>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with media changes, specifically, jon stewart and brian williams and we talk to bill carter, chris smith and james poniewozik. >> no, i was not surprised, because we spent a lot of time talking about the movie john just made and also spent more time about the legacy to that point of the legacy show and that jon's contract is up this coming september, was he going to stay, was he going to go? and he had not 100 percent made up his mind at that point but it was pretty clear that the direction he was leaning in. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with a conversation about the global economy and meet the new editor of the economist, zanny minton beddoes. >> if you look around the world at russia at turkey and look at china and you look at countries which, you know let's, excuse

tyler from this but russia in the 1990s or even 2,000s we thought might have been going in the direction that now it is very hard to think it is going in. and if you think about economic the financial crisis and the subsequent aftermath have made a lot of people question their faith in free markets and they have made a lot of people think that actually, you know there is a different approach and state oriented approach for that type of liberalism has been under attack and i think what our responsibility is is to interpret liberal principles for the 21st century. >> rose: changes in media and a new editor at the economist when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider

of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: jon stewart is leaving "the daily show" he announced his plans last night on comedy central. >> in my heart i know it is time for someone else to have that opportunity and -- no, no no. this show doesn't deserve an even slightly restless host and neither do you. it has been an absolute privilege it has been -- the honor of my professional life and i thank you for watching it for hate watching it, whatever reason you were tuning in for, you get in this business with the idea that maybe you have a

point of view and something to express and to receive feedback from that is the greatest feeling you can ask for. >> rose: his departure comes after more than 16 years at the anchor desk, new york times described stewart today as the nation's satirist in chief and became a trusted source of news analysis and was compared to walter cronkite and edwar r murrow by some his blend of human and political commentator made him a main stay of the late night television. and launched the careers of stephen colbert steve carell and john oliver, he has covered the television i have more than 25 years and is an expert on the i have, chris smith of new york magazine wrote the magazine cease cover piece on stewart this summer orcs james poniewozik is the television critic at "time" magazine, i am pleased to have them all at this table. so the question, first, were you all surprised by this or did you have an idea, chris having done this that --

>> that was the story that came out in november, and no, i was not surprised, because we spent a lot of time talking about the movie jon just made and even more time talking about the legacy to that point of "the daily show" and the fact that john's contract is up this coming september. was he going to stay? was he going to go? and he had not 100 percent made up his mind at that point, but it was pretty clear that the direction he was leaning in. i mean, the man does not feel sorry for himself in any way. you know he has been extraordinarily lucky and well paid for his job. >> rose: yes. 30 million, is it. >> 16 plus years, four nights a week of television, i mean, you know, that is pocket change for you. that is a day at the beach. but it is a grind, and he has done it very, very well. making the movie enlarged his world as a citizen, as an artist.

he saw -- an was encouraged that he should try different new things. he wants to turn this show over at a time where whoever follows him will have the entire 2016 presidential campaign as sort of a base narrative so it makes sense. >> i will say there is one reason to be a little -- i wasn't surprised either from talking to jon. >> >> well,. >> not that -- just there is a lot of doubt he will resign was written, but what is a surprise is that usually in late night guys join late night and that's the end of their career. they don't ever do another thing. i mean, they tend to have to be dragged off the air, you know. it is not something you give us lightly because being on the air is -- there is, i guess a drug effect to it, you know. >> rose: some say. >> and i think for jon, a comedian getting laughs every night, boy there is nothing better. >> well bill wrote a definitive -- the definitive book about one

of the transitions in late night, and jon had a cameo appearance in the leno letterman drama, but my colleague in new york magazine adam steinberg wrote a really smart piece for us about how television as a landscape and late night in particular has changed drastically from 1999 to now, where if you left a job like jon stewart had, has, it would be to take the late show or "the tonight show" and that is not nearly what it was. >> rose: that is what stephen colbert did. >> yes, but even there it is not the same thing. >> john colbert was in the second position. the guy in the second position, letterman -- jon stewart never had to leave. he was already the host of -- >> rose: would jon stewart have taken the letterman job if in fact he had been positioned to -- positioned to do that? >> i would say no. >> he told me literally no, he wouldn't do it. >> one thing is interesting yeah maybe it is time to move on

but jon stewart's career for a while has been this parade of opportunities like that, that he might have had that other people might have regarded as a step up for him and he himself did not necessarily see it as a step up from doing "the daily show". you know,. there is sort of this natural you know, assumed, you know, hierarchy of cable to network et cetera, you know they talked about him moving into a broadcast network late night. there was the -- meet the press you know here, give me something you love and that gives you, as he said a chance to have his point of view, his voice, and the way it is tailored to that. it is going to take a while for anything to seem better than that. >> rose: and of course johnny carson did television after leaving "the tonight show". >> no, in fact johnny carson's voice changed a little because he wasn't delivering jokes every night. letterman said he talked to him on the phone and he sounded different because he wasn't performing. there was a story he did see him

