tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 30, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the new england patriots. they struck back today in response to the ongoing deflate- gate scandal. the team owner address the media in a press conference this morning. >> the decision handed down by the league yesterday is unfathomable to me. i want to apologize to the fans of the new england patriots and tom brady. i was wrong to put my faith in the league. charlie: tom brady expressed
disappointment and declared there is no smoking gun. joining me is an and a fellow writer for "the new york times tilde -- times." i begin with what happened today. guest: today we have moved into the angst part of this. we have robert kraft, one of the most powerful owners of the league, striking back -- charlie: he was said to have understood what the league meant to his own success. guest: yes, and he had gone back to his time of venting where he called the league out for leaking information, then he fell on his sword after they were fined $1 million and said i will not pursue it any further. now the decision on tom brady has come down and he's back front and center, criticized in the league.
it's very unusual. i have not seen the likes of this perhaps since al davis when he ran the oakland raiders. it is unusual. tom brady posting on his facebook page his own disappointment. this case has turned into a much bigger media circus and you typically see. -- than you typically see. now the players association filing their own grievances in the minnesota federal court. we are into the lawyers taking over. charlie: there has been jurisdiction shopping, i assume. ken: very much so. the league yesterday trying to preempt the union filed in the district of new york and the players association went to minnesota, which is generally perceived to be friendly to labor or unions. charlie: we have lawsuits in play. we have tom brady saying i did this, i did this, i tried to cooperate this way if a litany of things he thinks are excavating -- a litany of things
he thinks are excavating. ken: the union on his behalf will argue there is nothing in the agreement that says you shall get four games for tampering with footballs, and goodell was making this up. charlie: the same thing is true if they are attacking your wife in an elevator -- if you are attacking your wife in an elevator, i assume. there is nothing in the league that says you will be suspended for these number of games or whatever. ken: that is why roger goodell came out last summer after the uproar against rice and says from now on anyone who commits to mystic violence will get six games on first offense. -- domestic violence will get
six games on first offense. they will argue that is fine going forward but tom brady should not have been penalized for four games for a penalty that did not exist at the time or at the very least it should have been a fine like there are fines for other things like putting grease on your uniform. charlie: that might have happened if he had immediately began to cooperate and did not destroy his cell phone, perhaps they would have been more lenient? ken: that is the supposition, if they had shown some bend, if you will some remorse, perhaps, at least public remorse that yes, i did not know there was a penalty but i will take responsibility for it, the commissioner would have had more leeway to go easy on him in this case. charlie: has there been a response by the league to what robert kraft said? ken: not yet. they are giving him space to say what he wants to say. charlie: bill was there with
robert kraft. ken: bill pulled what he normally does, which is i don't want to talk about it, with appropriate skills. he was wearing a hoodie on a day when it was approaching 100 degrees. he held his ground and said it has been talked about by other people. i think he's exhausted by it and when your best player is being sidelined it has got to be troublesome for him, but i think he is leaving it to the ownership now and the lawyers. first thing is they have to decide where to try this. you have jurisdictional issues. you could have both courts making parallel decisions. even if in minnesota the judge takes it on their and agrees to hear the case, you have a question of can the union get an injunction to stop the suspension while all the legal elements play out, because in a couple weeks brady will be suspended for the first game of the season.
you can get in this weird scenario where he might not be playing and he might win in court. that will be their first step. charlie: you have also a relationship issue between an owner and roger goodell. is it permanently impaired or is this a case where an owner and a commissioner who works for him? ken: there are layers here because robert kraft was instrumental in having roger goodell chosen way back when. and rose to his defense during the ray rice affair. he's on the broadcast committee considered the most powerful committee on the nfl. also, he's the owner of the super bowl champions and four of them yes. he's not a random one-off owner. he's 20 plus years in charge of his team. charlie: this is my franchise, even though they have been accused of different things over
the years. ken: you have that and the personal relationship they have had over the years straight it's a bit of a father-son relationship. charlie: do you think it is impaired or simply two man who agree to disagree? ken: it's rough around the edges now. the buddy language and the literal language common to have an owner get on tv and say i am mistaken for trusting the league to do the right thing is pretty strong language. charlie: did tom brady make any points worth listening to in his case he put forward on his facebook page? ken: yeah, one of the things he said was basically the cell phone records, the cell phone destruction issue is a lark they already had the text messages from the other people involved in the investigation so they did not really need it anyway. the fact it was destroyed is a red herring. charlie: they had all the text messages on the receiving end. ken: right.
