>> rose: welcome to the program, tonight we again with jens stoltenberg, the secretary general of fato. >> it is high, the iming of increased presence in the baltic region lands, romania, bull garia, with increased capability to reinforce troops forces quickly, that provides the key task of nato. we don't deploy forces to provoke, we deploy forces to prevent the conflict because as long as any adversary knows an attack on one ally will trigger the response on the whole alliance, then no one can attack us because we are strong. we are the strongest alliance in history. so as long as our intent is credible, that it is obvious that is one for all and all for

one then we will continue to preserve peace. >> rose: we continue with brian moynihan, chairman and c.e.o. of bank of america. >> the road map when you say what you can do about it, is you've got to have a work force that at the end of the day is going to win against the world's workforce, and there are different ways to win that. become the cheapest labor force, that is not possible. become the highest skill per dollar paid labor force, that is possible in the united states and you see that, that is germany. and then have a good set of-- the united states has a great set of work rules, a tbreat set of availability of energy that no other country has. and so they have some natural things going for it. and then it comes down to in my mind, you know, basically the training, education, apprenticeship there are lots about it, but we've got to be driving our capacity of work, time, product and everything against the place of the jobs that we are going to have in this country and keep developed in this country. >> stoltenberg and moynihan coming up. >> funding for charlie rose is

provided by the following. bank of america, life better connected. >> 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. >> jens stoltenberg sheer, is he the 13th secretary general of the north atlantic treaty organization. he's also the former prime minister of norway. nato is the largest and most powerful military alliance in history. since its founding in 1949, the organization has significantly redefined its role. nato's primary focus after 9/11 has been combating terrorism. i've been increasing-- security

with russia and north korea have become a priority for the alliance. he said the world is more dangerous today than in a generation. i'm pleased to have him here at this table for the first time, welcome. >> thank you so much. thank you for having me. >> rose: let me pick up on your quote, the world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation. tell me what causes you to say that. >> that's the combination of so many different threats and uncertainties at the same time. we have to live raise of nuclear weapons. like we see in north korea. we have terrorism, turmoil close to nato borders in iraq, syria but also in our own streets. and then we have a more assertive russia. and all of this together has created a much more challenging and difficult security environment than we have seen at least since the end of the cold war. and therefore nato has to respond. we have to adopt. we have to change to be able to manage and handle security.

>> rose: i want to talk about all those thing, respond, adapt and change am but first speaking of the russians, what do you think about the wargames they are doing in bella ruse? >> well-- bell ruse. >> well, all nations except for russia has to exercise forces so we don't criticize russia for conducting exercises. >> rose: not withstanding some baltic countries. >> but the important thing is it has to be transparent t has to be predictable. because when there is more military activity, more military presence, more exercises close to all the borders in a situation with high tensions, there is a risk for mtion calculations, for incidents or accidents and if they happen, they can spiral out of control and create really dangerous situations. we also seen before that russia has used military exercises as a disguise for launching aggressive actions against neighbors as we saw in ukraine when they illegally an excrimea.

so therefore, exercises, that is part of in a way what every nation do, but it has to be transparent and we call russia to be transparent and to invite international observers and to tell the rest of the world exactly what they are doing. >> rose: couple questions about russia. number one, it is a fair appraisal that the president of russia, vladimir putin has significantfully modernized the russian military force. >> yes, we have seen a development over several years, at least since the year 2 thousand, that russia has tripled defense spending. >> rose: tripled. >> tripled defense spending in real terms. invested heavily in more modern capabilities, exercised much more modern and large formations of troops and forces. but most importantly, they have used military force against neighbors. we saw that in georgia, in 2008.

and we saw it in ukraine in 2014. and that's the reason why we have responded. we have responded by an increase in the readiness of nato. we have tripled the size of what we call the nato response force so we can quickly reinforce an area if there is need. but also increased our presence, our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance with deploying battle groups to the baltic countries and poland. >> how what you assess the readiness of the nato forces today? >> it is high, it is the combination of increased presence in the baltic region in poland but also in romania, bull garia. with the increased capability to reinforce troops forces quickly. that provides the-- which is the key task of nato. we don't deploy forces to provoke a conflict. we deploy forces to prevent the conflict. because as long as any adversary

knows, that an attack of one ally with trigger the response from the whole alliance, then no one can attack us because we are strong. we are the strongest appliance in history. and so as long as our intent is credible, as long as it is be vees that it is one for all and all for one, then we will continue to preserve peace. >> rose: if russia attacked one of the baltic countries that may have been formally part the soviet union, nato would respond immediately under article 5. >> absolutely. that is the reason why we have deployed multinational forces lead by the united states in poland, united kingdom, estonia, germany and canada. and many of the nations are continuing forces. so by having a multinational nato presence in the baltic countries, we are sending a very clear message of an attack on one of those allies who triggered a response from the whole alliance. at the same time, nato does not seek a confrontation with

russia. russia is our neighbor. we don't want a new cold war. we don't want an arms race. so we strife for a more krukive relationship with russia and i in this pos for many areas have seen that it is possible to actually talk to russia, to work with russia, but that has to be based on the predictable, strong approach f we have the strength in nato then we are also able to engage in political dialogue and to try to diffuse the tensions between nato an russia. >> nothing seems to concern president putin more than nato on his border. the idea of ukraine or georgia being a member of nato is a subject of which he becomes passionate against. >> yes. but at the same time, for me it's an absolute principle and right of every nation to decide it's own future.