once come in to new york and he did a few things, it was a tribute or something. >> oh yes. >> rose: privately and he said, it was as sharp as -- >> yes. >> rose: that's not the voice change but the talent. >> yes. >> rose: -- change. so why now? because the contract is up? is that basically the idea? >> that's part of it sure. i mean, his time to end fairly gracefully, he wanted to let his protege and close friend stephen colbert have the spotlight as he exited the colbert report and john doesn't want to be stepping on colbert's entrance to the late show in september. he wanted to be at comedy central now to help larry wilmore get off the ground and to provide a lead infor the next several months, most likely .. as wilmore's show gets going but it comes down to sort of a human thing. he had made a decision, didn't want it to leak out, wanted to control it, and --

>> rose: that's what he said. he wants to spend more time with his family. >> genuine. very, very doting father, he really is. i interviewed him when he was doing the oscars and i was in his dressing room in la and of course it was la time and he looks atis watch, hold on a second, and he had a call home and tell a story to his kids before he went to sleep and i thought, that is a father involved. >> that is genuine. >> his friend denny leary once described jon to me as a high functioning recluse. i mean as big a star as he has been, you didn't see him in clubs in new york. he did an koish charity events, but this show has been his thing. >> rose: that's what impressed me about what he said which if you are not -- i think he used the word relentless. >> restless. >> you can't be a restless home. >> >> host. this show doesn't deserve an even slightly restless host and neither do

you. >> i am going to miss being on television every day and coming here every day and this is where -- i love the people here. they are the best. they are creative and collaborative and kind and it is lit rative but it is a cave, you understand what i am saying. i love them and respect them so much. >> we love you jon! [ cheers and applause ] >> that clear clearly is his mental. >> he is restless for another lifestyle. >> i think for what is over the hill, i don't think he knows exactly what it is over the hill but he did the film, i think he got a new experience and i think he enjoyed it more immensely more than he thought he would although it was painful at times but i think he is a guy with a very fertile mind and he has got ideas and wants to pursue them. >> i can't read the guy's mind but the subject matter of what he has been doing commenting on this sort of, you know, crazy

maelstrom of politics and, you know the 24-hour media, you know, the amount of, you know spitting out of the video clips that they do there, and analysis of it. you know it has got to be in a way like drinking out of a fire hose for a few years. >> rose: but at the same time he was unique and the contribution is huge. there was there and he is responsible for some of this, a combination of talent and skills from writers to performers. >> research. brilliant research. >> he found any clip anybody ever made. >> technology has gotten better and helped him as time has gone on. >> what is interesting too is talking to people at the show over the years and i have written a couple of cover stories about it, is jon really particularly in the past five to eight years has driven home the idea that each bit they do, you know they want the laugh, i mean, he is a comic at heart and

that is -- >> rose: to promote the film. >> sure. >> rose: he was a comic at heart. each bit has to have a point of view. doesn't always have to be the same point of view he is more liberal than not but each bit has to hit a point of view and that, i think is one of the things that really elevated the show. you know, not to get too grandiose here i have a son who is a freshman in college and he grew up watching jon stewart and consuming news that way. >> that's right. >> i mean he doesn't read a word. he doesn't read a word. >> that generation thinks that is the news. >> it is an interesting thing. >> rose: because you are going to get a point of view, which some people would say you better have more objective -- >> he has a point of view on everything he does. >> rose: no, no the point of view of jon stewart is -- >> in fact he skewers them very frequently, but for a young audience at least they are engaged and most of the time they are not engaged at all and he presented them with information as well as a point of view. if. >> rose: if you had to to say

today or let's say we were here at this table six-month ago and knew either stephen or jon were going to move on, who was the most -- who had the most impact? >> stewart has had the most impact, you know across the breadth of television and part of that is achieved because steven colbert is part of jon stewart. you know it would be hard to cite a particular person .. except like lauren michaels who has broad an influence on comedy, on late night and -- >> you know, i will say that i think colbert, that is possibly the, you know, the singular tv comic performance of our generation, you know, he may be the greater individual talent which is one reason why i can't wait to see what he does on late show. overall, overall influence in terms of, you know, television is different now because this person came along i guess i

would give that to stewart. >> rose: and stephen colbert wouldn't hesitate on that. he owes everything to jon and he is a creation of jon and that character was the correspondent before he was the anchor so -- >> rose: i happened to be there for the last night and was happened to be standing there on stage when jon -- >> really? >> rose: i wouldn't call it a -- [ cheers and applause ] >> >> rose: but i just had to be positioned when jon came out, the just pure love that i saw between them as they hugged each other. >> yes. >> and what they said in each other's ears. it was like chilling. it was so -- they understood how they had -- what they had done and that this was, in one case a passing. >> but the other stuff doesn't work out i mean stewart can always be the ed mcmahon on the colbert show right? >> you know jon would always resist being called a

