♪ carol: ockham to "bloomberg businessweek." jason: we are joining you from bloomberg's headquarters in new york. carol: the u.s. and china continue to talk trade, but are they making real progress? jason: it is the one-year anniversary of president trump's tax bill. the big cuts came with big promises, but the jury is out on what they have done for the economy. carol: theresa may promised there would be a vote in parliament this weekend.

on monday morning, she announced the critical vote would be postponed. jason: on wednesday, parliament held a vote of confidence on her leadership. she survives, but time is running out for her to make a deal with the eu. bloomberg's senior executive editor wrote about brexit. he joins us from london. what i tried to do with this piece was take a look at 10 years out from now, and imagine and think through the consequences of what sort of country britain might become 10 years after brexit now. you imaginet is how britain to look in 10 years time. a lot of it depends on what kind of brexit we get. it is probably still the likeliest scenario. despite all of the chaos and helter skelter events that we are seeing in london right now, withis where we will land,

a relatively soft brexit. that does not make many people happy, but it is still the most pragmatic way to avoid it. that is the scenario we decided to go with. jason: this is a piece, and i will not spoil too much of it, it is at times clever and at times a little bit bleak, especially in terms of britain and the u.k.'s stature in the world. tell us about that. john: that's right. one of the -- and you see this happening already in the u.k.. since brexit, we have seen a real polarization in the political debates. we have seen a resurgence in identity politics. you are seeing a lot of divisions now across the political divide, and also within parties. when you look at what is already happened in the last 2.5 years since brexit happened and you telescope it or would, it makes

you wonder how any future british government could deal with some of the pressuring -- pressing issues, such as rising inequalities, growing angst about globalization and modernization. when you look 10 years in the future, you have to think if trade tensions worsen between the u.s. and china, the turn thel -- it will world into three economic superpowers. it,the u.k. is outside of with the u.k. losing political influence around the world. jason: you do have a little bit of fun from the get-go, although maybe not so fun in the sense that it is a very realistic look. you tell the story through the eyes of king william the fifth. john: that's right. which characters in british society will still be around in 10 years time or will still be famous, that will provide an interesting lens through which to look at this picture -- at

this story? , who will william v be king william v by 2029. the queen would be 104 by that point. prince charles has decided to abdicate to spend more time campaigning against.climate change so william v is on the throne. there is a bit of a surprise. we reveal who the prime minister of great britain is in 10 years time. a secret i tried to keep to myself over the course of that story, and at the end of it, there is a big reveal. hopefully our readers will find that an entertaining and to the story. carol: we know there are so many what if's on brexit. banks are watching this closely. jason: depending on what kind of deal they strike, london may lose its crown as the financial center of the world. or as some might say, it is already happening.

carol: ed robinson takes a look at how brexit could impact london banks. that has been the backdrop for the last two years, widespread assumption that london will have a hard time maintaining the critical mass as the gateway to the european continent for financial services. but what we did is we looked at, what does this mean for the wall street banks? what does this mean for j.p. morgan chase, morgan stanley, bank of america? what is interesting is you cannot lose sight of the fact that it will cleave europe in half. you have the eu 27, and you have the u.k. in a strange way, this is going to provide wall street with an advantage, because it is very easy for those banks, the domicile on the continent as well as remain in london. they will be able to soak up a lot of market share that european banks like lose as they try to adjust to the loss of london. jason: it has been amazing to watch, ed, and i know you have

been watching this closely, because it comes up in interviews and presentations with the big wall street ceos all the time. and you can almost watch the wheels turning in their head. as you say, these are opportunistic people. they did not get to where they were -- these banks did not get so big without candidly taking advantage of some dislocation along the way. go a little deeper for us. as they think about the continent, where are they going to be? where are they going to date in to counter what they will lose in london? have been seeing over the last couple of years, even outside of brexit, is the wall street banks, which have been reinvigorated after the crash, they have been taking a lot of market share, bond underwriting, m&a advice, other strategic forms of advice.on the continent they have been taking that from the european banks, which are behind in

rebounding from the crash. that has already been going on. what is happening now is we see companies in europe tapping jamie dimon's bank for jobs that don't involve accessing the u.s. capital markets, that don't involve a cross-border deal across the atlantic. ttelstadtve german midd tapping for deals that don't even leave europe. this has long been the bread and butter for european banks. they have home field advantage when it comes to these companies. suddenly, they start losing share on those kinds of deals to the american banks. that is something new. carol: you have great statistics in your story. you talk about five of the top six institutions handling european transactions, they were american, according to bloomberg data. already, u.s. firms have made some dramatic inroads. edward: yes, that's true.