russia was also gensz the baltic countries joining nato. but the baltics decided, estonia, lat via they wanted to become members of nato and they became members of nato. when it comes to georgia and ukraine, well, it's up to georgia and ukraine to decide their own path. and then it is at the end a decision by 29 nato allies and the applicant country to decide whether a qualified-- whether they meat the standards which are necessary to become a member. russia has try to veto such a process, because that is an attempt to reestablish a world order where the influence where big nations like rura try to decide the future of neighbors like, for instance, the baltic countries or georgia, again coming from a small country, norway, bordering russia, it is absolutely unacceptable the idea

that big countries can decide the future of small neighbors. >> as you know, president trump in his campaign to win election as president of the united states had some interesting comments about nato at one point calling it an obsolete although at one point he has changed that and consistently said nato has to change its fair share, other than the united states and the bench marks seem to be 2% of gdp. what is the relationship now between the america and nato? >> is it gotten through those criticisms from the president? >> yes. because the president, president trump has clearly stated to allies, to me and different meeting in the white house and brussels that he is committed to nato. the united states is committed to nato. and not only words but also in deeds. the u.s. is now increasing the

military presence in europe for the first time since the second world war. >> and nato welcomes that. >> we welcome that. there is a new armoured brigade from the u.s. the u.s. is leading the battalions, the groups deploying to the eastern part of the alliance. after many years of decrease of u.s. military presence in europe, at the end of the cold war, now we see an increase, i think it was the right decision to decrease when tensions went down. but it is also the right decision to increase when tensions are now going up again. at the same time, what we see is that european allays are stepping up. and burden sharing is absolutely something which is-- . >> rose: there's been a response to the president's criticism about everybody paying their fair share. >> more european allies are paying more and we see that across europe and canada, investments in defense is now increasing. the good news is that more nations are reaching 2% target.

but even those nations are not yet reached the 2% target 2% of gdp on defense. they have started to increase defense spending. so many years of a significant decline in the defense spending after 2015, we are seeing now a significant increase. >> rose: speak to the challenge from first north korea and then iran, how you see it, how nato sees it. >> when it comes to iran, it's absolutely unacceptable what they do. and therefore we need maximum pressure on north korea to reach a political solution to the crisis. >> rose: so therefore what did you think of what the president said today about increased sanctions, including a chinese bank. >> i welcome the use of sanctions because i really believe that we need to find something in between doing nothing, which is not an option because then we just watch north korea developing their missiles and nuclear weapons.

and using military force which no one really wants. there, then there is an alternative in between, and that is to have strong political, strong diplomatic pressure on north korea, combined with sanctions. >> rose: diplomatic pressure always needs leverage either from economic pressure or from military pressure. >> yeah. and we have the sanctions. i welcome initiatives and discussions about how we can strengthen them. we need at least to implement the sanctions we are already agreed. i think no one wants a military solution, and that's the reason why it is important to try to find this room in between, and a military solution. >> rose: do you believe sanctions will do the job? do you believe north korea will respond to sanctions even though they have shown little inclination to? >> i am in no way saying this is easy. raight way to success. a

but i'm saying we have to compare political pleasure, diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, unified response from the global community, compared that alternative with the other alternatives. and they are worse. >> rose: terrorism, as you know, the conflict in syria, there is, they have already in iraq, we have taken mosul, we will soon, we assume retake raqqa. so what does that mean for the threat of terrorism, especially in western europe. >> it means a lot. because the prospect of isil or daej being able to have a caliphate which they control, of population. >> rose: has been taken away from them. >> yes, and that was dangerous, that was important because if they had that kind of territory, that could be really kind of safe haven, platform for organizing, planning, financing a territory or attacks against.