journalist. >> rose: absolutely. >> he would say -- >> rose: why didn't he consider doing meet the press. he would entertain the conversation. >> not really. he was willing to let them throw -- i don't think -- because he would just argue very strenuously, i am not a journalist and i said to him, i was on the stage event with him once and i said, jon, you are like a political cartoonist those guys are funny but they are in the newspaper. they are journalist. what is the difference? what you are doing is satire like one of them. and he said well, you know, i guess that is a good analogy but i am a comic. i am a stand-up comic. that's what i am. >> rose: anybody who made it in that world is fiercely that. >> right. what he did bring, i would, he would never call himself a journalist but he and all the talented people that work for him brought a journalistic rigor to what they did whether it was in fact checking or the tightness of this. >> and they hired people with -- >> rose: and i would add that their curiosity and their

engagement had to do with public issues. >> sure. and -- >> rose: and personalities. >> jon said and it is corny and he criticized the journalism unendingly. >> rose: including brian williams this week. >> or rosewater or in the criticism in the show that maybe not of meghan kelley but a lot of what john. jon did in the media he was trying to say do it better. >> you don't criticize something like that you don't care about, it is because he admires the work at its best. >> rose: what was his core skill, what is his core skill? i mean as a comic? was it what? was it -- >> for example, with letterman or with carson, it was an ad lib to a conversation. i think it is his intelligence. i mean the guy brought a fierce

intelligence to what he was covering. i think he did not stand on finding exactly the facts and getting it exactly right, being extremely demanding. >> rose: and finding the fault in the reasoning. >> well, yeah. i would put it, extending exactly what bill said. it is finding the core absurdity or hypocrisy that could be turned into a laugh but that made the issue, you know, worse satirizing. >> and i think just because he is a performer because of the performer tone, i think that there were elements of his delivery and, you know, the ability to, you know, nobody could roll their eyes, nobody could wince as express civil as jon stewart. >> almost it sounds almost like an obituary. [laughter.] >> this is a guy who is going to have another act in his career.

52. 52, the other -- the other hosts are just getted started, colbert is 61 and just starting on the new late night gig. >> rose: would you think he will create another television show at some point? >> if i had to bet i would say no. i think she was really intrigued by the time he spent in jordan and egypt and saw he had a guest on the other the time, who had been a doctor and became a political satirist in egypt, yes, and who, i mean is working in a country where that kind of thing is not encouraged and is having a real impact on the process. but i mean jon was i think really intrigued about that part of the world. >> rose: i would offer this too. i think he was considerably better at the end of his term as he defined it than he was at the beginning and that he was considerably different.

>> the obama term or -- >> rose: his term. i just think he got better and better and better. >> sure. >> rose: a because of the talent they had there, i mean, he had some very good people that helped him make that show, both on camera and off camera, but he just got better and in terms of to the expressions the way he became a hall in terms of the physicality of the thing. >> his interviews. >> rose: his interviews. exactly. literally probably studied that in some sense to make himself better and i think it is an interesting place in which a talent -- because he had several opportunities and didn't do that well, you guys know that. it is how a talent someone with skills, with talent can fake a while to find the perfect vehicle for them and look back now and say he found the perfect vehicle. >> yes. and also "the daily show" did exist before him. >> rose: right. >> and it was a different animal. that's exactly right. >> it was a really different

animal and he started doing sort of that and it then became him and these shows when they work are about the host. the host is everything on the show. and it is, as hard as jon worked and as mart as he is and the people he hired he will tell you has probably told you he has been lucky in his timing in a different way. i remember going to the 2,000 republican convention and jon and the daily show were set up with the hot dug vendors outside of the arena and just fumbling around and then comes indecision 2000 and then comes florida a huge comedic gift, then comes george w. bush which handed him a foil. >> and maybe the answer -- what is it that makes politics the ultimate subject for late night comedy? >> well, it touches everybody. >> rose: the hypocrisy -- >> it touches people. >> rose: it is part -- >> part of the political decisions affect everybody so

you can make a joke about it and people will be able to identify, able to identify even though they don't know who the vice president is, well if taxes go up that affects me so i think that is part of it but also the characters tend to be very obscure. there are many characters that float through politics that you can make up. >> rose: absurd and all of that kind of stuff. it is just an easy foil and here is "the new york times" today. williams low point of career stewart to depart at high point. brian williams is my friend everybody who knows him considers him a friend admired him, what do we say about this departure for this suspension at this time? >> well, on a personal level, it is sad. i am also familiar with brian and i think he was very, very good, he is a very, very good anchorman, very tall lened and what he, you know is accused of doing strikes me as, you know on a different level of, you

