>> welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." in this week's issue, we go inside facebook as employees learn about the massive data breach. jason: and you've heard about the epa, how about the digital protection agency? that is ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ jason: we are here with editor joel weber. talking about this week's issue. joel, from the top, the biggest business story of the week's

facebook. >> you can't not talk about that this week. this started about a week ago. it just kept coming and did not go away. we were thinking about what we were going to do on the cover, and there was no way we could not do something iconic about facebook. jason: enter paul ford. opening remarks? tell us what he has to say. >> we really wanted to go to paul because he has been such a great voice on technology impacting society. what paul really did well with the story is he advanced the conversation. this is really a moment that in some sense, this is a massive superfund issue. we have data in the open, it is a bigger story than facebook. all of our data is in the open and vulnerable. what are we going to do about it when things like this happen going forward? this is a massive issue. and we have had multiple versions of it and it will continue to be an issue.

taylor: what are the other companies involved? i know we talk about facebook, and all eyes are on them, but this is a bigger story. what are some of the other companies coming down the pike? >> before you even think about going forward, equifax happened in the last six months. we are barely past that. this will continue to snowball. we are not nearly done talking about this yet. what is also interesting, how global this story is. the u.s. has a certain version of it but the u.k. into europe also reacts to stories like this differently because of the way they structure regulation. facebook will come under a microscope over there in a different way than happens here. the biggest thing paul came to is if this was a superfund site, you would have a government agency to deal with that and why isn't there a digital version of that?

we don't need to fund this with a ton of money. you could do this on a shoestring and it would be in the public interest. taylor: is there a willingness for that coming? consumers have been pushing for it, are we there yet? >> i don't think this administration wants to put a new government agency out there, that that's not to say it shouldn't be part of the public discourse right now because the public would benefit and it would be a function of government. taylor: this also leads us into the technology section, which is also a facebook story. walk us through that. >> our goal with this story is to connect dots. this begins with the conversation within facebook that happened this week. one of the employees we interviewed, who said, i have never been more embarrassed than when president trump was elected.

this was massive fallout. internally, they are dealing with this. the two people you would expect to deal with this sooner, one being mark zuckerberg and the other being sheryl sandberg, have been quiet on this for most of the week. i think internally, employees at facebook are wrestling with that as well as the larger public. jason: we got a chance to hear what max had to say.

>> in the days following the reports, facebook acted like they had done nothing wrong and a lot of executives were basically the semantics, was it a breach? on tuesday, with the stock market falling apart, facebook's stock crashed like 9%, monday and tuesday, facebook had an all hands meeting. normally they are led by someone like mark zuckerberg or sheryl sandberg, they tend to do damage control, but sarah and i were able to get through to some employees, and they felt unfortunately was a lawyer. the deputy general counsel, and it was only 30 minutes. there were a lot of questions put to facebook's deputy general counsel about should we consider the ethics of that? and he didn't answer them. what is happening is you have this building of angst and anxiety that is the culmination of about 18 months of this. just on tuesday night, the cofounder of whatsapp, who sold to mark zuckerberg and facebook for $19 billion, joined the elite facebook campaign. >> wow. >> is interesting to watch this because it moves from a technical problem to a nexus to join. taylor: where are mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg? >> i think they have struggled because in some since they did not do anything wrong, it is

true. cambridge analytica are this consultancy to the trump campaign, did something very similar to what the obama campaign did in 2012 in terms of building psychographic profiles. the difference is that facebook changed its policies in between the 2012 election and 2016 election and cambridge analytica got around it by using a third party and laundering the data. it was in some sense a data breach in that the data was taken improperly. facebook felt it was the victim, not the perpetrator, and they were following policies. kind of what this gets to is facebook saying, we did not do anything wrong, and many employees are saying that is the point, it should not be that easy for data from 50 million americans to get into the world. jason: you mentioned the culmination of 18 months, and why is that?

