carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. we're inside the magazine's headquarters in new york city. in this week's issue, how snapchat resists propaganda. rolls-royce shows you have the superrich like to drive. all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are here with the editor-in-chief of "bloomberg businessweek," megan murphy.

in remarks this week, we all learned a new spanish word this week. it is very important to spanish roots. megan: it is important to spanish roots but talk about something that is global right now, and that is the decline in connection, a common connection, a common spirit, a common purpose. that is the word used in spain. would we are talking about is the conflict in spain, catalonian independence and what amazing shock factor and a ripple effect throughout spain is that battle continues to rage on. it is also a global phenomenon, we are seeing the rise of populism in many parts, particularly western democracy. are we seeing the disruption and perhaps even the dismantling of the bonds that have kept us together in a unifying human spirit and purpose? carol: we were embracing of the differences and that we are pushing back. megan: exactly.

and now, instead of becoming a melting pot or a place where we can bring differences and still be in support of something bigger than ourselves. has that been lost? obviously in spain, the independence movement, there has been violence, a war of words. there is talk about it even into the chef community. ours alone, known for its food versus madrid. -- barcelona, known for its food, versus madrid. the independence movement, there has been violence and it words. -- and a war of words. also be chef community, barcelona. it is troubling when you see that kind of violence, and you can argue the government has not handled that as well as it could have or should have. the recent declaration to vacate the independent government has been seen by many as a centuries old exercise of power in spain.

the broader point, the lesson is something we should all reflect on, are we losing the ideals and identity that are so important to us? carol: a cover story, botox. [laughter] botox.i love line, i am 43. carol: it really digs into how it came to be. megan: what it really talked about is, did you know how secretly guarded botox is? carol: no. megan: you have always heard the stories. there are a lot of trade secrets in this country. kfc and chicken, coke. you'd think about things and you talk about trade secrets, they are not protected in terms of a copyright or patent. but there are things that other people do figure out how to replicate. most highlyy is the secret, highly protected, guards walking around.

nearly $3 billion in sales, projected to go even higher. no drug has been able to match it. chronic spasms, pain. we joke in-house doing this story for botox, then we got access into see how they were doing it. carol: it is amazing and there is no patent on the spread. -- on this drug. allergan kind of just owns it. megan: they just own it. the simplicity of it, and this goes to devastatingly dangerous it is, we know it from botulism, which most people know from gm food. canned food. if you have this airborne, it is lethal. it is incredibly dangerous. they have kept a stranglehold on it. we're not saying that he may critical way. $3 billion. carol: a huge story.

>> the essence of what they do in that research facility is the research potential ways that they could reformulate or work with botox to make tiny changes to it and work with other neurotoxins. research other neurotoxins. the base ingredient is and because that is so highly toxic, so potentially lethal for mankind and could be used as a weapon for bioterrorism event gets into the wrong hands, they have a very heightened level of security. when you enter the facility, you have to sign a waiver and there are warnings about what could happen to you if there was every spill and you've contracted botulism. that has never happened so it is not something you have to be actively worried about but it is something that you have to guard about. carol: go through the list because it is really kind of crazy. you had just signed a waiver. security, more security.

class barriers. waiver,er you sign the you go up. they talk about being exposed to botulism toxin, probably some boilerplate stuff required in california. carcinogenic, it goes through those in terms of what can happen if you are exposed to the toxin. muscle weakness, serious. the actual illness of botulism should you contracted, it sort of like paralyzes your system. in cases where it is fatal, you cannot breathe. that is how it ends up killing a person. so that is the waiver. sagging,lids, inability to speak. that could be a sign you contracted it. but again, if you have taken all the right steps in this has not happened. [laughter] kinds a very short window.

>> said then there are basically multiple levels of security and points andd entry there is a certain level of security required by the cdc when people are working what is called a "select agent." botulism, anthrax, something in that ballpark. these highly, highly toxic substances. >> tell us about what it takes to make botox. it takes a very little amount of that toxin. >> a tiny amount. maybe the size of a baby aspirin to make a years worth of botox. it is a tiny amount of the actual talks and and then what the company does is it we formulates the toxin in a way can later be injected but it is obviously made in such huge quantities that the actual end result is a tiny file which