know, someone who is, you know a deliberate plagiarist or, you know, takes news and spins it you know, to make a point of view. i think -- but on the other hand i think if you are an anchorman and you are delivering the news every night, you can't then spin yarns that aren't true and make people not believe in what you are saying. it is critical that you be believable. so there is a serious -- >> that is what steve burke said. is there -- and with this sort of a solomon's choice here, that you don't want to fire him because he has made a great contribution to nbc news, and all the reasons but because he is a well-liked guy because he has a journalistic skills? and so you look for a way. or is it a wiser way if you think this is unacceptable just

simply cut can cord? >> yes. i think all of the above and i think the executives at nbc were clearly caught by surprise at how quickly this developed and weren't sure of the right path. it is interesting to return to part of what bill was talking about, the fact that williams was on "the daily show" or, no jon stewart did a segment about him brian williams on monday and again failed it talk about how lying has blurred between information and entertainment, and brian seems to have tripped over it, it is weird, you know how we are holding some people, clearly can't lie, clearly you can't make stuff up when you are doing the news for nbc at 6:00 o'clock but he had become evermore a personality, and seems to have forgotten -- and therefore seems to have succumbed to the pressure to be more of an entertainment figure,

to tell the bigger, more embellished stories. >> that's the theory -- >> what john said he pointedly said this is more sin than crime. >> he pointedly said that and he is very close to brian, by the way. very good friend. but he was making the point bigger point about the media has been so much, had a much bigger failing about what happened in the iraq war. >> rose: that's the point i got. >> than anything that happened here. >> you know, the media among them brian williams in 2003. >> >> rose: people are going to say yeah but. >> i am a little -- i have seen this a number of places since the brian williams thing, you know, happened. i am a little skeptical, it is almost a little puritanical about the motion that he succumbed to the siren call of the god of celeb and therefore led him down the path -- you know, i think you can be a rack tower and entertaining personality and yes maintain a

level -- i mean jon stewart is an example of that. obviously a very different job, maybe an unfair different standard but i am not sure, you know, one necessarily led to the other for brian williams. and while maybe more sin than crime i think once that falsehood actually enters on to your news program as it did in his most recent broadcast, where he referenced getting hit by the rpg that his chopper didn't get hit by that is kind of a crime. now the thing about the suspension is it sort of seems like on the one hand a very harsh punishment, but not necessarily a solution. because, you know, for one thing, who knows if brian williams can come back in six months and go on. it may be a wave of -- the thing you have to get to task is, you know can he atone? where is the explanation? what actually happened? what was going through his mind? you know yis the contrition that act of working your way back into the public's good graces.

if you had that, six-month would probably be too much, you know, people could get past it, if you don't have it it doesn't necessary matter how long the suspension is. >> i don't know where he comes back in six months or not. i do know that we, the media the public loves a comeback story, right? i mean we love, you know sin and redemption. he has that going for him. >> nbc clearly was discomforted by something else with this because if this one incident is the thing that he went off on a colorful rant on they could probably get away with him saying that was a disaster i should never have done that whatever. and i lost my -- i lost track of the story and i made a fool of myself by doing that but there is something -- they were very stern in their language too. i mean if you really read the thing it is like they really -- it is inexcusable, et cetera which it is, by the way, but they are not -- they weren't protecting him with the language. i do think part of the suspension is, you have got to

get this guy out of the bull's eye. nothing can happen until he gets out of the bull's eye because he has been the national pinata since this started and to the way the internet is you cannot survive that long-term so the only way to move on is to g get the story off the pages, maybe he then does something they think will play as redemption, and they try to bring him back or they decide it is too much here and he quietly goes away. >> rose: a different kind of role. thank you. pleasure. thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: zanny minton beddoes is here. she is the new editor in chief of the economist. she is the first woman in that role a in the magazine 171-year-old history. it is an institution she joined over 20 years ago. she replaces john micklethwait moving to bloomberg news as editor in chief. he wrote this in his farewell letter. liberalism has economic logic and technology on its side as

well as this wonderful newspaper which i now hand over to excellent hand. i am pleased to welcome those hands back to this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie it is great to be here. >> rose: what he said too, i will talk about you and everything else this newspaper deprives its editor of the ego eccentric adornment of these days. tragically no weekly editor's letters to readers underneath a beaming airbrushed picture. online, there is a weekly e-mail but that comes from your desk not you, as editor you spend your time in deplorable obscurity consoled merely by by merely by the fact you have the nicest job in journalism. >> that is so true. >> rose: why is it true? >> the nicest -- because it is wonderful newspaper that -- we call it a newspaper. what is a newspaper. >> rose: that's what i noticed. >> it is an amazing group of journalists. that's actually the most important thick that makes it wonderful, fantastic