what they were after with him admitting guilt, which they could have asked him. he said the destruction of the phone which they listed on the front of the ruling yesterday was a way to make him look guilty yet again. charlie: does he have a case? ken: he does on whether the issue of the tampering is allowable. that issue is a sidebar issue. judges don't necessarily get into the nitty-gritty of the ruling. they get into whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to rule on the issue, which the league has tried to establish that the commissioner can be an arbitrator and a rule on whether the commissioner in his ruling has gone so far out of bounds on what he has done. i think brady will have an uphill battle here. charlie: to make sure that this does not damage his reputation. or is it simply the uphill battle to get back the games he has been suspended from? ken: i think to win his case,
which if he gets an injunction will allow him to play. if the judge vacates the ruling he can be back on the field immediately. whether he is branded a cheater in the future or continues to be , that is for other people to decide. charlie: what about the other coaches and the other owners in the league? where are they on this? ken: there's no love for the patriots. i do not think some owners might watching the patriots swing in the wind here. there have been several owners who are very much behind roger goodell, traditionalists and want him to protect the integrity of the league. rooney and marat the steelers and giants are considered the old cards. the owners are the bears. these are teams that have been through multiple fights and in some cases have fallen on their own swords when they have been
in the limelight, if you think back to ben roethlisberger's case, he served a six-game suspension, was never arrested. they lost their star quarterback for an infraction never on the books. charlie: what was the infraction? ken: that he was involved in a bar scene with a woman. nothing was ever proven in court and he still served a four-game suspension. there was no $5 million investigation into the matter, but it was a serious matter and at that point roethlisberger apologized for it. some owners feel like, we can have two sets of justice here. we paid our dues. why shouldn't the patriots as well? charlie: as someone who understands the national psyche but regardless of whether it is
for or two games, for it to be played out like this, does it do irreparable damage to tom brady? ken: absolutely. it is tough for him to regain his squeaky clean image, his -- he is great on the field. i think outside -- superstar life. he was the model player. him and peyton manning, the two of them together, they are the poster boys for the league. plus the fact that he was an underdog. peyton manning was a number one draft pick. he's one of those bootstraps players who proved that hard work -- charlie: when people know tom brady, is it true to his own character -- they know he's a tough competitor -- to say i'm not going to take this lying down? ken: i don't know that for a fact. i would assume this could have been settled if he was willing to take the blame early on. ken: but that was not in his dna. ken: it seems it wasn't.
remember this happened right before the super bowl to her you want to fall in your sword right before the super bowl and potentially not play? there are consequences of coming clean at that point. he could have the day after the super bowl brought somebody aside and said, let's settle this quickly, and instead it played on for months. charlie: is there any perception developing that the nfl itself does not deserve as much admiration as he want to bestow on it? ken: it has been severely damaged in the past year already because of the handling of the domestic dispute and this is more of the same. people are saying, greg hardy got four games for domestic violence infractions and this is also four games and people try to draw parallels. it looks messy. as you are about to start training camps people are supposed to be excited about games and all the news outlets are talking about tom brady and reputation to your best players and whether the commissioners are pushing things too far.
by 5% before recovering. the gyrations come after the government has already implement it varies emergency measures throughout the summer to stem stock market losses. yesterday afternoon we taped a conversation about china. joining me in new york is the director of the center on u.s.-china relations at the asia society and steve ratner, chairman of advisors and former counselor to the treasury secretary under president obama. from washington, the national correspondent for "the atlantic." i am pleased to have all of them here. jim since you have been there in the last two months, tell me what is going on and why. jim: the stock market is different from other developed world markets and it isn't really a market. it is thinly invested in by the population at large. it doesn't have any
institutional tradition and so the good side of this when there is a market crash as there is now and there was eight years ago in 2007, it doesn't really pull down the rest of the economy the way that 2008 and 2009 did in the u.s. the bad sign is the fundamentals are not developed like world markets. the government has been trying to buy stocks to prop up their value. the question is what that does to the long-term goal of trying to make this a normal, transparent market. charlie: how much of this is in anticipation about china's lack of economic growth? guest: the stock market was very depressed for the last four of five years. it became the cheapest major stock market in the world. then it suddenly took off for a variety of reasons we can talk about. now it has come down 20% or 25% from its peak. we have to put all that in context of the bubble that was allowed to put control.