might go to your doctor's office. not something to be worried about from a weapons perspective but from the perspective of dealing with the raw material, the government is aware and constantly monitoring what is going on with that. ask turning the talks into a cover was the job of creative director rob vargas. what when into your thinking of the cover? challenging toit think in terms of what direction we wanted to go with the story. the story covers a lot of things. part of it is that it is a very secretive process to produce this and transport this ingredient. the botulism toxin. we chose to go with -- with what is familiar to readers. a close-up of a man getting botox. we like the quality does pictures had. carol: up next, the coming bipolar global economy and how rex tillerson is managing the state department. this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." you can find us online and on

the mobile app. in the economic section, outright or could be the greatest obstacle to globalization, even more than donald trump or brexit. >> the author of the story priest this interesting trend, saying if you extrapolate -- traced this interesting friend, saying if you extrapolate our china interacts with the world, you can see this schism emerging and if it keeps widening, we will end up with two distinct spheres in the economy, which goes counter to this trend of knitting together of economies that we have seen since the fall of the berlin wall. carol: talk about the two sides, if you will. >> one of them will revolve what we in the media call the west, european companies and japan. the other will revolve around china and it's sort of satellites, perhaps including russia. the countries share many interests. the countries that are a part of the one road initiative, this infrastructure spending plan that china has rolled out. carol: we were talking about china last week because they help the communist party conference and we heard a lot from president xi and his plans for the country. what that we heard from him supports this? >> i think that he tried to be reassuring in the opening speech, was over three hours long. carol: it was very long. cristina: he promised on companies that they would have the same protections as local companies. people are having trouble believing that, although on the world stage she has stopped to present himself as a global list. at arvos, he said that protectionism is shutting yourself in a dark room. he has dismantle that the u.s. this mantle that the u.s. has

discarded in terms of leading globalization. carol: let's talk about china in terms of globalization. what specifically, they are looking to develop industry internally, semiconductors or auto. the have major initiatives underway. cristina: think of a globalized world in which chinese companies are dominant, not just that but chinese technology and chinese rules. we have seen already, the idea is basically to squeeze foreign companies from the chinese market and allow chinese companies to dominate the market and use that as a launchpad to begin expanding abroad. carol: so we looked at how that is going. cristina: for example in the digital economy where china has already constructed this nontariff barrier in the form of censorship which does not allow western companies to operate freely there. that market is completely dominated by chinese firms. baidu, tencent. but if you look at how those companies have tried to expand abroad, the record is quite poor. carol: speaking of a changing world order, and the politics section, an inside look at how rex tillerson is reshaping the

state department. here's editor matthew . >> rex tillerson is a former ceo of exxon mobil. he was brought in with much fanfare from the business community. finally they had a big honcho ceo who was going to bring the lessons of the private sector to one of the more bureaucratic, larger institutions of the federal government. he was going to whip it into shape. that was the story, the narrative that got pushed. he is also a ceo who deals with leaders and bent them to his will. we want to look at rex 10 months on into the job and look at what he said was his top priority, which is to redesign the state department and look at it from a perspective of a businessman, a case study in management, and look at how this is not at all going according to plan.

carol: stop right there. there is so much for our senior foreign diplomat to be dealing with, whether north korea or china or russia. pick your spots around the globe. yet he is consumed with the task of the organization for the state department. how do people see that? matt: they scratched their heads about it. it is weird. we are at a time when there is as many kind of foreign-policy crises around the world. north korea. there ran situation. isis. iran situation. as many foreign policy crises around the world, iraq with isis, that are raging right now, and yet this new head of the state department, who is kind of this big character, has chosen to kind of shrink the purview of his office into looking at how to reorganize the institution itself. and getting bogged down in minutia.

it is just strange to a lot of observers and current and former state department employees about how he is so obsessed with redesigning this institution when there are so many crises to address right now. carol: it is not just streamlining, it is chopping. 75,000 employees, just over a third looking like they will be chopped. at the same time, he is seen as being kind of cut off. pretty isolationist. about chopping up a huge business like this when seemingly inaccessible, according to reports. matt: exactly. 35% is what the reports are. the picture is of an insulated guy. the time that our reporter, mick, who traveled with him extensively, got a half an hour with him last week.