intelligent. i know you know a lot of them. >> rose: a lot have been right here. >> a lot have been right here. extraordinarily talented group of people and we do what i think is some of the best, i would like to think some of the best journal inism in the world and we stand for causes i really believe in. we stand for liberalism, classical english liberalism. >> what does that mean and what does he mean? >> he, john nickel wait or -- >> start with the founder then john, then you. >> 19th century liberalism which to put very simply is a belief in individual freedom and free markets and what i think we have done, we were founded protectionism in the uk, that's why james wilson in 1843 set up the economist and he did so to conduct what we have on our inside page severe contest between intelligence that moves forward and intimidated ignorance that obstruct our progress and that's what we try to do and we try to do i think a lot of things. i have tried in my own mind i think we are a newspaper for the

globally curious. we are a newspaper for people who care about the world and who are curious about what lies ahead, and in a time like this massive technological change and global station. i think there are evermore people who are globally curious so it is an incredibly exciting time to do what we are doing so i think there are evermore people who are natural economist readers around the world. at the same time as john wrote in his valedictory editorial and the one time i can come on your show that economist, editors get their picture this the newspaper and reflect on their tenure is he was paranoidly opportunistic but liberal, classic liberalism you look act russia turkey china countries which let's exclude from china from this but say russia in the 1990s even 2,000s we thought might have been going in a direction that now it is very hard to think it is going in, and if you think about economic liberalism, you know, the financial crisis, the

subsequent aftermath have made a lot of people question their faith in free markets and they have made a lot of people think that actually,, you know, there is a different approach, more state oriented approach so classic liberalism has been under attack and what i think our responsibility is is to interpret liberal principles for the 21st century. >> rose: has it been under attack because of its performance? >> well, it has been under attack in part because of its performance, in the sense that, you know i wouldn't argue with you that there were very big things wrong with the financial system on the eve of the financial crisis. >> 2008? >> yes. too big to fail, banks in the implicit subsidies that come from that but basically free market, free trade is a force for prosperity, look at the rise of the emerging world and what i think we need to do is think about what what are the big challenges of our time and we talked about these before inequality which i think is very much a function of rapid technological change and partly

globallation we are seeing very big income distributions, very big divergent in income distributions and i think liberals have to, i keep having to say liberal english. >> rose: right to make sure -- >> to address that. >> rose: but here is the interesting thing to me, it is now on everybody's agenda. david axelrod was here recently and just said, you know, that is exactly what secretary clinton is trying to work out in terms of a theory of the case for a campaign, that is what mitt romney has been talking about the poor, that is what jeb bush is talking about. i mean everything both in the political arena and in the larger global arena are talking about what do we do? >> well, that is a very big step tarred because i think there are many times we have been on the show and discussed this, this is a subject i care a lot about. >> true progressivismism was the cover story we did in 2012 .. and there i looked at the whole phenomenon of inequality and we tied to laid hey out what a

radical centrist agenda would be and to have got in this country at least to the stage where people are discussing this as a topic that needs to be addressed is a huge step forward pause we weren't there a few years ago and now we are getting there. i think 2016 is really going to be about this in large part. the domestic agenda is how do we respond? what is right way to respond? and there i think the problem is that you still have you know, both sides, democrats and republicans can, you know talking past each other and the reality, the right kind of agenda for me is something i borrowed from -- and i will caricature a big, too many on the left think the answer to inequality is higher taxing to the rich, too many on the right say, well it is a program that as long as you have, you know equality of opportunity and you improve education everything will be fine and i think there is a middle ground which says you know, we need to think about how we -- what is the right road of government now? and the role of government is different than it was a few decades ago and we we

need to think about how we fund the government to do it and simplify it, a lot of work government has dope in the last few decade it is spending evermore on old people because of the rise of entitlements and in this country particularly through the myriad of tax exemptions too much implicitly on affluent people and the answer has to be away from the old affluent to the young and poor investing in the young simplify the task, get rid of a tax exemptions, invest more in education, reform education that is something that the left isn't all that keen on. and those are the kind of building blocks we have had to address. it is not going to be simple, i mean, the reality is that the fundamental economic drivers particularly the rapid pace of tech following will change, mean that, you know disproportionately -- doesn't all go to the top and that's a very big trick. >> rose: and people will step forward to argue that the best way you can address it is to figure out how you can create more economic growth? >> well, that is part of it and but i think it is not an either or, i think some of the latest

research suggest you get stronger and more lasting economic growth in societies that are more equal a and if you have too much redistribution then you have growth but it is no longer therefore there was a time when we thought redistribution, bad for growth that is certainly true if you do too much of it but uh if you have societies request a relatively less income inequality there is research in the imf the growth tends to be tends to last longer, it is a bit of a trade-off so i am all for economic growth absolutely essentially plank of alleviating poverty and improving living standards but we need a policy that goes beyond that and sometimes i think the right prism through which to think about this is go back 100 years when we last had this pace of technology cal change the technological revolution of the late 19th century we had huge changes in public policy, the whole role of the state changed dramatically we had in this country, you know, we had teddy roosevelt and all of his antitrust legislation but also had the creation for example of