one of the trends that analysts point to the reason this is coming about is that europe never completed banking union or capital markets union after the crash. so, there was this idea that with the euro, they would form one capital market, they would form one banking sector with uniform regulations. and then it could match the u.s. market when it came to scale. it would be like that like. but they never completed those projects. that has left them deeply frustrated. carol: joel weber joins us now. as we know, brexit front and center this week. we also have to talk about bitcoin. a couple of good stories on brexit. joel: it is the giving tree. it is the story that just keeps giving. it has been very good to us at bloomberg for multiple years now. it is something that we know when we look at it in 2019, it will remain

john fraher story. jason: one of the things i love, john fraher has been a go-to guy. he runs all of our finance global business coverage overseas, all of that. but he is part of a massive team leading this effort that we essentially have a brexit czar. joel: brexit is a story for us that is important. it is about global finance, too, and the future of europe, not just the u.k. we know this story very, very well. it is why we can have some fun with it sometimes. from ed robinson about the applications for not just british banks, but u.s. banks as well. joel: we see an opportunity here, and that is what makes it significant, because it affects the global economy in ways that are so interesting. fraher story,hn

not exactly dystopian, but it makes you think of where we might be in a decade. presencet america's might look like there. for me, it is also about opportunity. on the idea of opportunity, this was an issue that we pivoted to look at crypto and bitcoin. this was one year ago, bitcoin was flirting with 20,000. there was a lot of hype, a lot of wall street got interested in it. and it feels like that tide has retreated. this week, the prices were close to $3300. not exactly the same as $20,000. can i say -- carol: can i say, you had fun with the cover as well. jason: don't over think it, and the cue is the color. joel: exactly. carol: what i love about the magazine, and we will hear from our futures editor about the

coverage this week, but you guys continue to undercover stories that we did not know about. i did not know about the one with ppm. jason: undercover? uncover. [laughter] uncovering undercover stories. joel: what we wanted to look at was all the different ways that crypto, that we can look at it as a topic. there is a story you will learn about about btm's, which is a form of atm's, but for bitcoin that has been involved in money laundering. that is a story i don't think anybody new. --h i don't think anybody kn i don't think anybody knew. jason: later in the show, we will dive deeper into cryptocurrencies with max chafkin and matt robinson. everything you wanted to know about bitcoin, but were afraid to ask. carol: what is going on between china and the united states?

every day, it is like a different signal and a lot of noise. jason: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." jason: join carol and me for "bloomberg businessweek" everyday on the radio from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. wall street time. catch up on our daily show by catching up on our podcast. carol: and you can find us online at businessweek.com, and on our mobile app. jason: the u.s.-china trade dispute maybe cooling, at least a little bit. the two sides talked this week about lowering tariffs on u.s. cars. carol: that happening as president trump suggested he would intervene in the case against huawei's chief financial officer. jason: our go-to guy on trade, we caught up with him in washington for the one thing that seems to be certain in these trade talks.

it is uncertainty. >> when we talk about the trade wars, we talk about tariffs, these tit-for-tat tariffs that is a dramatic feature of 2018. but in the background, there is this interesting thing trump has been doing as well, which is weaponizing uncertainty. if you think about it, most presidents have tried desperately to reduce any kind of uncertainty, because uncertainty is bad for business, it is bad for financial markets, it is bad for the economy. companies do not invest when uncertainty is in the air. they want to know their investment will go somewhere. but trump has turned that on its head and used uncertainty to build a case for investing in the united states, for rebuilding the u.s. economy. don't like our tariffs overseas, don't like the way china is looking wobbly? come here and invest in the united states. that might be an argument applies with him people. we there are also signs --

have seen this in the swings in the financial markets, but people are running out of patience with that weaponizing of uncertainty. they want some certainty. carol: it is interesting you say this, because it comes in a week -- apple is considering moving iphone output if the terrorists went up. iffs went ter up. they may be thinking about, maybe we need to bring things back home. maybe we will keep a watch on it more closely. shawn: absolutely. back home is one of the thoughts, and another thought is the bigger thought that most companies are having, is simply move out of china to somewhere else in asia. where they can take advantage of cheap production, and still get that back into the u.s. market