and, the message that he is it isg out there and now being interpreted, it just does not seem to be really eight connection. he seems mystified by the narrative that is out there about how he is insulated and how unhappy a lot of staff and career foreign service people are. we have seen a wave of exits from senior diplomatic people and yet he says, i do not understand. when i walked past people in the hallway, they smile. and everything seems to be ok. carol: up next, kenya you make money from behavioral finance? why many companies are bypassing a deep pool of talent. this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." you can listen to us on radio on

sirius fm and on a.m. 11 30 in new york, 101 fm in boston, 90 90.11 fm in washington, d.c., m 960 in the bay area, and in london and asia on the bloomberg radio. in the finance section, a look at the investment firm putting an economist on behavioral science to work. >> people who are market leaders speak about market psychologically all the time. they have stock phrases like irrational exuberance, climbing the wall of worries. economists took longer to come around to that. economists prefer to speak of markets more like flaky robots. talking about market efficiency, processing information, random prices. over time, the profession has begun to kind of recognize that

you can begin to see a motion in the markets in ways that they can model and make predictions out of. so richard saylor is just one be -- has just won the nobel prize in economics. for his work in behavioral economics. that follows other nobel winners. you are kind of releasing economist saying, this is a real thing. something that we can work with. carol: when i am saying to myself right now, if we know markets are predictably irrational, does that make them predictable on some level? >> that is what everybody would like to see. everybody that is a market participant, and again, is looking for any information that give them an edge so the first thing people do when they learn about behavioral economics is the first thing that we do a lot of our freshman psychology classes. a begin to die nice markets. -- they begin to diagnose other

people. they begin to diagnose markets. the begin to look at the crazy things others are doing to see if you can figure out a way to take advantage of it. turns out that is harder than it sounds. carol: explain that a little bit. these folks are coming up with theories, they are putting it to work. >> saylor is a principal at the money management firm that is trying to put it to work. he is not a money manager. but they are using some of the behavioral economics for this. one thing is they look for signs of under reaction and overreaction to moves. it is a little tricky. what is it under reacting, when is it overreacting? they have ways that they are trying to suss out and they have a pretty good record so far. carol: the performances have been there. >> i think the disclaimer always is, past performance is no indicator of future results. there are lots of managers that do other things that are not behavioral. it is tricky duties at how much is behavioral science and other

things in the markets. -- to tease out how much is behavioral science and other things in the market. one thing they are doing is looking at insider buying and selling. we have a way of looking at, what do insiders think about what is happening to this stock. that is one way they are trying to gauge, is what is happening in under reaction or and overreaction? carol: you guys talked to other folks, and someone over at morningstar. what was his take on it? pat: first of all, think it is amazing. if you funding research, you have to be head of behavioral science. what i think a lot of people come to is not that you should be using this to diagnose the rest of the market, but you should be using it to look in the mirror. actually, the most powerful way to glean something useful from behavioral economics is to take

it as a lesson to be humble about your own abilities. the first-person who should be diagnosed with irrationality is yourself. carol: staying focused on behavior, corporate behavior, is a story you will find on bloomberg.com and the mobile app. our economics reporter explains why demanding a axler's degree for a job may just be plain dumb. >> school is great. -- demanding a bachelors degree for some jobs is just plain dumb. >> full is great. he has been working on a new study called dismissed by degrees. he gets into a strange phenomenon which is that a lot of companies are insisting on a bachelors degree for positions that do not require a bachelor's degree. this hurts the employees because they do not get jobs but also employers because they do not find people to fill the job with unrealistic criteria. carol: there is a great statistic. that i want you to use from this. looking at the number of people but they have within the organization already, how many of those have degrees, versus

those they are trying to now higher. >> we went through dozens and dozens of companies with this mismatch and one of the most extreme is production supervisors. one in six production supervisors currently working in america has a bachelors degree. two thirds of the postings for production supervisors demand a bachelors degree. carol: it is crazy. the people currently doing that job do not have a degree, most of them do not. yet when they go to hire somebody new for that position, they want the four-year degree. >> they cannot understand why they can't find anyone. why does that happen so often? >> i think there are several factors. one is that it is just an easy proxy. maybe this goal does not require a bachelor's degree but i need people who are hard-working, intelligent, disciplined, and

used to the working world, punctual and so on. i figure if i demand a bachelor i will get that kind of person and if i don't, who knows what kind of person will come in the door? that is the thinking. >> so we are introducing a skilled mismatch of a certain kind. >> you pay more, right? you also take longer to fill the job and the person is more likely to leave because he your she can probably find a better job after a year or two of work. >> the quit rate. a huge factor. it costs the company a lot. greg that is right. >> there is a term you call it. redentialing. is a made-up word that that's what it is. a bias towards credentials.

>> coming up, homemade in america is losing out to russian steel. and the trumps administration assault on public land. ♪ 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.