>> rose: 9/11 took place from afghanistan, it was essentially a failed state at the time. >> yes, and afghanistan was at that time a kind of safe haven for al qaeda for international terrorists. and the reason why nato went in was to prevent afghanistan from remaining or being a safe haven for international terrorists. and i think afghanistan also shows that nato, it is porn for europe. we have u.s. presence in europe, with the european allies but nato is also important for the united states. you have to remember that the only time nato has invoked our article five, was after an attack on the united states, and hundreds of thousands of canadian, european soldiers have fought alongside the u.n. soldiers in afghanistan and have paid the ultimate price, lost lives in afghanistan, in the mission, in response to an attack on the united states. so for the united states to have friends and allies as they had

in nato, it is a great advantage for the united states. i have seen that many times but ame especially in the afghanistan. >> rose: and you see that the president is recognizing that. >> yes and i welcome that he is recognizing that, half the troops in nato and afghanistan are nonu.s. troops. >> rose: but as you know, when the president went to the g-20 and had some of the speeches that he made, first time admitting article 5 in one speech, later came back and modified that. but i hear you saying you he no that the relationship between nato and the united states is every bit as good as it could be. we appreciate the president has lessened, perhaps has changed his mind about the necessity of nato and being adequately funded as well. >> yes. first of all, i'm saying that the president trump has clearly stated to me and to allies that he is committed to nato. we agree that nato should do

more, we do more in the fight providing sport for their global commission fighting ical and i agree with the president and the united states that european allies are spending less than two% should spend more. >> you mentioned at the beginning of this conversation that you had challenges you had to respond to. >> and you had to since tell me where you see the biggest challenge and hope to make that challenge. >> 40 years from the second world war and to the end of the cold war, nato did actually one thing and that was to collect the defense in europe against the soviet union. >> then the cold war ended, and we did something very different. we started to fight terrorism in afghanistan. we ended ethnic wars in the balance cans ands could voa, now we need to do more, crisis management beyond our borders in av ban stand, fighting terrorism

and in a rack and syria but in addition, we need to step up and respond to more assertive russia in europe. so it is this combination, and on top of that there are new kinds of threats. we have hybrid threats which are different than the threats we saw. >> rose: before you go tell me how nato responds to the potential of cyberwarfare or cyberespionage. >> we are stepping up. exercises with cap abilities, we are sharing best tra practices with all the allies, helping to improve the protection of their networks so we are doing a lot. before it was either peace or war and war was declared on a specific date, and it ended. now it is hard to say exactly

when the war against isis start and when did it actually end. >> and in are all kind of new weapons including cyberespionage and cyberwarfare but also we've seen here, and the russians, it has been outlined in one, you know, one research study after another of how russia utilizes this information as a tactic of conflict. >> yes. and again, that just illustrates in a way the wide range of tools we need to respond to this. because before wars took place in a geographic area between countries, now we have also war taking place in cyberspace. and we see attacks in cyberspace. and therefore we also do whatever we can to not only protect our own networks but also to help allies improving their resilience and ability to defend their networks.

>> rose: thank you for stopping by to see us. >> thank you so much for having me wz jens stoltenberg, secretary general of nato, back in a moment, stay with us. >> brian moynihan is here, chairman and c.e.o. of bank-of-america, the nation's second largest bank stands at the center of the u.s. economy, serving one in every two households. it also emerged as a leader in wealth management and mobile banking. the firm's success remains largely connected to the strength of the economy. yesterday the federal reserve said it will start to pull back some of the massive support it has provided since the financial crisis. senate republicans also announced plans to move forward on a budget that would pave the way for a 1 moi 5-- 1.5 trillion tax cut over the next decade in full disclosure, bank of plaryk is one the underwriters of this program. i'm always pleased to see brian moynihan back at this table, welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: the fangs sector is a crucial part of the american economy. and we went through hem as to many americans did in 19-- 2007,

8, 9, locally 2008. how is bank of america different today, obviously you made some major acquisitions, how is it different in terms of how it sees its role, how it seals its component divisions, how it sees the future. >> sure, if you think about the company back then, we are probably more of a product company, we had a credit card division, the job was to get the most credit cards, mortgage division, whatever. and now we're really a customer company. so we basically say to customers we're going to help you live your financial life, for consumers which is easiest for people to think about. that means we have to do three or four things very well. your transaction account, your car loan, your house loan, your credit card, and then help you figure out as you start to accumulate money how to invest it. and so we're very customer focused. and so everything we have been doing has been to get away from product only thought process, customer thought process. now that is sort of the way we operate, structurally alot more capital, liquidity, a lot less

operations di vested. about a 25% reduction in size, all those things but the real change in the future is that change from product to customer, really focusing out in, as opposed to in out. >> rose: i heard jeff bezzous say he doesn't think about competition, he thinks about the customer. >> i think you have to think about it emotionally, our teammates come to work every day to help people be successful, to serve them that say good thing and keeps you out of trouble. because if it is about you you tend to forget and make mistakes but you also have to think about it structurally. when you think about what a customer needs to do they need to transak, buy things, borrow. how do you weave together programs that say if you do more with this, you get more for it, better rates and stuff that is a customer in focus and a customer into the company. and i agree with you, it's all about that. the profit will take care of itself. you have to be careful, make money, and we have gotten up to over $5 billion a quarter so that's good. but are you going to do it, if you do it the right way it has much more sustain ability, that is our view, we have to be

sustainable. it has to be able to live through decades, when you reach for short term profit are you not sustainable. and we talk a lot about a concept we call responsible growth. >> rose: you had a big investor during the tough times, warren buffett. he's now your leading investor? >> leading shareholder, yeah. >> rose: how does that-- he's also leading share holder in wells fargo. >> yeah. >> rose: what is the sense of having a living, breathing person there who knows a bit about the world of business as your primary stockholder or leading stockholder. >> well, you know, berkshire hathaway and warren buffett, mr. buffett were fantastic. what they sensed at the time, our stock was getting beaten up and trading around $5 a share. he said this is a great franchise, they just need some stability. they need people to leave them alone and let them get going and get to, without. so in august, in 2011, you think well, the crisis was 7 and 8, what are you talking about.