universal secondary education. radical change to the education system. i think we need to think in those kind of terms now. we need to radically rethink for instance, is it sensible the state involvement in education ends am the end of secondary school? do we need life time education, how do we harness technology better? these are the kind of big picture changes do we need to change the basic atten gets of wealth. >> ten mets. >> rose: at the nets to. >> is changes this infrastructure a -- >> it creates jobs -- >> yes it basically is a good idea. you can always find roads going nowhere and individual examples but basically --. exactly and right now for much of the world wewe have incredibly low interest rates and in many places incredible needle for more infrastructure spending it seems a no-brainer that you should do this. and i am -- i think tomorrow's historians will look back, what were these people thinking? >> here is other interesting

thing. most people look at today's global economy and they say the u.s. economy is performing best. >> they may be right. >> rose: i mean. you look at gdp growth and china is bigger than us but china is declining and they have a lot of issues. they do say that do they not? >> they do. absolutely absolutely. >> rose: so that is one interesting thing and at the same time with have these huge inequalities here between the haves and have not the one percent and the mitt romney nine, but i am interested in those other countries where you might find remarkable economic growth because of classic liberalism because of a devotion to freedom and because of a commitment to free markets. where is the shining example of where that is on the march? >> india. i think india is a country, yes. >> india in terms of where the

potential is to see that, i think you can really see that, you are likely to see that in india in the sense that is a country that has persistently underperformed save except in the immediate aftermath in its big battle of liberalism, now you a government that is determined to be more liberal liesing and there you could see it. i think china is more complicated in the sense that you have got a huge growth spurt after 1979, you have had the most amazing poverty reduction in history and a lot of that comes from liberalization, a lot of that came from freeing up agricultural markets and beyond but most recently china's growth spurt in the last few years has been kind of a debt fueled investment binge as they now shift their economy more toward economy their growth is slowing. >> rose: because they found the shifting of an export economy to domestic consumption economy more difficult than they thought? >> partly but main he because the economy is sort of naturally flowing.

it has become a richer country. that transition does slow an economy, it is a richer country and its demographics are not that good, aging very fast because of the one child policy so china has structural reasons to grow more slowly on top of that, yes, this transition as they are trying to the difficult pews the bubble in the how housing sector and get it away from debt fueled growth which they have been relying on, yes, it is slowing, the interesting thing about the u.s., looking around the world, you are right u.s. since 2009 has sort of underperformed year after year, the beginning of the year we expect the recovery to accelerate, it didn't, this year, or the last six-month or so particularly, it really has accelerated there does seem to have been a paradigm shift, even as the rest of the advanced world is not looking so great europe, you know, is out of recession but still a mess japan, shot itself with in the foot with the consumption tax hikes and so it took a hit. the emerging world china is

slowing, brazil is slowing, and so the u.s. stands out and it is interesting it remind me a bit -- >> rose: and the u.s. model stands out? >> well there are two aspect to the u.s. market. the u.s. is comparison to, say, europe, the model is that the u.s. reacted in a better way to the aftermath of the financial crisis. to put it very crudely the u.s. did fiscal stimulus and it recapitalized its bank. the banks, the european dithered a lot on how to figure out the euro crisis and austerity. so the europeans are growing so slowly for, it is self inflicted reasons. the u.s. put the crisis behind it i think, that said there are challenges in the u.s., i mean we have talked about inequality that is one of them in the longer term demography is one too and baby boomers are ayning. >> rose: but -- lot better than other places other than the -- >> it was not as great as it was a few decades ago. so rapid growth is now going to be a lower number than it would

have been 30, 40 years ago. >> rose: and what was driving the economies of the emerging markets? not just china and india but places like brazil and what is happening to them now? >> well, there are two different -- two levels in log at that, one is the underlying momentum that comes from catching up, if you are a poorer country you ought to be growing faster as you catch up, the other is, the commodity boom you mentioned brazil, i mean, very high commodity prices, plus cheap money, gave those commodity price as boom they also had a big domestic credit boom because of the aftermath of the financial crisis, interest rates have been very, very low and so they had a huge domestic credit boom, so it was partly to look at the emerging world to all of those long-term changes for freed up their markets, opened up -- they are catching up and that a leads to faster grow but, growth but overlay on that an extra boom that has come from

cheaper commodity prices. >> rose: and lay into that the energy price of oil. >> that is a huge change in the world economy in six months. if we had that conversation a year ago we said oil prices are going to be half of what they are by the end of the year. i would have have laughed, nobody predicted that. that is having a very very fundamental impact, it is having -- at its simplest a big shift of wealth to consumers from producers, so if you are an oil consuming country you are better off if you are a producing country you are worse off so the world economy overall is better off, but there are pocketsable quite big pockets that are hit. >> rose: iran, russia. >> yes. venezuela, nigeria big trouble and the u.s. is disinteresting because the u.s. is both now a big, big producer, of shale but still a huge consuming country so a macro effect where consumers benefit like a tax cut for consumers yet the shale i