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." still ahead, the debate over preserving land for recreational public use. apple's billion-dollar bet on hollywood. what it is like to ride in a rolls-royce phantom. all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: so many more must-reads in the magazine this week. we are here was editor-in-chief megan murphy. in politics, you look at pipelines. the pipelines for keystone were going to be made out of american

steel. that is what is happening, right? megan: that is why i like being editor. you get to tell the story behind the story and this is a good one. number one, they were not all using american steel. since then, companies that we have discussed have lobbied to get outside of the americans steel exemption. the big exemption is trump came in and said he was going to levy a tariff on steel coming in. that has not happened. we are seeing this perverse situation where people think the tariff is coming in and are buying foreign steel. we should point out that even companies that say they are american-made pipeline, meaning pipes are manufactured in america, the supply of u.s. steel is unreliable. so these companies that even make american-made pipes are

getting this steel from france, germany, other places as well. what i love about this story, and it traces through this company, a russian steel company that has subsidiaries in north america, when you say american made or make america great again, it is much harder than you think when you get down to the components of things, the components of manufacturing, where this is coming from, and frankly places where american manufacturing cannot supply enough raw material to meet the demand. it is definitely, it is easy for parts of it and not so easy for other parts of it. >> it is not so easy to make made in america. >> if you are a manufacturer of pipeline, the thing you need is a reliable source. you do not care where it comes from. carol: you touched on it a little bit. you mentioned the russian election, right? this company is owned by a

russian oligarch. megan: the majority shareholder is roman abramowitz who is a well-known russian oligarchs, a diverse array of holdings. what we talk about a little bit is interestingly, over 2 million in lobbying since keystone was going to progress and there was a pipeline. that is a huge pipeline, the amount of steel would be huge. so to have their steel go into that pipeline is obviously something they would want. office, theye into have also been active about lobbying for exemptions for american-made steel. a well-known washington operation. so i think of course it has ties to roman abramovitz. it is more emblematic of how complicated it is to have something. when you say american made, what are you talking about? is it from canada? how are you going to deliver on that promise? carol: bright. a real peek inside how difficult it is to do. when you talk about donald

trump, the people who actually voted from the united states. a lot of steel workers voted for him in the united states. and so they are not finding more steel made in the u.s.. push back. megan: this is a great question about everything. you come into office with a promise to restore american manufacturing and american jobs. here's the thing. that is happening. the economy is expanding in that sector and they will benefit from a researching american economy more generally. but both specific promises that were made industry by industry and town by town, burned-out factory time by burned-out factory town, whether or not that can be delivered on is more difficult to say and that will play out politically. the issue is whether or not over time, adding jobs in those sectors, is sustainable for the kind of american economy we will need to compete. that is a much bigger question. carol: let's talk about a future

-- a feature of this week. it takes us to the mountains and montana. it delves into everybody having axes to public forest land. it is kind of like the beach. megan: it is kind of hard for people to understand forest lands sometimes. it is like a route of access. everybody can go to the beach. the same for forest land. it is an interesting economic reducingat actually is access to forest land leading to greater enjoyment of them because instead of giving everyone axes, it makes it almost pricier. competition. people are watching whether donald trump will be behind the ore for more state control if he is with the obama administration which said to protect the land.

>> exactly. he said to protect the land. carol: one of the stories not getting as much attention. you guys are definitely -- we have more on this story from the editor. >> for years there used to be an understanding between the large landowners, mostly: ranches out out there, vast spreads with livestock on them, often. >> four years, there used to be an understanding between the landowners and the outdoors men and women who would go hunting and fishing that you could walk through their land to get into the interior of the mountain to some of the best elk hunting areas and fishing areas.

for years it was a silent agreement and then all of a sudden signs saying no trespassing, keep off, started showing up. carol: where is the trump administration? early on, president trump or donald trump the candidate seems to say, we want to protect these lands. now, not so sure. >> at yes. he was interviewed in "field & stream" magazine, saying he did not want the states to get a hold of the land because it was great land and the state might sell it off to the highest bidder and then it would not be preserved anymore. then he turned around and asked zinke to examine all of these national monuments which were protected, with bush, clinton, and obama used their

presidencies for. and it is unprecedented that a president would ask to change the previous president's designation. it is really not done. carol: bit of a trump. [laughter] julia: quickly say what happens next. because as you said, we are at loggerheads. what are we waiting for? miranda: i think that the outdoorsman and the environmentalists who are fighting to keep these various trails as public easements are hoping the forest services will take these private landowners to court and do what happened with the wonder ranch and set precedent. forest services is expecting cuts. budget cuts. a representative spoke about being concerned about getting into lawsuits that they may not be able to win. so the fight is to make them public permanently.