as we came out of the crieses the litigation and residuals were still affecting the company. he saw that opportunity, brealt yownd lying cash flow, tbreat earnings in a relatively straight forward business model that he could see, the market shares and the huge deposit base. and he called me up and said i want to put money in the company. >> glor: just d. >> rose: just like that. >> i said we don't need the money. >> he said i know 245rbgs is why i am calling you. it was a thing about stability and what he saw was despite 7 or 8 acquisitions and all the stuff to come out, what he saw was when this thing got on track, it would be what it is today, earning $5 billion plus a quarter, $20 billion a year, doing the right thing for the customer, doing it the right way. and for that he got rewarded. interestingly, if you were a share hold are and bought the day before he ever called me, you would have fared just about the samek just he had the courage to do in a big number and he has been terrific. >> rose: what is the right balance between retail investment banking, trading, wealth management, credit card? >> we think about it this way.

is that this is a constraints on how big you can become in something. if you look at our company about 30% of our balance sheet, our factories, our balance sheet is in the markets business. and 70% is. and so as markets ebb and flow, it's not going to have that big an impact. 10% of our revenue comed from fixed income trading. ebb talks about that, 15% of our revenue comes from all trading sources. so on a quarterly baseician, so you have this big sort of stable annuity stream that this business which is valuable to our customers, investors and corporations that issue bonds, we need the capacity to research and capability so i think we got the right mix. if you run it through the math and crazy rules we deal with, and there are many of them in different applications, you kind of come out to optimizing around the capital legal that is reasonable. and yet you are big enough to be a presence in the market. and small enough to lack a better term to have capital ratio a hundred basis points over the competition.

so i think our mix is pretty good. what will happen next is really opportunities, u.s. versus global, and the rest of the business will really grow based alth management grows fast as people accumulate wealth. we are doing a heck of a job in retail market, middle market and commercial banks is doing fine. everything is kind of solid and performing well. but the only business we put a real constraint on is the markets because we have to keep it in check or else it starts to create requirements and rules and also risks that we don't want. the team does a great job of handling that. >> how is the u.s. economy, on the one hand you have the imf saying, lowering their estimates of the u.s. economy growth rate to 2.something. >> right. >> you have on the other hand the global economy, china and other countries, lacking good. >> yeah. >> rose: where do we stand in. >> well, let's back up to sort of your first comen. if you think about every year going back, i was just looking at a board meeting the other day, it had 12, 13, 14, 15, every year the four

projection-- four projections have been too agressive, u.s. would grow at a faster world, and you go through the year they start pulling back. imf would pull back in the fall, because the monetary conference is coming up and would pull back, people would pull back in january and you know, people go to davos an pulling back. oh my gosh, the economy is slowing down it was never really slowing down t wasn't growing as fast as people would hope. the difference in the last year is the four projections are rate and that is a two percent u.s. growth economy, three percent plus in the world. the best news you see as you come through 17 is no one really, they, imf lowered a little bit but they got a head on the enthusiasm after the election. but the u.s. ought to grow 2.1, 2.2, last year 2.1-rbgs we think a little faster next year. but the big difference is the world's grown faster. and that is, we think europe is maybe 1 and a half, two percent, maybe 1 and three quarters, that say big difference in a year,ier and a half ago toog ago to where it was flattish, steina chaibl at 6%, india has come back and

big enough to really help, almost double digits next year am if you think at china at six and india, 9, ten and europe one and a half or so, that is really constructive that is is different than it was two years ago where the world, the economies especially europe was being carried by the u.s. and now the u.s. can, at two percent is fine to help contribute. >> rose: what do you think for 2018. >> 2.2 in the u.s. and 3 in the world. >> rose: will we get to 3 three and a half. >> with stimulus and tax reform and people get-- people are enthusiastic, they are confident, they are doing stuff, the unemployment is low, it's going to take a little kick, to kick that enthusiasm into action. and so you know, i think we can get in the three. >> rose: will that be monetary or fiscal or. >> it will take a little tax reform, tax reform is critical. lower the corporate rate, make it competitive and be territory-- territorial. hard to do but simp toll say.