without hitting these tariffs. we saw that with gopro this week, which announced it will move some production out of china. this is the interesting part. it would move the projection for the u.s. market, i think about 40% of their sales, out of china and.to somewhere else it had not decided where. but it would keep most of its production. in china for the rest of the world. that is but cleaving we are seeing -- that is the cleaving we are seeing in the supply chains. that is part of the goal of the trump administration. there is an argument in the white house, and we heard from white house advisers like peter navarro, that the u.s. has become too dependent on supply chains that go through china, and at the very least, you need to look at some alternatives. if it is not coming home, maybe it is mexico, or maybe it is vietnam, or it is coming back to japan or korea or taiwan. jason: one of the most interesting elements of this

story this week was the recent uawei, of the cfo of h and the initial statement repeatedly that this was separate from that trade negotiations. then, here comes the president fact, heaying that, in might take actions related to that case if it were to help the trade negotiation. help us through that. shawn: there are two things at play here. the first is we need to think about the trade war's not just as a trade about soybeans, which is often the way it is framed, or about steel or cars. it is really about an innovation war going on between the u.s. and china. huawei is one of the key pieces there, particularly in an area networks, where the chinese are trying to set new standards for those, and huawei is a leading company. there has been for years, and

this goes back to the obama administration and the administration of george w. bush, there are concerns about huawei and its relationship with the chinese military and how it is putting telecom equipment around the world that chinese intelligence can use to spy on people here in the u.s. the spooks go up to capitol hill and tell congressmen, do not use a huawei handset, stick with your iphone. piece. one big the second big piece is the way trump is upsetting the norms again on trade. for years, the u.s. has tried really hard to separate criminal justice cases, particularly involving foreign companies, from economic policy and trade agreements, and a trump has jumped in and undone years of work, not just by his own administration in recent days, we are trying very hard to separate these cases, but also years of economic diplomacy by

the u.s.. actl: coming up, the jobs celebrating its first interactive -- anniversary. jason: there is plenty of data to look at so far. this is "bloomberg businessweek ." ♪

♪ jason: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." carol: you can also listen to us on the radio on siriux xm, channel 119. and on a.m. 1130 in new york, 106.1 in boston, 99.1 f.m. in washington dc. jason: and a.m. 960 in the bay area. and in london on dab digital, and the bloomberg business app. carol: president trump signed the tax cuts and jobs act one year ago, and since then, the u.s. economy has been -- correlation is not

causation, going back to your english and economics classes. what effects can we actually trace back to the tax cuts? we have a chart for that. carol: a good chart this weekend. it takes a look at gdp growth accelerates, but at the same time, less tax revenue coming in. jason: the deficit ballooning. that place through to businesses. they are paying less in the, and so, what does it need for earnings? for that, we go to taylor riggs. if you pay less in taxes, you have more earnings to retain for your shareholders. one way that played out in the markets was boosting the earnings-per-share. this is a really cool chart. this is that seasonality chart. tonormalized it back january, and uc 2015-2016, you had revisions lower. 2016, you saw some higher. 2018 with the tax cuts. interestingly enough, as we talk

about moving the story forward a little bit to 2019, a lot of this is starting to slow down a little bit. you hear some and see how the deficit plays into how companies feel. carol: concerns about the growth outcome. jason: in the economic section, the editor takes a look at the tax cuts and what their impacts be in the year ahead. >> it is still early, right? a year is not really long enough to gauge the full of facts of a cut. people are still arguing the effect of the act under reagan. carol: amazing. >> but i think it is early enough to say some things. what we have seen is the impact on then stimulated demand side of the economy, which it makes it -- makes it more of a kinsey and style of cuts.

yensian style of cuts. people talk about a sugar high. it fuels growth, but it does not last. carol: why doesn't it last? peter: let's say you're spending is here. now you have a tax cut and it brings your spending up to here. that is it. you are not going to get -- your taxes are not going to go down. they went down, that is it. it is nice, but ok. when you can see that in the gdp numbers, the second quarter was very strong, 4.2%. third quarter, 3.5%. those are both well above the history of growth from the end of the last recession in 2009 to the end of 2017. carol: can we say that is all because of the tax cuts? peter: no, we cannot. they have estimated 0.3

percentage points. people forget about this. lifted trump -- trump the spending caps which were put in place to eliminate deficits. he lifted those. with the agreement of congress. that is another 0.3%. then you get about 0.2% out of emergency relief for disasters, hurricanes, wild fires, and so on. you are getting up there. bulk of thes the jump in gdp. the fourth quarter, the one we are in now, is coming in a bit lower still. we are at 3.5%, maybe down toward 3%. toward the end of 2019, the economists who were surveyed by bloomberg predict that the fourth quarter is around 2%