and that is, right now, at a standstill to wait and see who is going to take action. carol: up next, while being less friendly to advertisers might be a winning strategy for snapchat. a good deal in ohio. some say it is too good. ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. you can also find us online and on our mobile app. in our features session, snapchat does not have the same problem with viral hoaxes as facebook, google, and twitter. we investigate why. > are of these mainstream

social networks, facebook, twitter, good from sorting truth from fiction? that is where snapchat has done well. not only have they not sold any advertising to russia, as far as we can doubt. more importantly, they do not have fake news. the reason is that they have human beings, editors, going for most of the stuff that is put forward for users. they do not have this free for all newsfeed you see everybody else. algothrims not all sorting. julia: is there a differentiating factor? >> snapchat, publicly, to me, said we think it is important, we think it is our responsibility to help people figure out where of their information is coming from. which is saying, we take responsibility for what is on our platform. facebook, under scrutiny around this russia issue, has sort of

moved in itsy-bitsy steps in that direction. [laughter] max: they used the word responsibility but have not come out in strong terms. one critique of facebook and twitter is that they do not care. they think it is now they're dropped to sort fact from fiction. they think it is your job as the reader. when you see what the anti-fake news effort is around, it is around the fact checking trading. there is a program where they are going to teach what is fake and what is real. they have buttons you can click to dispute it. it is about you the consumer deciding. snapchat is about a conventional view of media which is that you are smart. carol: i had no idea that snap employed journalists. they haveproducers,

several layers of protection. walk us through what happened in charlottesville because that was an example of how seriously they take the posts. >> during the unite the right protest which was a white notice -- nationalist protest in charlottesville, virginia around a confederate statue, there was a counter protest were a young man allegedly drove a car and wounded a young woman and 19 others. the news that came out of this event was driven by cell phone videos. kin particular, snap have an impressive scope which was the first video allegedly of this guy getting arrested. the way that that video got out in the world is that it was posted on the snap and it went through this editorial process that we detail where they tried to fact check it. they called the charlottesville police department asking is this the guy, they looked at the time stamps and the location data coming in trying to determine if

this was real. based on these conversations, they kept together this sort of video. it an "ourstory." julia: they were the last to break the news. max: snapchat takes the screenshot and people on facebook and twitter notice that an basket around. snapchat waited to publish on their newsfeed until they verified. carol: hours later. max: on the one hand, that is a huge missed opportunity. snapchat co him him him him himuld have gotten this news out earlier.

on the other hand, it shows that they have a process that is different. when you look at the rest of the news cycle around charlottesville, facebook and google did not acquit themselves very well. carol: in the technology section, amazon is getting billions of dollars in tax exemptions and grants in ohio, but what is the state getting in return? jack: a big part of the sales pitch was to bring back jobs in ohio which was trailing in the recession mainly by privatizing the state development. in fact, the first thing after kasich was worn in as governor 2011. the other thing, ohio is a little bit unusual it in the fact that the state has monthly control over liquor sales. they wrested from bootleggers and mafia in the 1930's. they were granted sort of essentially at least to this

agency calledd jobs for ohio shortly after kasich became governor for the price of $1.4 billion. , ohio was given a 25-year lease over the proceeds from liquor sales in the state. before the sale about $150 million he year and ohio's eight general fund and now we are down to about $250 million he year and private development agencies. carol: so all is good in ohio? not so much. geoff: ohio still lags. economics the private agency, including the state auditor for many years say that it is largely a function of the fact that it is hard to tell how ohio is deal jobs

getting four states and municipalities are going to be until the terms are side. ad, ohio just made amazon real beneficiary of that of the course of now five deals in the last few years. carol: we will dig into the specifics about that because it kind of blew my mind a little bit. the breaks given to amazon one right after the other in ohio. course of the first four of those five deals, millions of front. deals by the private economic development agency rather than by the state municipalities. approved by the five-person ohio tax control authority but that is mostly people from private industry and one state official. carol: no sales taxes for 15 years, and $81 million deal, 1.4 billion in cash, money to build a warehouse.