they have to get that done. >> rose: what do you mean by make it territorial. >> if i operate around the world, i don't have this problem that i can't bring the money back to the u.s. and use it. by having one tax rate well for u.s. earnings, not a 35%, 39%, whatever it is. >> what would companies like to see done by the government in terms of the money they have overseas and that they haven't been able to bring back because they say the taxation is prohintive? >> i think there are two parties. one going forward they want it to be a territory system like everybody else has so you don't have the craziness. for the pocket of money, build up earnings, i think the right policy maryt, brian moynihan thinks would be to get the tax around 8, 9, 10%, get it back here and to work. >> rose: should there be a mandate that you do something with that money you are bringing back. >> i think there is a great. >> in the last time it was done, i think money is funningable, where i probably depart from some people, the people will put it to work. the straight forward question is, in the alternative, if you don't allow it back, what will happen, it will stay over there. and if you talk about these

great global companies that we have the pleasure of serving, they can, there say huge amount of demand outside the united states for cars, phones, cars in china sell as big as cars in the u.s. now. when they last looked at this question. >> rose: the biggest market for cars. >> it is. when they last looked at this question, china was 10% the size of car sales it is now. there is a big market. they can buy the raw materials, take my intelligence out and make a car and i can make it and sell it in china. i don't need the united states involved. the globalization relies to you let it come back and not worry about how it is going to be applied. if it is back here the chances are it will do something interesting. >> worst thing they say the-- the investor haves to put it back going something. >> you mention globalization, the chinese spoke about that, it has become a cry of populism against globalization, steve bannon and people who advise those two, president trump talk

about globalists in a con tempious and derogatory way. how do you see globalization. >> i think it's the world we live in. i think looking, it's like arguing the transistor radio is show better than all the ways we listen music today. it is just done. there is not a question. and so i think there are real, you know, the real issues of equality and the rate of growth and how growth occurs and affects thing, they are absolutely real. so we bought, to give you a sense, we brought back 4500 jobs from overseas in the u.s. in the last two years. because we just made a decision that it was better. it wasn't some big policy question, just that was the better business answer. now when, and we have tremendous business outside the yawnted states. we support people outside the united states. we support companies because of global companies. so i think it is just the horse sowt of barn or whatever now t is just gone. >> we live in a global. >> the distinct is really two, one is we need population.

growth in a big economy to be successful. and the plain facts that the u.s. population isn't going to grow unless we have immigration. it will grow but not at the pace. it just. >> in addition to all the other reasons that we have been a melting pot forth entire existence. >> it is a moral question. >> that statue out in the river says something, all that. but it is just pure math f we don't grow the population, everything is harder. pause when we look at the countries, we say what is the biggest issue. to ban russia. they aren't growing in population. >> what happened with emerging markets is because their population, larger population began toanter the middle class providing a sciend of consumer demand, that was fueled, their economic growth. >> so you need population growth to buy houses, to buy air conditioners, cars, whatever. that is one question, so you need to be competitive for worldwide talent at the high end and you need population growth. >> what is the best argument you have had for the following question. what to do about job

displacement, a because of globalization, a because expansion of the economy and countries and corporations moving plants and facilities to a variety of different places, that number one in terms of job. two, jobs because people are being replaced by robots. so the second one let's take-- every place i go it is a huge question. >> we talked about it this past weekend. let's take the robots and the artificial intelligence in those debates. the first one, the reality is when you look at a city, a state, a country and you have a population, your population in competition for content against the world, against either another state, north carolina versus south carolina, state of new york versus pennsylvania, or cities, new york versus upstate new york. so what do you compete on, talent? cost of living, cost of goods, the way you regulate business and work practice. >> a classic example i assume is

what is the calculation going into this decision for hc2, headquarters two for amazon, figure out where there is education, figure out where there is an environment that people want to work in, figure out where there is a set of lifestyle things. >> right. >> that appeal to an employee base that will attract them to want to work for you. >> so that is the road map, the road map when you say what can you do about it is you have to have a workforce that at the end of the day is going to win against the world's workforce, and there are different ways to win that, become the cheapest labor force, that is not possible. become the highest skill per dollar paid labor force that is possible in the united states and you see that, that germany. and then have a good set drk dsh united states has a tbreat set of work rules. a great set of availability of energy that no other country has. so they have some natural things going for it. then it comes down to, in my mind, basically the training, education, apprenticeship there are lots of words about it.

but we've got to be driving our capacity of work, time, product and everything against the place of the jobs that we are going to have in this country and keep developed in this country. and that takes a little more planning than is done. and the wonderful things, you look at cities and i have the benefit of being on counsel with c.e.o.s and various places and a wonderful benefit travel and great pran chies and talking to mayors and stuff, everybody recognizes this. and so they're starting, they have been after it, thinking about it, really in the bucket of how do i improve my education system so that my jobs line up with the companies that he did panned it. on the private sector employment, in the broadest context, small, medium, large companies and how do i channel people into that so that everybody is ready to have a successful career. some may go to college, some may not but we can't have the defining moment they're going to college. because the real thing is will they have a successful life in order to be success. it is really focusing back back to the principles, there were good jobs, and we have to create em this, but it is not going to