growth, which is kind of ordinary. it is fine, but it does not feel like -- not an ongoing increase. nothing like trump promised. carol: what you say would have more of an impact is low spain the chairs -- low expenditures. we talked to our guests, and i do not feel i have a real handle. companies are spending a lot. it is not showing up in the data. peter: it did show up. the second quarter was very strong. but then, it rapidly started receding toward more normal levels. that was pretty dismaying to the people who thought the big supply side effects. what happened? why are you still investing? carol: still ahead, one of the world's leading brands celebrates philanthropy. a gala honoring women of work. jason: something that has not

held its value quite so much is bitcoin. the rise and fall of cryptocurrencies is this week's cover stories. carol: this is "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

jason: welcome back to "bloomberg: businessweek." if you have ahead, got a few extra million, a lead universities will be glad to invest it for you. however, there is a catch. jason: and you might have a little extra time to read, we got the book for you. carol: first up, a cover story on cryptocurrencies. it looks like a bubble but

there's a lot more to say about it. jason: max chafkin was in charge of this section and we got his perspective on crypto's rise and fall. >> i will take you back to the 2017.f time, december 20, that was a crazy moment, this asset that is not really mean anything, it's not worth anything. suddenly bought not just by institutions but by regular people. people i knew were quitting their jobs and doing things in crypto. down, we has come away want to take a minute after the crash and assess what happened. commissioned some stories the tried to make sense of both the bubble up but also the busting of the bubble. carol: to be fair, it was a

crash, those folks went in a couple years ago made a ton of money. say that thed current price of bitcoin around 3300 bucks, that's still a lot of money, way more than two years ago. it has been pretty bad when you look at a lot of the activity that is happened. we've got a great peace in the issue about ico's, initial coin offerings, all the rage a year ago. had one of the crypto reporters here at bloomberg do an analysis of all of the biggest ico's of the last two years, and it is ugly. if you bought into any of these, you are losing money. have,f these companies let's say, colorful problems. talks aracy alloway little bit in her overview about the characters who have come in and out of this. there are some dodgy corners of this. max: absolutely. journalistscky as

to have bitcoin, because you cannot make this stuff up. the idea that this technology which is simultaneously embraced by mykonos bread and drug dealers, -- mike know the grad -- novograd and drug dealers. we have this wonderful piece on btm's, bitcoin atm's. which i vaguely knew about, but -- carol: i didn't jason: and we will hear more in a minute, but give us a tease. max: i think everybody knows that crypto is useful if you're trying to hide dirty money. thati did not realize is there are these machines in pretty much every neighborhood in the united states and around the world used by shady characters and there are some crazy stuff that is just a straight out of true crime tv.

i'm sure math will fill you in. carol: a great story. but what is interesting is that each of the stories takes into where regulators are. how companies in the sectors are trying to say it look at what these guys are doing. but i don't feel like you guys necessarily have a story dedicated to regulatory oversight because they are still finding their way. max: we have been waiting years and years for regulators to bless this, if they have not. it is hard to know exactly what it is, but the most obvious explanation is that there is still a lot of shady stuff out there. this technology is not really important and potentially world changing, it is also scary. you mentioned the story about the marshall islands, but that is another story where we have republic of the

this marshall islands, this tiny country in the middle of the pacific, embracing a cryptocurrency. it appears, getting burned on. jason: as we heard from max about the fascinating cryptocurrency issues, btm's. atm's the take cash in exchange for bitcoins or other digital currency. we spoke with one of the stories offers -- authors. >> this industry has sprouted up very quickly. the first one was in 2018 and now there are about 4000 worldwide you've got about 100 in new york and one on 2nd avenue right now. not too far from our office here. what is interesting about this industry, the number of machines going up. about five new machines a day. grow.re continuing to carol: how does this happen in

terms of regulatory oversight? is this ok? of the regulatory issues as they have state and federal laws, a lot of different thes -- laws to follow but overarching theme is that, if , hewant to start a business put up a machine, you cannot just take money not knowing who is doing that. you had have to have reasonable policies and procedures notice person is. withu walked into a bank $50,000 cash, they will ask you about who you are, where did you get the money. carol: what will the acm ask? matt: that is the question. if you go over $10,000 in any sort of transaction, even if you do it in five different transactions, that has to be reported to the treasury.