>> right. the tax breaks from contributing to local municipal funding is a big part of this. it is not that ohio is particularly unique in terms of wanting to attract big companies to set up shops there with tax breaks of various kinds. but the local officials that we talked to for this story say they are really being crushed by reliefbination of tax for amazon and and some cases that is a requirement to take care of amazon's new facilities with public services, which they are interviewing. carol: up next, apple's plan to take over the red carpet. this is bloomberg is this week.

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. you can also listen to us on the radio on sirius fm in new york, 101 fm in boston, 91 fm in

washington, d.c., and am960 in the bay area, and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. apple has more than enough money to make good on plans to produce television. some in hollywood are wondering whether the company has a strategy. here is reporter lukas shaw. >> the mission is the big question. they have hired a couple of experienced television executives from sony, to run the new division which has right now 10 people working in it and soon enough will have 80 or 90. they are going to be producing 6-8 shows for 2019. so, two years from now. know where the shows will live. how to access them. how much it will cost. wantsg deal is that apple

to make sure you are tethered to your phone, your different devices, europe had. -- your ipad. because as the growth in iphones has slowed, it is looking to services like apple music and wherever these videos live, to accelerate its growth. julia: we are talking about a one billion dollar budget in terms of content for the first year. compare that to amazon and netflix and the prolific networks around here. that is a bit fickle. going back to the point we are making about the strategy, how important is tv going to be for apple? lucas: one billion is not only small in movie terms, it is small in apple terms. netflix is going to spend about seven or $8 billion next year, amazon spent $8.6 billion this -- 4.5 billion dollars this

year. facebook has tossed out a billion dollars, youtube has not tossed out a billion but is in the ballpark. apple kind of leaked a billion. i think they are trying to convey how serious they are about the programming they are making. when you compare it to other media companies it is a small budget. the difference between apple and facebook is that facebook is spreading that around a bunch of smaller programs. short form videos. apple is going for high-end shows. a handful of premium projects with big names like steven spielberg. carol: not a lot in comparison to what netflix is spending, the deep pockets at apple. but if you are a creator, you are putting apple at the top. when you want to pitch something, that is what we are seeing. lucas: any time an agent goes out with a top project, there is a list of 6-8 places. that qualify if it is really

qualified. has a big name attached to it. apple has immediately landed on that list because everybody in the entertainment industry has an iphone in their pockets. everybody has a strong affiliation with that brand. they like the idea of experimenting even if they do not know where the show is going to be. carol: if you have as much money as apple, we have an idea for you. in the first suits section this week, we profile the bells and whistles of one of the most expensive cars on the planet, the rolls-royce phantom. >> it was like writing on a magic carpet to the else of switzerland. you feel like the queen of england. she is the premier buyer of this vehicle. people like the queen of a woman by the car and that is how you feel when you are writing and it. riding in it.e

carol: you were behind the wheel. you were not in the back like the queen. >> i did both. let me say that it is remarkable. the car is made to be enjoyed in the backseat. this is an enormous car for driving tycoons and heads of state, celebrities, olivet. i was behind a tiny swiss road, behind the wheel of his massive sedan. it actually handles amazing. it is really surprising that a car that big and heavy, it handles beautifully. just a little slow. it is just like a float. you float along. carol: magic carpet. talk about the inside. julia and i were talking about the story. >> it has the champagne cooler in the backseat. reclining seats that massage you. doors that open and close at the touch of a button. night headliner, it looks like the milky way above you. everything is heavy and real. if you touch it, it is real leather, real wool, real wood.

you know, we've got these polished wood picnic tables that go down from the seat in front of you. i mean, everything. julia: i think she is undecided. [laughter] hannah: it goes to show you. carol: undecided between the front and the back? hannah: it depends on the day. what mood do you feel like? carol: what does it cost? hannah: i have to say that for the people buying this car, are there options? it starts at $450,000. it becomes your own thing. everyone bespokes it, everyone gets their own thing. i really think, probably zero of these cars are actually $450,000. they actually cost more, because everyone to buy some to make it feel like there is. thing,ar they have a new a gallery in the dashboard where

you can put your beautiful objects of art, your collection, whatever you want. it is things like that that will enhance the price. carol: "bloomberg businessweek" is available now. more bloomberg television starts right now. .

♪ emily: i am emily chang. this is "best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you all our top interviews. coming up, tech earnings are in full swing. amazon reported sales of more than $43 billion in the third quarter. we will break down those numbers along with alphabet's and twitter. thas