have and shale industry .. have been hit hard and the interesting dynamic this happened because of supply and the supply has been in large part shale so one question is, can these prices last? because the investment horizon in shale -- they, a lot of u.s. shale is not profitable at this prices but once you build the rig which you can do quickly you then pump what shale you can get, so now production is still very high but if prices are low we are already seeing a lot of v plans not going forward. >> rose: yes. >> so how quickly will supply be hit? how, will affect how high the price goes up g en. >> rose: is that what the saudis intended to do? >> it is an interesting question. who knows. there are a whole lot of conspiracy theories of what they intended to do but there are parallels with the previous time they let oil prices go down and stay down, but the difference this time is the shale investment cycle is much shorter

than that of traditional, you know, go explore a well and see somewhere traditional style oil well. so although it is probably true at these prices u.s. shale production will be curtailed, as the price goes up again, it is not hard to start producing shale again. so i think the economics of the oil market has shifted from one where 0 peck the cartel, dominated by the fact dominated prices to one that is much more arguably much more market determined and we had a cover a couple of months ago you remember it we called b sheikh versus shale. >> rose: yes. >> the market has shifted towards shale in the sense that it has become a much more market driven, the oil market is more market driven. >> rose: what happens to russia iran,? >> well, russia has been hit hard. you know, oil is its chief biggest export. >> rose: huge part of the

economy. >> it is interesting. those people who suggested that this was going to affect change putin's behavior, seems to have been thus far disappointed. >> rose: so far. >> so far disappointed. i think it made arguably sort of reinforcing putinism if you will and reinforcing -- >> rose: and also reinforces his paranoia. certainly reinforces his paranoia so that i think is a particularly in this country kind of a perhaps understood appreciated risk out, there i mean if you look at and you see -- >> rose: the risk is -- >> what putin is trying to do the breadth of his paranoia and the breadth, the death death of his desire. >> and what to do to maintain popularity. >> absolutely. that is definitely one to worry about. i think venezuela is heading for default, to be that will be quite soon, nigeria is in big trouble, you know, it is a very big oil producer that is hit hard and iran as you say is hit very hard iran needs a high oil price for its budget, it hasn't

got it so iran. >> rose: and sanctions are not helping. >> sanctions are not helping. so they are all -- they are all big losers and those losers are sp diroportionately tricky regimes. >> rose: i wonder how we evaluate sanctions and the impact of sanctions. the classic example of where sanctions worked is south afternoon a, where they worked. >> yes and there is an evolution in thinking of how sanctions work n russia's case, it is almost as though they have become a tool of first resort, i mean, the sanctions have been the main way in which the west has responded and in some ways i have been struck by actually how the peeks who doubted at the beginning, those who have signed on have been signed on and ratcheted up but still where they couldn't go much further but because of the u.s.'s dom mans in the global financial system the potential to do a lot with sanctions is really higher perhaps than people

thought about when we had sanctions against south africa there it was one isolated country but now if you think about the enter connection of the economy system and the dhar there is an important potential tool there. >> rose: so what is the risk to the global economy today? >> to rely upon the u.s. is the immediate macro risk. i do worry about the potential of a replay or at least an echo of the late a 1990s when you had the u.s. economy growing strongly and -- >> rose: leading to the bubble of 2001. >> a world economy flying on one engine and i think flying on one engine is a dangerous thing to have. >> rose: so that's it? >> that's the short answer. >> rose: whether the u.s. alone can lead the global economy. >> that's the short time macro. it is the longer term risk i think is a risk of political economy and gets back to the paranoid optimism that john calls it if you are a liberal and believe in open markets and is that -- if you have stagnant

living standards for the majority of people, it is very easy for people to find scapegoats that tend to be foreigners and we see that in europe. >> rose: we see the politics going that way. >> the populist -- exactly. and so i think it would be very hard to maintain support for the kinds of policies that you believe inned. in a world where majority of people see their living standards stagnate. i think that is -- >> rose: that's the risk i think. it is -- it is the political disruption. >> i mean. the disruption is coming from technology. we are in the midst. i am completely convinced we are in the mist miss -- >> rose: it is coming from technology or technology accelerates it and adds to its velocity? >> i think the disruption -- i think arguably it is semantics, technology is changes. we are in the midst of a big technological revolution and changing the nature of work, it is changing the, it is disrupting every single i have. >> rose: it is changing employment, productivity. >> exactly, productivity and the

balance between capital and labor. a lot of the traditional structures that we built up in the 20th century were built for an economyingly infor increasingly doesn't exist and every time i talk to people in the tech sector i am convinced we are very much mere the beginning than the end of this technological revolution at one level it is incredibly exciting all kinds of amazing things are going to happen, on the other for the majority of workers who are mid skilled workers who live in work in jobs that are 20th century jobs, that is a big challenge. >> my question is about the economist. is it, is its principal focus the economy or the collision or opportunity when politics meet economics? >> oh, it is the latter. you know, in the mid 19th century people talked about political economy. >> rose: yes. >> and political economy is part of what we. do it is not all of what we do. we do quite a lot of things that have nothing directly to do with