the chinese have done everything possible you could do wrong in order to create transparent liquid markets. charlie: what have they done wrong? guest: there were 12 million accounts a month opened in the chinese stock market this spring. 25% of the chinese investors have an elementary school education. 5% are illiterate. 90% of the market is individuals. most importantly, they are trying to manage the decline. you can't manage markets. you have to allow markets to function as markets. they are mismanaging it on the way up and the way down. charlie: what should they be doing? guest: there was also a lot of margin debt incurred by the chinese as part of the run on. they were trying to open hong kong and shanghai connect where you could buy stocks in both places. what they should do at this point is stepped out of the market.
some of these stocks are way overvalued and they have to find their own level. some of them are not that expensive. their goal is to become part of the world stockmarket indices and this is getting in their way at the moment. guest: i think the real problem is not so much it is going to affect the economy directly, although it will have a ripple effect but that it shows the dissidents in terms of the party and government possibility to manage it which they pretend to do in a rather perfect manner. here is an example of something which should not be managed, cannot be managed, and yet they have tried to manage it and by failing, which becomes increasingly clear they have failed. it makes them look less able, less omnipotent, and less in control. charlie: do i hear all of you saying this is not about china's economic growth or lack of
growth or down growth, it is a market mechanism of too many people trying to get into the market and all of a sudden prices went skyhigh and when they dropped, they lost it? guest: it's not about china's economic growth, but that is the bigger problem that faces china right now, which is the state of their economy. the two are not completely connected. what is going on in china from a growth standpoint is worrisome. they claim they are growing 7%. nobody i know, including smart investors, believe that. they believe they are going 3%, 4% 5%. they make up the numbers. this is part of the transparency problem that china has in becoming more of a developed country than a developing country. if you look at things like their use of iron or you look at what is happening in commodity prices in general, the whole deflation
going on in part reflects fears about what is happening in china's growth. that is scarier than what is happening in the stock market. guest: the stock market volatility and crashed is not mean what it would mean in the u.s. or germany or france or some other developed economy where it would signal a profound economic problem as it did for us back in 2008, 2009. the stock market is so disconnected from the fundamentals of the economy. i think it is a signal of a larger challenge china is facing in other areas. in the long run, they want to get to a transparent market which means when the government does not prop up and there are economic fundamentals involved in it, but getting there from here is difficult because it means allowing these kinds of pressures, so too the other reforms the jinping is talk about putting in -- xi jinping has talked about putting in -- it is significant for china in
general because it is one more sign of a promised reform that has been going the opposite direction in the past two years. charlie: you raise the question of xi jinping. what does this do for the confidence in the leadership? guest: one of the key planks is his economic reform program. there really is no political reform program. it was to let market forces play a more critical role in allocating resources. and here, we have the government intervening in a very heavy way into the stock market. it is a direct contravention of that intention to marketize more and let it become more like the global economy around them. [inaudible] he has been in many other ways asserting controls over other aspects of society and the economy, and so this failure to be able to prevail in the stock
market he comes all the more stark. guest: we know why he's doing it. he's doing it because the implicit deal between the leadership and the people as we are going to bring economic prosperity, we are going to make you rich. people find they are to lay percent or 30% less richer than they were, it creates political and social instability. i don't go to china as often as these guys, but i go a couple times a year. there is still in norma's energy in the private sector, enormous innovation. it is still one of the most exciting places for us to invest in on the planet. they are at a very tricky point in time. charlie: what is the worst scenario? guest: they are trying to get people to consume more. for whatever set of reasons,
they have failed. the worst scenario is the economy just continues to decelerate and then you have a recession and then perhaps political and social implications with these guys are better equipped to talk about than i am. guest: we see the government reinvesting in the stock market exactly at a time when the government by its own acknowledgment was seeking to retreat from the market. guest: there's another political overtone. steve was talking about the fact that if you had a more profound economic problem, it could have political ramifications. the have been signs of that already. what has been the state media china to find the traders who have been shortselling and getting out of the market, making is this not an economic decision but a patriotic one. also a decision by the chinese aerospace corporation saying
this was part of an american plot to undermine china's rise in the world. you can trace all the market manipulations to the fact that the u.s. was somehow trying to rig the market. that was happily debunked by other chinese people saying this is crazy, but it is a way that the next tool that will probably be at hand for the government if things got worse economically would be revving up nationalism against either japan or the united states. charlie: who would rev up the nationalism? guest: the government. charlie: in terms of creating conflict or making advances with respect to islands, or doing what? guest: the dilemma of the last two and a half years of xi jinping, who many thought had a big reform task ahead of him needed to control the political system so we could do difficult things so he could clean out these industries so he could have his war on corruption which he has been waging with a
