of i.b.m. his new group is "growing global, lessons for the new enterprise." >> i sincerely believe business leaders were not being completely prepared. doesn't mean there is not a lot of great professional schools available to them or great programs available to them, but there is so much change in the global world, the economies and technology world between the big data cloud, platform based business models, uber, airbnb, but when i was retiring four years ago, these were ideas and concepts but i personally believed they would have a massive impact on corporate structures. >> rose: bruce riedel and sam palmisano when we continue. >> rose: bruce riedel is here, director of the intelligence project at the brookings institution and a senior fellow. served in the c.i.a. 30 years and a national security advisor to four presidents in south asia and the middle east. new book is called "j.f.k.'s forgotten crisis: tibet, the c.i.a., and the sino-indian war." the financial times calls it a minor gem of

. >> bring back my i.b.m. p.c.alk about this "time" magazine thing real quick, person of the year. i want to get your take on this. leader of isis could be the person of the year, possibly. how do you feel about an evil person as person of the year? >> it's wrong. >> i think it's better than a lame person, though. remember when "time" called "you" the person of the year. >> larry: that was an evil person. >> i thought it was kind of nice. it was like, finally. you know what i mean? i've been a write-in for a long time. >> i don't know. i feel as though-- they've had evil people before. >> larry: hitler. >> i mean -- >> that's when it was man of the year. >> until 1999 by the way. >> it says so much-- we can't find-- look, i like travis, angela merkel has done a lot. she's trying to unite europe. but can't we find better citizens and set that type of example? are we all that-- >> larry: who is your choice, person of the year? >> angela merkel, i guess, would-- if i had to choose from the list -- >> led the way with-

. >> i find someone who owned it like some i.b.m. stock, i would borrow it from thehe pay them a fee to borrow it and sell it to you. i don't own it, so i'm betting on, to buy it back from you later at a cheaper price, so i'm betting against it. and in this case, this is a story of the f fancial crisis. the financial crisis organized itself, the wall street organized itself around a giant bet. kind of hundreds of billions of dollars bet on subprime mortge bonds. >> stephen: leadininup to the 2008 financial crisis. >> most of the inside of wall subprime mortgage bonds. and the guys in n e movies, the guys in the book were betting, they saw it coming and were betting against it. >> stephen: how many people saw this sort of thing coming? you say that wall streetas long, like evebody on wall street was like, how is this. >> i think it's fair to say that up until almost the very end, all the big wall street banks, certainly the regulators, most investors didn't really see it comi. when i was working on the book, i remember asking the ques

they wrked --, worked together over a decade at i.b.m.ne of the first things tim cook did in 1998 was call jeff williams and see if he wanted to come work at apple. he's been there ever 1i7b89s now he's going to be his top diplomat emily: he's been called "tim cook's tim cook." and they actually do look a loot like! alderblen, one thing i wanted to talk to you about, the fed hiking rate for the very first time in a decade. what does this mean for startups and the tech community? >> i think the number one thing they're thinking about is how it's going to affect the valuingations of some of the really sky-high startups you are seeing. when investors can't get good returns, they look to alternative investments. that's meant a lot of money going overseas and into these funds -- emily: mutual funds, not hedge funds, right? >> right. and this inflates the valuations and this is what is leading to a lot, not all bay lot of these une i corns, billion-dollar prite startups we are seeing the emily: and stewart black thorn is somebody who raised a l

shows a large balance at the new york federal reserve, would draw on that balance and make a loan to i.b.m., that process is -- creates the money multiplier and expansion. there is very little evidence that that's going on, meaning that essentially the federal reserve largely neutralized the effect of qe 1, 2, and 3, so it didn't spill over into the money supply. because you have to get the lending going out to utside of the simple system of e fed buys assets, its balance sheet goes up. that automatically creates a reserve deposit. since reserve deposits are only legally capable of being held by federal reserve banks, that means the federal reserve could determine or could control how much in the way of those balances moved out into the market. if you move the rates all the the loans which are risky and have reserve requirements all of a sudden become more attractive. but if you keep moving the rate up, you basically neutralize the system. and the way you can tell is despite the huge increase in the monetary base, which moves directly with the assets side, money supply, which is the transa

you don't need legislation for mputers to make i.b.m. selectrics obsolete. there was better, cheaper alternatives so -- >> we have time for one more question. gentleman in the far back there. yes. >> thanks. i'm curt with common sense. i have a question really about psychology. i can't get agreement around my own dinner table and i'm amazed you can get 195 countries to agree what day it is much less as something as complicated as this. i wonder if you had any explicit work on it. did you have a team of psychologists to make people more constructive or cooperative or was it the french wine? do you have any tips for me? mr. stern: i didn't have a team of psychologists. we had occasional french wine. you know, -- so it's actually never the case that you get everybody to agree with you. these get is -- and are very contentious negotiations. they always are. the sense at the very end of everybody, like, feeling pretty positive about it was striking to be sure, but what you're oing is trying to build enough -- find the landing zones, socialize those with enough im

shows a large balance at the new york federal reserve, would draw on that balance and make a loan to i.b.m., that process is -- creates the money multiplier and expansion. there is very little evidence that that's going on, meaning that essentially the federal reserve largely neutralized the effect of qe 1, 2, and 3, so it didn't spill over into the money supply. because you have to get the reserves going out to lending outside of the simple system of the fed buys assets, its balance sheet goes up. that automatically creates a reserve deposit. since reserve deposits are only legally capable of being held by federal reserve banks, that means the federal reserve could determine or could control how much in the way of those balances moved out into the market. if you move the rates all the way down, then the loans which are risky and have reserve requirements all of a sudden become more attractive. but if you keep moving the rate up, you basically neutralize the system. and the way you can tell is despite the huge increase in the -- increase in the monetary base, which moves directly with the