what has happened to this point that makes this moment so sharp? >> it's hard to know. when the markets opened on monday and facebook stock was way down, i was surprised. most of what happened with this cambridge analytica story was well known. my theory is, there are two possibilities. one is threat of regulation. we know the ftc is looking into this thing, we know the europeans have been a very hard on facebook are going there as well. the other theory is that basically, there have been problems at facebook below the surface on the products. when facebook reported first-quarter earnings come up for the first time ever, we learned that the number of north american users fell, which is stunning. it really gets at some of the problems with engagement and their product.

i would argue you have a situation where users were willing to accept the privacy trade-off and willing to give the company data in exchange for a product continuously improving, but as they get tired of facebook, the calculus changes. that is part of what investors are reacting to. jason: a designer talked about how to put facebook's biggest fear on the cover. >> we have a story about backlash against facebook and we wanted to show what they have to lose, which is users. they are getting very angry. taylor: it seems like a hard cover to make. you sort of took their page and put the delete button. how did you come up with that? >> we just happen all rushing at this button, to them that would be a terrifying idea, that users would be so angry they would get out altogether. jason: there is an ominous feel to it, this march against what was a beloved company for a long time. >> definitely. we wanted the cover to be a quick read and get to what the reaction has been.

taylor: up next, our exclusive interview with saudi arabia's prince alwaleed. just weeks after his release from detention. >> yes, i have been vindicated. we do have a confirmed understanding with the government going forward. ♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." jason: you can find us online at businessweek.com. taylor: and on our mobile app. our reporters sat down with saudi arabia's prince alwaleed bin talal. jason: he was caught up in anticorruption last year. taylor: he was locked up in the ritz carlton. >> i need to clear my name and the lies. he said i was tortured, i was

sent to prison. during my 83-plus days in the ritz carlton hotel. these were lies. i stayed the whole time there, i was never tortured and given the best service by the saudi government. doctors would come twice a day. we had the best of service, best food, best everything. it disturbs me to hear all of these rumors and innuendos and heresies. >> this whole ordeal has affected your reputation. people will still believe no matter what you tell me today that because you were in the ritz carlton, you must be guilty of something or crooked perhaps. surely you must realize that. >> sure. when you are detained, for sure, some of the business community,

some of the banking community, they will have one iota of doubt, for sure. that is my job right now, to interact, meet with all of them individually or jointly, or go through a good reporter like you, and say my story. i understand it is not going to be easy at all. some banks and some businesses and some people will be doubtful. however, i assure them everything is normal, and that we are functioning as we were before and we welcome them to come here to see what you are doing and saudi arabia and life is back to normal. >> how will you know if it is or isn't affecting your business and investment opportunities? >> i know because i have met businessmen and the bank community, which is a very important barometer.

we met most of them and we're still meeting some of them. they all reiterated their position of trust in us and said we are ready to continue with you as before. >> it was surely help if the government said, alwaleed did nothing wrong, it was a misunderstanding, he paid nothing to leave, he remains a saudi citizen good standing. that has not happened. >> all of these points were covered in the confirmed understanding agreement with the government. i cannot delve into that and the government will not delve into that. >> i understand but you have to agree that if the government, if prince mohammed or some other government official were to say, to affirm everything we have discussed today, that would help. >> look, the fact i'm speaking to you right now and saying

everything honestly, and the fact the government is not saying what is wrong, it is an approval of what i am saying, correct? >> the crown prince is touring the west and meeting president trump at the white house and trying to attract capital to saudi arabia. given your experience in the ritz carlton, how good can you feel about presenting a common front with the government, the very same government that put you in the hotel? >> look, i am a supporter of saudi arabia, i am a supporter of my government, a supporter of king salman. before, during and after detention. there is no doubt about that. i support saudi arabia. this is my country. >> people will find that hard to understand. >> this guy is my cousin, my uncle, my grandfather.

these are my sons and daughters. i am part of the saudi community, i am part of it. it is like in the united states, you think that paul ryan, they are the same party with trump, right? they disagree sometimes. even pelosi, and schumer of the senate, they also. we are one party here, one party in saudi arabia. this country was established with the blood of our families. i'm not about to move from that front. i know people say, you were detained by the king and the crown prince, and yet you are still supporting them, and i say, you bet. i am supporting them wholeheartedly. >> you have spoken to other investors, other ceos, what do they say?