be through isolationism in my opinion t will be recognizing a problem and win the competition. >> when you look at the tax reform proposals, and speaking of fiscal policy, when you look at those proposals, are you concerned about the amount of debt that they are talking about? >> well, this is one of those tough things. because a lot of us have been concerned about the debt levels, c.e.o.s and especially financial services, but i think there is space. i think there is capacity. i think if it's rational and spent the right way. >> rose: do you buy the argument that if in fact you can reduce taxes in a fair and equitable way and not simply reduce the taxes of the people at the top end of the spectrum, that you can create growth and that growth in a sense will serve as one way to leverage against the debt. >> i think, yes, because i think the alternative is we are seeing a 2% 2-rbgs.1, 2.2 grind that we have to do something to get people be a little more aggressive both on the business side and to some extent on the personal side. i think you have to bring the amount of people's tax burden

down, in the median income, to twice median income. you have to do a lot of work there. because you have to get coming through the system. i think at the top of the house will be a little bit of relief but that is really not as important as really giving broad relief at the personal side. on the corporate side they just got to drop the rate because at the end of the day, you know, for banks, just the nature of business, we're following the clients so we don't have as much location decision capabilities but if you are a different kind of company, you really, you know, if we are 30% rate, 35% rate, 40% rate, in other people are 15, you know, that is huge, and so we've got tow eliminate that. we don't have to bring it down to 15 in my mind but you have to get in the 20s and get it low enough that people ignore it at some point the c.e.o. will say i don't make decisions for tax unless it is too big. >> you know, and they will make decisions based on other things. we never talked about the robots. >> go ahead. >> no. you know, i think i will just

use our company as an example. it is interesting thing. so we have applied technology in ways to make ourselves more effective. we had $72 billion in operating cost six years ago and we have 54ish this year. so think about that, that is all pure operating cost, how do do you that, by applying technology to work and changing the work product. and so we had 280 some thousand people, 285,000 people in 2010 when i came this year, 210 now. by managing that impact over time. >> how many of those job losses were because of technology? >> it would be hard to say in a sense but in some sense all of them r and i done mean that as mathematically precise but in some sense you are applying, you had paper-based processes and used technology to improve those processes as opposed to technology replacing the work it just made people more effective so but our volumes are going up so think b we are a not saying the company shrunk, the volumes of activity went up, so

my view-- my view as a c.e.o. is i got to look at that further and further out to let attrition be my friend. we'll hire 8,000 people this quarter and will be net flat. so i got 8,000 opportunities not to hire somebody and people are going to work for other people, doing other things, i got 8,000 opportunities can i shrink the company, and my team can shrink the company. if you plan ahead i think we can work through this issue. but it is going to be, it will keep coming at us. and then we are, you heard some of the people, out there, the impajts of the next round of technology are really going to be something din than the last round. and that the robotics, the capabilities of robotics, of artificial intelligence combined with rob oddics. voice recognition, i mean 15 years ago when dragon systems used to talk, it was all gash eled, if you spoke quickly. you know, punch in that google or apple equivalent siri and the thing comes back and sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong but most of the time it is very good. >> think about that generations

out there. and the other thing is you carry around a computedder in your pocket that accesses all the computers in the world. that combination of things is really important to remember. because that combination of physics and engineering and exeu taition for robots shall and robots means a lot of things, for us it is more service robots, a lot it is physical robots but 3d printing-- the dexterity in these things is unbelievable. i remember famous business scl case back when i-- 35 years ago where they were trying to pick grapes for wine by a machine and it just muked it up. now they are picking olives with machines, think about trying to get an olive off the thing and carefully and not damaging it, it is really pretty neat. but it is, we got to figure out, we have to plan around it. plan what is going to come next. >> rose: with respect to interest rates, you saw what janet yellin said. i mean when she-- when the interest rates were raised, i mean that is money in your pocket. >> right, yeah, it is.

because so we disclose a hundred basis points increase in rates, which is basically happened last year, this year been about a billion dollars of net interest income, interest revenue, net revenue a year. from here if it went up another hundred that would be a like amount, a quarter, excuse me, a like amount, maybe another 3 billion a year something like that. but step back from that, everyone always talks about that. but the question is if rates are going up and economists, that is far more valuable to our economy than incremental benefit of the rates because that means more activity and more loans. >> rose: it means the demand on money, supply and demand. >> the only thing you worry about is rates go up and you have the opposite, stag nation, rates are going up, and growth is going down. >> rose: they go up because people are expanding and need more money and they think the economy is going to be productive. >> and she thinks she doesn't have to-- i shuntd say she, the federal reserve board thinks they don't have to be accommodateddive, they have waitedded and been patient to make sure the economy is on solid ground. i think they have been careful