vengeance so he could market ties the stock markets and do things that in principle the country needed to do to get to the next stage of economic evolution and not just be a big source of outsourcing and infrastructure, a country so far , the trend has been the tightening and not the reform. one tool of tightening in countries around the world is to say, our nation is being assaulted by its enemies. japan has been a convenient target for that as we see in a lot of these south china sea stresses. charlie: there is also this idea that the chinese have been trying to turn their economies from exporting to domestic consumption. all of us also know on top of that, that struggled to do that which is a big shift to turn it around, there are reports of
empty housing stocks, especially in residential throughout china. guest: there's no question that china over invested and build a lot of stuff they did not need partly to keep the economic boom going. in the great scheme of life compared to the kinds of mistakes we have made in our economic policy -- look back to 2007 and our housing bubble -- that is not their biggest problem. their biggest challenge is to get people to start consuming more and saving less. they have the highest savings rate of any serious country in the world. then to manage this migration from the rural areas into the cities and the industrialization of china -- on balance, they have accomplished a lot. they have been quite successful. they are at a tricky point now. what all of us are saying is you cannot manipulate markets, they will have to let these markets find their level. there are a lot of stocks that look like our dot com stocks that need to disappear or come to reasonable value. charlie: you don't see any
contagion? guest: within the chinese economy? charlie: two affecting other global economies or markets elsewhere. guest: i don't see much. the chinese stock market is reasonably disconnected even from the domestic economy. until recently you could not even buy stocks in shanghai as a foreigner. it is an isolated wild west frontier. charlie: sometimes you hear the word japan. guest: it's a different economy with different sorts of problems. japan was already a very modern economy after world war ii when it had to rebuild. if problems were transitioning to keeping itself competitive at the high end and internationalizing its domestic economy. china is still on average a poor economy.
there are very few internationally competitive companies there, which japan has a lot. there is an aspect of spillover between the stock market and the rest of the economy that could have ramifications. when chinese families have looked for places to put their money, the mainland has looked for housing stock. because that has softened somewhat, the stock market has been an outlet for that sort of thing. we could be more worried about a spread into a genuine decline in china's economy if we saw stark market declines leading to people having to pull money out of housing. that would be a more worrisome indicator. guest: one other contagion worth noting, if in fact the stock market portends other problems -- or member, we have a housing bubble lower growth rates, now we have the stock market crash -- jim mentioned this idea of hostile foreign forces.
it would not be too difficult for the chinese to begin exporting some of their problems. that has grave implications. it is being caused by foreigners. the world is against us. there's always an incipient degree, of that, looking for scapegoats. guest: we have a summit coming up in september. we have critical issues like climate change, nuclear proliferation, pandemics. we would like to see the two countries come together. if there is this idea that somehow the u.s. is the hand under the table trying to lay china low, that will not help you process it. [indiscernible] guest: it is a background cents. orville did a great op-ed about this a month ago, a couple weeks ago, saying that on the one hand
relations between china and the united states are better than most people think and better than they have any reason historically to be if you imagine how enormous this power shift has been over the past 30-plus years. there's also the places they deal together. on the other hand, something that most american government officials profoundly believe, which is the u.s. does not wish china il and is better served if it develops, most chinese officials do not believe -- they think finally the u.s. wants to hold them down. that is always a potential source of tension. charlie: they raise that all the time. you don't know if it just -- for a while i thought it just came from the military. but now you know it is more pervasive. guest: it is part of the national narrative. guest: that was part of the narrative of the chinese communist revolution that the
colonialists, the capitalists had preyed upon china, occupied china, dismembered china, and i narrative is still alive. charlie: if you want to be paranoid all you have to do is look to the u.s. and vietnam. ken:ken:guest: vietnamese are not so paranoid about the united states and they do not have a narrative of victimization. guest: we should still be paranoid about china from an economic point of view. that economy is still going to grow. their economic hour is still going to be greater, and economic power is an important part of projecting other power around the globe. charlie: if they are still growing 3%, 4%, that is still better than we are. guest: anybody who has been in china has been in china has to be impressed by an taken by its dynamism and the million activities you see going on there. if we were having the
