of the bottle, but the community continues to warn people of watching secular films. jeff: he said he had to google how to google. he said he did not know how to do math or anything. what does he learn in this community growing up? >> he's a very traditional boy. he was raised in the most powerful sect. the torah, religious studies, his first language was yiddish. he barely learned english. he had to learn it, because they do teach it by law.

carey, the parents do not if they continue to use it outside of school. he went to an all boys school where there is no premium on proper education. you come out of the community at 18 years old. he was curious when he learns about the big bang he said. he had no idea. you have to circumscribe. one reason why more people do not leave. how can you make it out here? jeff: he cut his hair. what is the reaction when that happens? >> that is a provocative acts. it is the same thing as a woman who wears pants. cutting off your hair is an act of rebellion saying i'm the -- i am no longer with you. jeff: how did they react to this? have they had a dialogue with you at all?

heidi: almost all of our attempt to reach out, they are not interested in participating. if there were any people who had left the community, they did not want to speak to us. they wished us the best of luck, including the representatives out there in the community. we do have a feeling and a sense of some of the elders in the community, and one lovely gentleman does sit with him and you get a sense of the camaraderie and kinship that exists within the community. we have not had a dialogue with them. they are not in the film. we did reach out, but we were pretty much shut down. jeff: ettie says she was threatened and harmed by those who did not want her to leave. heidi: she was threatened by her husband and others. we have a series of phone calls in the film you hear. she also suffered a mysterious bike accident days after she was

told the bike was not acceptable. she was seen operating a bicycle which is seen as in modest behavior -- as immodest behavior. she was stalked. she was followed for many months and made to feel afraid and isolated and alienated. everybody stopped talking to her on the same day. she lost everything after she filed for an order of protection. jeff: when the speeches like one given, get rid of the phones, get rid of everything that provides any sort of communication to the outside world, why? heidi: the community, for the leavesrt, beliefs -- b the most part, believes

technology and this sort of secular information is a threat to their existence. they want people to be born, raised, get married, have children in the community to make up for the people who died. it could make people too ambitious to pursue higher education or put off having children. the idea is if you can keep it out, you can keep the unity intact. jeff: how do they make money? what are the typical jobs inside munity?idic com heidi: the majority of the community is at or below the poverty line. williamsburg in brooklyn is the poorest part of brooklyn. there are a handful of families that have all of the money and they share that with the rest. they pay for the weddings and funerals and charities and all sorts of things. there used to be a garments and diamond industry. now, it is real estate. a large amount of the real estate and burrell park in other parts are owned by a handful of families. they are funding a lot of the

community, but a lot of them are also relying on social services. jeff: one of us on netflix. thank you so much. ♪

♪ emily: i am emily chang. this is "best of bloomberg younology" where we bring the best of this week's interviews on tech. i will have an exclusive interview with arianna huffington from the conference in laguna beach, california. plus, we will sit down with toebook's head of messaging find out how he plans to make it the default messaging app.