so there are things you have to make sure that nobody is laundering money on your machines. that is on the owner, on the person starting the business. they call it ky see policies. -- kyc policies. jason: know your customer. money is pretty easy to do with these machines, and thus, it has become pretty popular. why? matt: the interesting thing is that, it is more transparent. it is still the currency of choice in the criminal underworld. you can transact pretty quickly. also, you know it's there. tell us what you see? you went to a bodega uptown. you just go around.

for doing the story, i walked by a bunch. they are actual atm machines but with different software. from there, you just talk to folks, often times, a store owner. they will get presented like, hey, can i put this machine. store owner says fine. that is kind of it. to buy aople use it coke, a couple twinkies, their other way to -- they are on their way. carol: these about another big player. matt: the biggest is in new york and is actually only 5% of the whole market. you the biggest is quite small. we highlighted another company in los angeles that advertises they do not take information. carol: so they are saying, hey

folks, we are not abiding by the law. matt: totally anonymous. my broader point is that, even with just four machines, you can longer a lot. onon: coming up, a new twist charitable giving. off.ea that is taking carol: and loyola's women of worth program jason: welcome back.

carol: join us for "bloomberg: businessweek." every day on the radio. you can also catch up on our daily show by listening to our podcast. jason: and you can find us online at businessweek.com and on our mobile app.

just a holiday season, it is also charitable giving season. many companies with community programs are saluting those who make a difference. carol: last week, i attended a l'oreal'sration for women who matter. this event where everyday women who simply do extraordinary things in their community. jason: we spoke with them about the women of worth program. >> we are celebrating our 13th year and it was born out of our tagline "because you are worth it. -- it." we wanted to recognize women and the extraordinary impact they make. everyday women. something happens to them, and they just have to make it better. often times, the organizations they found come through great adversity, hardship, that they

are able to dig inside and go deep and take the pain and ultimately make it a mission they saw to contribute to the world. carol: i want to highlight one of the women who i got to introduce. interesting, she is basically taking food that is left over from events and through a sharing economy, able to bring it to organizations of people who need it. >> she was probably some -- one of the breakout stars. , in terms oflf food scarcity, contributing to the problem. the end ofu come at the meetings, seeing tons of pizza boxes and saying this was not fair. there is a scarcity issue in new york city. she was able to come as she describes it, come up with a food service application that and picks up uber food that corporations or organizations are done with and

redistributed to homeless shelters. jason: tell us a little bit about the national honorary. of time to spend with her on our national radio story -- show. what in your estimation made her stand out even more from this amazing group? >> the national honorary is ultimately chosen by public vote. so many people could not imagine suffering the i definitelyld mean that in a way that was so dramatic. ekg, you're able to determine in upwards of 70 cases if there is a heart defect. so i think that it was the organization she founded, it was just moving. jason: and one of the things i found so powerful about her

the very specific action she was able to take. up witho think, we come this phrase that volunteerism or starting your own philanthropic organizations teams daunting. you don't have to boil the ocean immediately. manynk you would agree, so of these honorees were just doing something within one or two people, starting small, and seeing it slowly grow. a hopefulness and encouragement in so many of the stories, like christine's. carol: this is also the prime time of year for colleges and universities to get big gifts. jason: there is a story on the popularity of donor advised funds with a twist. we were told about these investment vehicles that spread their returns to worthy causes, including some of the world's best-known universities. >> let's say you want to give away money to charity. this time of year, you're giving by years end of a but if you

have a donor advised fund, you don't have to make that decision. you give your money to a university that you are typically affiliated with or a schwab or vanguard or the like. get an immediate tax reduction, and the charitable arms of these investment firms will help you. if you have appreciated assets, appreciated stock, they will take care of all of that for you. you give away the money as you see fit and you don't have to do it immediately, you can do it over time. there are not a lot constraints. the charities do have to approve it, so you're giving it to a real 501(c)(3). but the advantage is you can do it over time. they say you can do it over time, but you have to do it , because if you don't, they will do it for you. >> for example, dartmouth college, they require 5% every year you have to give away.

there is a lot of criticism of these funds in the fact that you get the immediate deduction but the charities may not for a long time, if ever. some of the schwab's of the world, they do have parameters. if you have not spent money in a years,of years, by five they will have parameters. they may close your account or just take 5%. ultimately, if you crave this fund, the money will go to some charity, right? if you are not proactive about it, the body overseeing the money, they are going to do it. >> there are some parameters on some funds. entire know about the universe, because it is about $110 billion. carol: does the money go back to