>> well, you know, most of them -- i speak to all of them. some of them called me, some i called them. >> you have to wonder about how comfortable they will be putting capital in saudi arabia after seeing what we might call the ritz-carlton method of dealing with disputes. >> they have to decide that. i can only talk on my behalf. i can assure you, i tell you, it is business as usual. i'm going to live in saudi arabia and i'm going to die in saudi arabia. jason: hear more about that interview on bloomberg radio and bloomberg.com. taylor: up next, the most powerful finance chief in the world, the head of china's world bank. jason: my exclusive interview.

taylor: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ jason: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." taylor: you can listen to what is on the radio, sirius xm 119, and also in new york, also in boston, washington, d.c. and the bay area. jason: and in london, as well as asia on the bloomberg radio app. a profile of china's new central bank chief. taylor: he will still have to report to president xi. >> too many in the financial community, he is a bit of a known quantity, he has been the number two at the central bank for years. he is a currency regulator, a phd trained economist, trained

in the united states. and he speaks english, which will be an asset. jason: the scope of his responsibilities are only getting bigger, and he is obviously even more powerful given what is happening with the chinese government right now and president xi specifically. what do we expect to see early on during his tenure? >> yes and no. in a way, the central bank gained powers, in the most recent legislative session, because there has been some of the regulators merged, and some of their powers were devolved to the central bank. but in the same legislative session, we also have term limits struck down, so we could see xi in power many years. it's no secret that china's central bank is not independent. everything from interest rates decisions to who gets rescue funds, those orders have to be greenlighted from above.

he is at the helm of a more powerful institution, but in a political environment where he could have less maneuverability. jason: politically, less powerful in china, but globally more powerful. >> that is correct. jason: you look at some of the statistics you have in your piece, $5.7 trillion in financial assets, the chinese central bank has. talk to us about how it pervades the global economy and has its tentacles through the world. >> unlike the fed, which has a pretty narrow mandate, china's central bank has an implicit, huge broad mandate to do anything that furthers an economic agenda at home and abroad. for example, it is visibly, externally much more than other central banks through things like, it helps fund one belt,

one road, which is the initiative to increase economic ties to asia, africa, and even latin america. it acts like a development bank like the world bank to finance projects abroad. and also under his predecessor, there was a strong campaign to increase the use of yuan in international transactions. taylor: speaking of central bank chief, jay powell oversaw his first meeting as chairman last week. jason: we talked about what the powell fed might do about inflation. >> inflation is a poorly understood phenomenon, which matters. the fed is raising rates now specifically to try and make sure inflation doesn't get above its target and get out of control. there is a long history of causing these sessions when the

fed raises rates. going back to 1970, five out of the seven tightening cycles where the fed made rates higher ended in recession. not to say they shouldn't raise rates, they probably should, but how far and what measures of inflation it should be looking at when it decides on this are questions i don't think even people on the federal open market committee fully understand. jason: are they overthinking it or are thinking about in the wrong way? >> it's hard over thing something so important. it's not like a baseball player where you step up to the plate and by overthinking you miss the ball. the more thinking we can bring to this, the better. i think it could be that economists are too trapped in theory and not enough in empirical work. janet yellen, to her credit, reemphasizing every meeting, the fed would be data dependent.