because there has been unprecedented things that the quantitative easing and banks around the world, unwinding that, you know, you know, watching over people's shoulders today t is nonstop about it. but it is tricky because no one has ever done it. >> rose: how much restriction on eur company's growth comes, in any, comes from the regulatory structure coming from dodd-frank? >> well,. >> rose: are you really hurt your bottomline? >> if you remember last time i used the eaks ex-- example we had ten factory and had to leave three idol, that is really the biggette-- biggest impact. if we said we have three, 30% of our capital can't take any risk. if you said let's make that 20% of your capital, that extra 10% what be $150 billion a loan that would increase competition for loans two thing was happen, either loans would be cheaper because we would do more of them. and by the way, i'm talking about the whole system would is that, or secondly we would get more aggressive to produce lines

and third, the you kroo create an atmosphere hey, we can lends you the money, do that, match up the business community to push a little harder. will you not be able to pinpoint and say if i change that rule, a huge amount of activity. if you change the rules, we'll spend less on certain stuff an spend more on other stuff which might be more constructive. what you say is if i do this and tax reform and do this, does a manufacturer instead of buying a piece of equipment, trying to queez it into the manufacturing plant, put up a new building because they see the optimism. and i think that's really comes through the election what the small business and mid size business community saw and really came up in confidence and it stayed up there. i think it's time if we don't kind of, you know, fulfill that promise, you will see it sort of bounce around that is really a challenge for the fall. >> rose: speak of that, what is the relationship as far as you see it and between the business community and the administration. you have that committee put together, and some people dropped off because of charlottesville.

and some corporate-- the corporate community also the majority of the corporate community responded to the president, withdrawing from the paris accord by saying, you know, we're oppose that idea. and that we're going to continue to use the same kind of standards that we have been, you know, that we believe are neglects. >> right. >> rose: to make the challenge of climate change. >> exactly. it is focusing, focus first on the paris situation. i signed a letter, i thought it had been so many years in the making. it got people to committee to the goals. i still think it's right to stay in, i don't make the decision but we were clear about that, that is bus how we drive the company, we have a $125 billion environmental commitment, halfway through end year. did you think the world will do 100 billion a year, that is pretty good for one company. when i talk to my peers and

business and stuff, we are all doing what we are doing because we believe it is the right thing and we believe it's going to happen. so how we use power in renewables versus not renewables we will get there by 20 or 22, other people are announcing different dates, how we work with our clients, green bonds, how we invest in things, in finance, solar panels, wind farms and things like that, and how we support the more efficient cars and things. and we do 3,000 for one of our employees to buy a hybrid car for a few years. >> rose: what. >> we gave our employees a $3,000 cred fit they bought a hybrid car, that program went on for a few years. we have done a lot of things. but the corporate world is doing it. and so i have always said we were dg this before, i think our first program in this probably goes back to either gorge w bush or before and we will be doing it after. so i think corporate world believes in, this they are driving it, trying to figure it out, that we need to make this basic change from the current energy to the new energy and we

need to do it one other way, which is absolutely critical, which is we can't say in the u.s. and europe china and places that have developed economiesk big power grids, hey you in those developing countries, you can't have one, that is arrogant, unfair and not right. so we've got to say how do we help those countries develop a different path. and that is a lot what the u.n. was about which is the people with the money, the people with the power, the people that have the install base have to figure out how to get some of the places up the power curve, literally, the power curve without going down the fossil fuel. >> rose: right. >> and so with time, you know, i'm not a big believer, you have to fix this tomorrow morning because you can't. let's be real. with the arc of time we can change behaviors and patterns. and if we get those countries not to go down, that is fine. broadly stating, secretary mnuchin and in the work that he and craig philips in the change in policies and rules, they were very krukive in the industry,

brought everybody in, brought the people that would be sort of against the country,-- industry for lack of a better term frrk mack damia, policy makers, whatever. they brought the practitioners, industry companies, people invest in companies, they put them all in and said what is the right answer, we are not looking to change this thing for kicks. we're looking to get the right answer that will not allow a crisis to ever take place. on the other hand doesn't go too far. and so like keeping, i was thinking this morning, i said you know, i looked in my closet this morning and as c.e.o. people keep give ug t-shirts, i said i have never gone back to see if i need all those t-shirts. we're say going back and take the stack of t-shirts you have never worn and give them to somebody who will use them, get them off the books, that regulation, not saying all of them thsm he have been rational, thoughtful, put it out there for everyone to see. i think that is. >> it is interesting too in terms of something like back growrntiond the corporate community has spoken there too. >> personally that is more of

the fairness question. what have these people done every year, not a huge issue for any company because. >> rose: personal value. >> st a company values issue. i don't put myself in front of the company. the company, we have enough, we have taken, the people have come forward in our company, getting free legal representation so they can be represented in the system, hopefully they will resolve it. but to me that is a fairness question. the broader immigration question is a different question which is that is a talent acquisition program and a growth acquisition program that i believe for years, it has to be managed properly and we will tremendously do a lot of work on cybersecurity, terrorism, finance all that stuff, north korea, we will work with those, and figure out how to apply and help our country apply them. you are also the primary underwriter if not the sole underwriter for ken burns series on vietnam. how do you make a commitment like that? >> well, we made the commitment