-- >> it never goes back to the donor because of tax applications. let's say you went to stanford or yell and wants to create a donor advised fund. not every school's endowment is big enough to handle something like this. at yale, there's a pretty steep minimum, at least $5 million, and half of it goes to yell -- yale. most of the schools have this parameter, because they're doing work on your behalf. for the other half, they're working on those donations and doing due diligence. the upshot is, well, your money is invested where you want. your charitable money is growing at the rate of the yell endowment. that was a big draw for some people. at notre dame, the idea that you could capture these returns and give your box to your local parish or to charity. ahead, modesty, making a fashion statement. we look at how brands are

expanding the concept of sheikh. -- chic. carol: this is "bloomberg: businessweek." ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg: businessweek." jason: you can listen to us on the radio on sirius xm and also on a.m. 11 in new york. 91 fm in washington dc. area, and in the bay london, and on the bloomberg business application. in bloomberg business, a new book that will give you insight into the steamy side of global business. ."son: it is called "kickback we got a review from our correspondent. >> we got an argument for

bribery, the argument that it is actually pro-business. many businesses in countries keep and grow their own businesses by greasing whatever channel they need in a place with there is not necessarily articulated bureaucracy. that is the justification that a lot of companies use, and a lot of companies have paid tremendously large settlements for bribes along these lines. what is interesting is, through the course of reviewing the book, you are not talking about people who have never heard of the shadowy underworld, these are brand-name companies who have come a fairly openly, in some cases, use the bribes in -- to great advantage. after the 2003 invasion of iraq, they found that, through

the united nations, there is a tremendously large kickback scheme involving thousands of companies paying massive sums to saddam hussein. johnson & johnson. these are huge companies. siemens, not part of that ingram, paid $1.6 billion settlements to authorities in the u.s. and germany. carol: so i'm not advocating bribes here, but the point is that greases the wheels and gives access to establish companies in emerging markets that provide product services to folks who might not otherwise have them? that is the plus side? >> that is the plus side. the downside is in two parts. it is not fair, effectively a tax on the poor. it ends up trickling down to increased costs for the public at the very top of the society some of the people receiving kickbacks, actually make more

money. that's one part. the other is that it is anti-capitalist. in a market with there is basically no competition, inferior products come onto the market and are allowed to stay there, when, in theory, in a capitalist society, there will be innovation, competition, that will breed efficiency. carol: we also caught up with "pursuits," editor about apparel. jason: for many cultures that value modesty, they are making simple fashion. fashion has been coming up in the broader high fashionfas

has not really been present in high fashion. now, we are seeing that major designers are releasing collections, models who wear that fashion and become a very influential. carol: how major? >> oscar de la renta, valentina, dkny, burberry. designers who are realizing it is a huge market. jason: the huge market opening -- owing to the middle east, asia, and even here in the united states, as you say. high fashion designers only do it if there is a market. >> totally true. muslim dressing was a $54 billion market in 2016, and in the next two years, they expect 350 billion. that is second only to the consumer market in china, a huge group of people. carol: and it is not boring or plane, it looks unbelievable, like high fashion. influencer,l, an she's wearing valentino on the cover of the section. it's beautiful, and you would not even realize it. and they're not even marketing it just to a modest audience, it is jackets, sleeves, things you

don't think of as being modest. jason: when you think about modest, you think oh it's like a prairie. >> yeah, and it is not. it's beautiful, and this is a huge market of women that have not been catered to, from muslims, orthodox jews, conservative catholics. these are women who want beautiful things that have to dress a certain way. carol: businessweek is available on newsstands now. jason: what is your must read? love john freire, 10 years from today, what life is like in london in the u.k. after brexit. it is not quite dystopian, but there are some very negative impact he said could plant. -- play out. i love it. jason: it is almost future dickensian, in a way. story, it is the btm do not even know these things existed.

white-collar, a criminal reporter for us went on some serious trips for this. carol: check your neighborhood, this probably one in your neighborhood. you can find more stories on bloomberg.com over the weekend. our podcastheck out available on soundcloud and bloomberg.com. to as manyave talked honorees on the list and our people to keep an eye on an 2019. jason: bruce linton, the ceo of canopy growth. frier, who recently left square and kathy would of ark investment and a lot more. jason: bloomberg television starts right now. ♪

♪ emily: ion emily chang and this is "the best of bloomberg technology ." the google ceo testifies before the house judiciary committee, facing tough questions. we will talk to two lawmakers who took part. suppliers may consider moving iphone production away from china if tariffs