meaning that it would not say that, theory says we should do this, no, she wanted to wait and see the evidence for the higher inflation. because of that, the fed has been gradual about raising rates. taylor: we have talked about the phillips curve, is that outdated? we have the taylor rule. depending on the number you put in, the output number changes. is there a broader discussion about the types of models the fed is using and do they look at all of them or one? >> they do try to look at a lot of things, i am glad you brought up the taylor rule. the going in idea on the taylor rule was that it was fairly mechanical. the fed would have a rule -- and this is what congress is asking for, just give us a rule. except that every variable in the taylor rule is itself squishy and moving around.

you are back to the original problem. you have to evaluate the economy independently, and look at how patterns have changed. jason: inflation, global trade, i also talked about that in an exclusive interview. >> what we tried to think about our consumers, we think if this or that approach is better for our consumers, can i see out there? for example, tariffs on aluminum in the u.s. will increase prices on cans. 10% on aluminum at the current prices, it will represent 2%-3% more for the consumer. if you think our business out there has inflation pressure on your cost structure, that will add double inflation right there.

you have 1.5% to 2% inflation in the u.s., just on the aluminum piece. of course, that will be a burden for consumers. again, we are trying to do what is best for consumers, and some things are not necessarily good for them. jason: how do you model that in, or make strategic decisions now? or are you in a wait and see mode, to see how this plays out on a global perspective? >> we will want to see that the world continues to grow. previously, the stars were aligned. most major markets in the world are having good economic growth and people are optimistic about the future. we hope these tariffs or anything of that sort, doesn't take the energy of what we see out there today. jason: next, how lobbyists in washington are capitalizing on nafta talks. taylor: and how washington is

trying to handcuff one of china's most powerful companies. jason: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

taylor: up next, we find out who is seeking backdoor through deregulation in nafta talks. and if spotify wants to be the next netflix. jason: that is ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ jason: we are back with businessweek editor joel weber. in the politics section, a dive into nafta, a complicated topic

with a twist. tell us about it. joel: an interesting story. everybody has been talking about nafta. there are high-level discussions about all of this and what we found out is there is a group of lobbyists in d.c. who are quietly coming up with sort of a way to really advance a lot of deregulation agendas by sneaking it into discussions. jason: they are essentially trojan horsing fast-track trade into nafta. it is amazing. joel: this fast-track process is part of the window they are able to do this and because they don't have to do it with congressional oversight. it's like they had a little bit of back door, and they are rushing to put in as much stuff as they can and sneak it through and there will be no real discussion about this. taylor: the proponents of this will say removing barriers will help. with the u.s., lower the barriers we put on our self. proponents would say maybe this is a good thing. joel: the other side of that, don't we have a booming economy? why would we change this

drastically and do it without a larger discussion? that is the real tension with this. it is a really interesting story because it is not being talked about at all and it is around this little group of lobbyists. jason: it is a husband and wife team came up with this quietly. i love how you talk about how they very assiduously and deliberately courted people, expanding carefully the circle of people and now all of a sudden they have some proponents, supporters in the senate, other lobbyists starting to say maybe this idea has legs. joel: and the catch has been, they did have a toehold in the white house, but with all the chaos in the white house, they have lost that one. it does have momentum. if they are able to get through the whole negotiation process, this could become a thing very quickly. taylor: another story i am

focused on that i love is in your feature section. this is about the battle for 5g, right? joel: the reason we wanted to talk about is right now, it is on the heels of the broadcom-qualcomm merger, which fell apart. trump came in and said this deal is not happening. everyone sort of said, why? this would make a lot of sense. and this story is why. this is the unspoken thing that was the backdrop for why that decision was made. the thinking is that the broadcom-qualcomm merger would have led to even more strategic cost-cutting measures around r&d. huawei spends twice as much on r&d as the whole broadcom-qualcomm conversation. they are huge.