many years ago because ken is a powerful story teller like few are in the world. >> rose: so if wasn't specifically vietnam at the time. >> this happened s to be the tenth year, i think we have been doing it 12 years, going back to the civil war, whenever that was. he has been marvelous, we did an event at the kennedy center, and had senator mccain and hagel and kerry talk about their experiences. >> and you think about just-- john kerry it just, bob kerry was there too, we had a full house. medicine all of honor recipients, i was on that foundation board too so it is kind of an interesting connection. i just think ken is a wonderful story teller. this happens to be his biggest and in some ways on pbs most promoted. >> rose: 18 hours. >> have i been trying to watch t as opposed to watch it all at once. i will tell you a story t is causing conversations which are fascinating. because i what is in my board of directors we had the board meeting, a dinner, 15 of us

sitting around. so we talked about our sponsor, showed a clip and how we worked it through, we had david's photographs, he won the pulitzer prize and dave, is a wonderful photographer but he within a pulitzer prize i think at 25 for time magazine, and so we had his photographs. but i said where were you, we had one that was at kent state, one was in chicago, 68y went down to protest in chicago. another one went to air force academy, of course, he was thinking coming out in the class of 68y or 69y. so they started talking about it, and you know, it gave a conversation about things that were going on in america, women, african-americans, people in the military, people were protesting. and i'm just sitting there watching the conversation. that is a conversation we need to have because it becomes relevant to the current questions about what the government knew or didn't know, did they tell us, was the war valid, was there strategic mistakes made on tactics. you can get a lot of opinions.

but ken is pushing that all on the table and saying hey, this is kind of interesting. >> rose: you know, you hear from the vietnamese for the first time. ying i heard them crying andrst it was an ambush on the hill, they are humans just like us. and you think about the point yensee of that moment. interestingly enough, another session we did around this, one of my teammates works for me is, came out of veat nam, 13, son of a senior officer at that age. and we did a panel with he and another woman that came out who would have been a completely different circumstances, got to hong kong and here they are senior executives at banker of america, talking about, granted they were 13, 12, 13 when they got out of the country in 72y, 73y. but 24eu about what they saw growing up. a end then to be so successful in america. but having that conversation in front of our senior leaders, that is what-- i gave a talk in the field five, six minutes, but the conversations needs to be

had, not tweets, not in blog posts, conversations like you have all the time. important conversations whether around char lostville, charleston, where it is around jefferson, whether it is around new orleans, or dallas, whatever. >> charleston and so our company has always because we have 200,000 people in all these places, we are always in-- this week is the one-year last year this week was the riots in char lost, they occurred at the base of our building. we have been sponsoring conversations all year long with mr. mccall and talking about wait, our city was way out, figure this out. what happened here. you know, then so you get those conversations and you get the current police chief and the current city managers and stuff having conversations, sort of trying, that is what is good. and ken, back to ken, i would be shocked just by what i witnessed

in the first few days it has been on here that the conversations going on about vietnam and the memories and people talking about it, are really going to be special for america. so you ask why we do it, there is why. and he is terrific, and a lot of fun. and energetic and prolific and great with clients and everything else. >> here is another way to do it. if in fact a film like that creates the conversation are you going to talk about, i range of issues not just vietnam, if it creates that, and if because of that the country is better off. >> right. >> you know, that is an investment by corporations because a corporation has to live in a community, so. >> and so its people have to live in a community, you know. it ought to be invested in the idea of creating communities. >> exactly. >> that are better for people. >> so when you think about how we run or company, called responsible growth, one of the tenets is to be sustainable and one of the core ten ents is to

share our success with communities. how we do that, the environment 58 programs but also things like this, our charitable giving, our employees volunteer, but also when you think about how we work with the arts and our team led by ann who, was for the arts, we have done this program called museum are us for years we sponsor some of the great exhibits, jeff koonz exhibit in germany, the five most visited here in america, in boston fine arts museum. we sponsor great exhibits but also every weekend, most of the cities we operate in, a person shows the bank of america debit or credit card gets in a museum for free. we build those programs around kids. even with arts, it is dear to trying to get understanding thraw art. and the team does a great job. i think ken, there is really unique, in his conversations that we have in our company that when are you affiliated with the university and go to the campus, they need to have about issues and getting people to talk about stuff are critical. so if we can help that, it helps society.

>> rose: great to you have here, thank you. brian moynihan, c.e.o. of the bank of america. thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> bank of america, life better connected. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

>> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. on the move. health care stocks had a wild day after senator john mccain dealt a blow to the republican-led repeal bill. bad week. apple has its worst week in almost a year and a half, just as the newest model of its flagship product hits stores. taste test. would you eat a burger created in a lab? silicon valley is betting you will. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for friday, september 22nd. good evening, everyone. i'm sue herera. >> and i'm bill griffeth in tonight for tyler mathisen, coming to you this evening from the new york stock ch