politics and economics. we have a great -- great staff on technology. >> rose: even a bit of culture. >> we. do i think it is one of the great misconceptions about the economist is we are for business people and only about economics, we are really not as you know. and that's why i like to use the phrase we are for the globally curious. i think, and another phrase that i have been using a lot internally. >> rose: i am going to steal that, i like that, that's exactly what i want this program to be, for the globally curious. >> the other is, listen you want to steal the other, the other phrase i came up with, i think we should aspire and aim to do every single week is stretch the reader's mind. the other thing that i think we should do and we were founded as a campaign against -- we should fight for things and champion things we should champion our liberal values. >> rose: you want to be an advocacy magazine? >> i think we should fight causes. >> rose: how do you balance advocacy and in a sense, just the facts ma'am? >> well, we have always been -- >> rose: because newspapers have an opinion section. >> we don't.

we always put that together and we always have been what you might call a views paper rather than a newspaper in an american sense w don't have a separate editorial board and a kind of facts only section. it is all -- we infuse opinion everywhere. we believe in our liberal world view and that infuses our writing. it should always be based on, you know, impeccable analysis, it should not be -- you know, we are not -- we shouldn't basically be doing slogans and having an opinion -- we should have facts facts base analysis and from that we have a view. >> rose: the story is you have a right to change your opinion but you can't change the fact. >> we should be curious and you are too, we should be, i mean, we are curious and we should be fostering that in our readers. >> rose: and the agents of change everywhere you can see and constantly look for the agents of change. >> and kind of a guide to the future this is what is going to happen, i think we should be -- i think we should be helping to lay out what we any will happen. >> rose: right. >> we should be predictive we

should be bold and have a courage of our conviction shuns and to give an example in november we put on the cover, russia's weakening economy, and we basically said russia's economy is much worse shape than people thought and we had someone who went off and crunched the numbers and thought actually, you know people aren't really talking about this but it is in really bad shape, we should do that and do more of it. >> how will it change under your leadership? >> the economist. wow. well, we have got -- some concrete changes that have happened already. the letters page no longer has a salutation, sir. >> rose: that's very good. very good. >> and internally, you know, we have a tradition of having the editorial meetings on monday mornings, in the editor's office for decade it is problem with that as the staff grew and the office didn't know/foe and down the corridor and around the corner and couldn't hear anything so i moved the editorial meetings now, it is in a bigger room. >> rose: but still on a

monday? >> they are still on a monday, at the same time on a monday. >> rose: the questions -- >> we debate, we don't change the format of it. we discuss the big things we are working on that week and debate the leads whoever wants to write an he editorial picture their argument and it is kind of like a university we have a real-. it is one of the greatest things about the paper. >> rose: and how did you get this job? >> >> rose:. >> rose: let me tell you what i read. >> there are there were originally a list of 15 people they thought could very well do this. 15 people that could do this and then narrowed it and i understand some politicking takes place as it always does because people have confidence in themselves they can lead a great institution and the board sort of -- >> that's not bad. you have to apply. you had to write an e-mail saying you wanted to be considered. >> rose: ah. >> and then there were i think 12 people who did that then therethere was -- you had to write, supply a cv and any other supporting material you thought

would be useful and people wrote what you wanted to do. >> rose: right. >> then there was a first round of interviews and then a short list and then there was the final interviews with the board. >> rose: and how much intensive hobbing was there on the part of everybody who wanted -- because you want people to come to the head of an institution who clearly have a vision as to why where they can take that institution and why they want to take it there and how they build on tradition but at the same time meeting the challenge of the future. >> i at this you should have been interviewed. you are doing really well. i think it was -- i think everybody tried to lay out where they thought the paper should to and i think that was the collectively an incredibly useful thing to happen, the bigger picture, i think for you know, you and i hope for us is, you know, quality journalism, there is a huge appetite for quality journalism and use the phrase again globally curious, we need to reach them, we need to convince them to be interested in us and

then there is huge potential huge potential. >> rose: and inspire them. >> and inspire them. >> they could not have done better. >> oh, thank you. >> rose: thank you. >> for more about this program and early episodes visit us online at pbs.org and captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. greece is the word. multiple reports tonight that greece has agreed in principle to an agreement with creditors regarding its debts. setting the tone cisco, the latest out to report wall street estimates as the nasdaq now just sits 200 points fwrae 5,000. how you can avoid making retirement mistakes that could cut your savings by as much as 25%away from 5,000. how you can avoid . this is "nightly business report" for february 11 2015. greece reached in principle an agreement regarding its