it is all about 5g. how quickly can someone quickly own 5g. if it is huawei, there are national security risks. they say this is unfounded accusations, but it remains a conversation in the u.s. this story gets into all that and it is fascinating because no one talked about why everyone is so scared of them and the story does that. jason: a great deep dive. we heard again from the hardest working man at business week other than you. let's hear what he had to say. max: huawei is a gigantic chinese company. they make networking equipment, the parts that go into cell phone base stations, almost everywhere in the world, including most of western europe, and they make a lot of smart phones. they are the third-largest

smartphone manufacturer in the world after apple and samsung. unlike apple and samsung, their market share is still growing. this is probably the biggest chinese technology company, it is private, but their revenue is around $92 billion, exclusively. an enormously influential chinese company. taylor: in 2012, they were banned by the u.s. walk us through why they were banned. max: from the time they came to the u.s. starting in the early 2000's, they have raised a lot of red flags, at least with some people in the u.s. national security establishment. some of that has to do with the fact that basically anything that comes from china causes some people to freak out. there are some specific things with this company, the founding of the company is a little bit murky. it was founded by a former chinese military officer, you take that and the fact that the chinese government has been

known to engage in cyber espionage, and you ask yourself, do you really want these guys to be running our networks? that's from the u.s. point of view. in 2012, there was a hearing by the house intelligence committee, and there is no smoking gun, but they spent a lot of time investigating the company and said we don't trust these guys, we don't think the u.s. government should trust these guys, and there is no formal blacklist or ban as far as we know on u.s. carriers from using this equipment, but they basically exerted political pressure on anyone who tries to buy it in the u.s. and on our allies, at times, trying to get them to get more cautious with huawei. jason: they keep going along even after that, and yet it comes back to the fore because of the qualcomm-broadcom deal and that's why the deal doesn't go through.

max: broadcom is ostensibly based in singapore, although most of their employees are in the u.s., the ceo is an american citizen, a historically american company, they move to buy qualcomm, a big u.s. chipmaker. and the u.s. regulator that regulates foreign transactions, this is technically a foreign transaction, they recommend to the trump administration may say no. the reason is because the fear was if broadcom were to buy qualcomm, it would cut qualcomm's r&d spending and that would benefit huawei and they would lead to huawei to get a leg up in the race to 5g. it gets technical here, but that is the next fast version of your cell phone and may have made a lot of progress. the fear was if broadcom could by qualcomm, it would help huawei and the trump administration stepped in. what we are seeing is a trade war.

i think a lot of people are focused on those aluminum tariffs or whatever, but this thing that is happening on wireless i would argue is a much bigger deal than what is happening with manufacturing. jason: next, a senate candidate in west virginia. taylor: and bold plans for one of america's unused mines. jason: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ jason: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." taylor: you can also find us online at businessweek.com. jason: and on our mobile app. a nursing home operator goes underground, so to speak. taylor: tom clark wants to save mining in minnesota. >> tom clark is not yet iron or minor. tom is 62 years old and has spent most of his life running nursing homes. about 30 years of his professional life. he still owns five in virginia. one in arizona. for some reason, late in his 50's, he decided to go into mining. a lot of people do that, right? [laughter] why not? >> 58 years old. first it was coal mining. the people in minnesota, in northern minnesota have a very

large and rich deposit of iron ore that has not been mined in 30 years. jason: why is that, why has it been neglected? >> there were three different avenues that tried to develop this into a mine. in each case, they got to a point where they decided they work throwing good money after bad, part of that was influenced by iron prices in the global market. the last one was a huge indian conglomerate. they put it into bankruptcy a a few years ago, and clark went in and bid higher than the big public mining company. taylor: what does he think he can do that other companies have not been able to achieve? >> what he appears to be good at is winning people's favor and getting them to give him money for a project.

jason: his career does give him this almost music man quality, where he has to convince people and get out of town. he did it in the nursing home business, and now people are worried he is doing it here. and yet, it is very much of the moment in terms of what people are talking about, even politically and socioeconomically. >> yes. jason: miners and steel. how does that play into this backdrop? >> you would think president trump's tariffs would help them, because in theory at least, it should push up prices of steel. jason: u.s. steel. >> and push up prices therefore of iron. that should be good for him. so that is interesting. the people on the iron range is want to see some jobs. and they get a cut of whatever he mines, the communities there, the county and the state. they are interested in that. jason: when will we know if he is successful?

>> he has to raise $600 million in additional financing. he has already put in $155 million. if he doesn't do it, i presume minnesota will run out of patience. without leases, you cannot mine. taylor: fossil fuels in the politics session. jason: an ex-coal ceo wants to run for office. taylor: he wants to be the next senator of virginia. >> this is don blankenship, he was the head of the biggest coal miner of the state of west virginia. he was found guilty for crimes associated with the 2010 big branch explosion, the worst coal mine disaster in generations. it killed 29 miners. he went to jail for a year and got out last spring.

almost as retribution for what he sees as his wrongdoing -- sorry, for having been wronged by political enemies, namely joe manchin, he is ready for joe manchin's seat. jason: why do people get behind him? >> don blankenship was kind of blazing the trail that trump rode to the white house, long before trump did it. he was railing against labor unions and companies that ship jobs overseas. if you want to understand the conservative movement in rural america and particularly in a place like west virginia, you have to understand don blankenship's appeal to people. he is up against two fairly standard, polished politicians running for the gop nomination in the primary may 8.

they're trying to latch onto the trump agenda but he has a more true claim to it. if you look back at the rallies he was having before upper big branch happened come up the explosion happened, they are so trumpian in optics and language. he is wearing an american flag hat and shirt, he is railing against government, regulation. he is saying we need to make america great, all of the things we heard donald trump say from a stump in 2016. he is a true believer in the trump agenda and i think people realize he is the real deal and they don't want a standard politician. he is anything but. taylor: talk was more about the odds, you mentioned the republican primary, he needs to get through that before he faces joe manchin. he has been rising in the polls a little bit. what are his odds? >> a month ago, around january, he was a distant third,

blankenship was. both of his rivals, the current state attorney general, and evan jenkins have both commissioned polls that show them in the lead, but blankenship is neck and neck with them. he is self financed, that frees him up, he can go to town halls, by radio ads and tv spots and get out there and talk to people in a way his rivals cannot right now because they are stuck at fundraising dinners and having to raise money. that has freed him up and again, in the polls, he is a close second and has the momentum. jason: next, spotify may be the king in streaming music, but can it turn a profit? this is "bloomberg businessweek."

♪

♪ taylor: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." jason: you can also listen to us on the radio on sirius xm 119, and on 1130 in new york, 1161 in boston, 91 fm in washington, d.c., and also in the bay area. taylor: and in london and asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. spotify made its mark helping the music industry embrace streaming. jason: but as it goes public, can it make a profit? taylor: here is our reporter, lucas shaw. lucas: spotify will go public on april 3. it is the largest music service in the world, and that the question facing it, can it ever make any money?

if you look at the history of online music services in the last 10 or 15 years, none of them are ever profitable because they have to pay so much money to the record labels, music publishers, artists. spotify wants to prove it is the exception to the rule, it will be so big and so great it will being the netflix of the music business. taylor: talk to us more about how they plan to make money. what is their goal? do they raise the monthly fee? or are they maxed out already? lucas: raising the monthly fee will be difficult for spotify because they have a lot of competition. it is from tech companies, apple, amazon, and google, that don't care about making money on the music service, it's just a means for them to sell other things like the iphone. what spotify will have to do is keep reducing the rate it pays

to the rights holders and find other ways to make money to all these other artists. some of the most likely scenarios are selling data to artists that they can use, learning how to plan their tour or when to release the album, and they might also ask artists to share some of what they earn from the promotion. both of those will be controversial in the artist community. spotify will try them out in the next few years. jason: they have courted controversy before. taylor swift jumps to mind. radiohead's thom yorke also comes to mind. what are they doing to avoid future ire? lucas: they are trying to build the service for the artist. in their mind, you will no longer need a record label, you can use their tools and release directly on spotify and all the functions that a label performs, marketing, distribution and all that, will either be performed by spotify or no longer needed. in that case, the artist will not be too upset because the artist will be likely keeping a

larger percentage. if spotify can find a way to prey on the national conflict between an artist and a label rather than having them both of them allied against them, that's probably the best scenario. taylor: i love that the comparison to netflix. you are saying spotify doesn't want to make their own music, so what is the plan? given that they do not make money currently. lucas: the difference between netflix and spotify, netflix was only buying certain shows from certain suppliers and they are not expected to supply every tv show in the world, just enough that you want to watch. if it is a music service, it needs to have everything. music companies have so many rights, that you cannot risk alienating them. you need to construct a world in which they are collecting a smaller and smaller share of the revenue.

jason: in the pursuits section, this week's game changer is thelma golden. taylor: she is an artist advocate, curator and one of the best fundraisers in our world. jason: our reporter has more. james: she has become one of the most influential figures in the contemporary art world globally. she has done this through aggressive fundraising and also basically positioning herself as a kind of king and queen maker of contemporary artists high and low. it is really kind of astonishing to take a step back and get a measure of her accomplishments. jason: one of the things you point out, her influence, the widening of her influence, including being involved in the selection of the portrait artist for the most recent president and first lady. james: she has a fairly storied

history with the obama family. i don't know when they first met. in 2010, she was appointed to a committee for the preservation of the white house that helped choose the artwork that would be on view and arrange loans for that. then she was appointed to the board of the obama foundation. most recently, she was one of three people that made recommendations for the portrait artists that made such a stir painting michelle and barack obama. jason: you talk about her fundraising prowess and ultimately that is the important part of a museum director. james: when she took the helm of the studio museum, it was highly respected but small-scale and the impact was similarly, i would say relatively removed. with her influence, she began to expand the reach of the museum and in doing so, she has put

herself in the position where she and the board of the museums have decided to go along with the stature they want to build, and much larger and more prominent museum. admittedly in the same space as before. taylor: when we talk about the museum, the thing that tugs at my heart, was the opening paragraph, and the vested interest she takes in these artists who are not sure if the work will be accepted. she takes an active role in getting the artists through the door and promoting them. james: it's true, she is very much someone who believes in the harlem community. she is someone who is really aggressive about outreach and doing programming that isn't just for people like myself, who are kind of part of this international contemporary art discourse, it is people within the community who can have a real impact, who she can really

impact on a day-to-day basis. jason: because she really could've elevated herself into this echelon you are alluding to where she would not have to deal with such things. james: completely. and she really believes in the responsibility of contemporary art to have an impact on as many people's lives as possible. taylor: "bloomberg businessweek" is available on newsstands now. jason: as well as businessweek.com and our mobile apps. favorite story? taylor: the huawei story, it is really complicated. jason: it really felt of the moment, not just technology, but the way m&a is getting done. taylor: the security angle, the washington angle. what about you? jason: paul ford and the idea of digital protection agency, it pushed for the story of what

happens in this massive facebook saga. more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪ mom, dad, can we talk?

sure. what's up, son? i can't be your it guy anymore. what? you guys have xfinity. you can do this. what's a good wifi password, mom? you still have to visit us. i will. no. make that the password: "you_stillóhave_toóvisit_us." that's a good one. seems a bit long, but okay... set a memorable wifi password with xfinity my account. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store

near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. announcer: the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect the views of bloomberg lp, its affiliates or its employees. >> the following program is sponsored by operation smile. every year hundreds of thousands of children are born with cleft lip or cleft. why should any child anywhere on this planet live a life of misery? >> imagine a life alone. nobody wants to be around you. we get children coming