counterpart of this program in china, one of the concerns would be, is china going to develop a high end economy? i think there's an open question about whether its path to development as opposed to steady growth is clear. for police the medium term i would be more bullish about the u.s. prospects than if i were a chinese economist about the realm. charlie: what do we know about the debate within china about its future? who is on what side? has xi jinping occupied the broad center of power and policy? guest: what is astounding is how little we know. it really is a black box. there have always been struggles. certainly there are now. exactly who carries the standard for which side, we really don't know. [indiscernible] guest: any corruption campaign
makes everybody cautious. charlie: we came back to the previous president's staff. guest: it's very deep. here is an economy and country that once to be innovative, wants to make risky decisions, once to be bold, and yet the corruption campaign has really muted that ability. if you talk to people in china you feel everybody -- charlie: the argument would be also that it would inspire more if they have realized everything wasn't fixed and corrupt. guest: ultimately maybe that is the case. right now nobody wants to make a decision. nobody in the government. guest: from a business point of view the anticorruption thing has been much more positive. it is partly a consolidation of power. it has made business people feel better about china's progression towards a more open economy. charlie: my understanding is
there were at least some indications that they wanted to increase the nonstate role in the economy. guest: it's happening all over the place. what jim might have been referring to a minutes ago is this whole question of whether china will be an innovator or simply assemble iphones for the rest of their time. if you go to shanghai and see what is going on in the biotech area, in beijing if you look at what is happening in the i.t. area, this a lot of innovation and excitement there. guest: some of these people are doing their work by immigrating to the u.s. and britain. in california, there is one difference a field i was struck by -- around the time of the lipase, charlie and i, we talked. even though politically it was uninspired leadership by hu jintao there was a sense that things were opening up and china was going to be liberalizing and
always. -- in all ways. the last couple of visits i have made there is much more of a hunker down sense. in general it is a tightening your jacket for chilly winds. i hope that period passes. charlie: do we know anything about the influence or any influence at all from hu jintao or xi jin? guest: [indiscernible] not very favorably looked upon. hu jintao has largely vanished although he surely has people still in various offices. charlie: and xi jinping assumed much more power than he ever had. guest: instead of the old, consensual leadership there are now -- we have not only a prima inter partes, but the prime
like on the planet. the program will kickoff with a comprehensive search of the nearest one million stars using three of the world's most powerful telescopes. stephen hawken says the initiative to understand the lights on earth, you must understand life about mines. it is time to commit to finding the answer to search for life beyond earth. i'm pleased to have you at this table. welcome. guest: thank you. charlie: here you are, a successful businessman. what is it between you and science? this is not your first venture in terms of a scientifically curious mind. guest: i was a scientist myself for more than 10 years. i was trying to address these big questions myself. then i quickly realized i was not good enough -- not smart
enough. . i ended up as a businessman and investor. but i never forgot about science. the first project was the breakthrough the biggest prize in science. i'm doing this with my partners, books or -- mark zuckerberg and families. that was the attempt to give back to science. charlie: what is the breakthrough prize? yuri: the biggest prize in the world. we give it in three categories, mathematics, physics, and life sciences. we give eight prices every year $24 million. probably more than all other
academic prices combined. the idea behind this prize is to create a platform for the best minds in the world to become celebrities of sorts. it's not a secret that we don't celebrate intellectual achievements. if you take the top 100 celebrities, there will be no one scientist there. this is not where you want mankind to be after three and a half billion dollars -- years of evolution. why not celebrate the best minds is really the question i want to ask and answer. charlie: is the breakthrough prize different simply in the amount of money that goes to the recipient, or does it have other distinguishing features that separate it from the nobel prize, for example? yuri: yes. the biggest theme is not really the money we give, but rather the recognition and the prize
ceremony, for example, is televised. charlie: morgan freeman was your -- yuri: morgan freeman was our host, then kevin spacey, seth mcfarland, other distinguished celebrities participated in that. the idea is to get the word out that these people are changing our lives and in fact deserve to be celebrities. charlie: we should know about them and they should be role models for people who want to change the world by scientific research and achievement. yuri: one of the recipients of the prize invented a cancer treatment that is completely new. it basically mobilizes your immunological system to fight cancer. the drugs that have been developed based on his invention have saved thousands and thousands of lives. yet he is completely unknown to the general public. charlie: what is so important
for him to be known? what is important is for him to be able to do his work and have the funds to do it and the resources to do what he does, not that he is a celebrity. other than he serves as a role model and so he shares the same and of science and discovery so that the best and brightest of us care as much about being scientists as they do athletes or entertainers -- yuri: but let's be honest about it. it's also about recognition. it's about what are the achievements we actually celebrate. do we celebrate his achievements? do we celebrate the achievements of the new horizons mission? do we celebrate -- you know, the basketball match and the winner of the tennis tournament? there has to be a balance in the system.
i'm not saying we should be so much favoring one over the other, but what we have today is completely out of balance. if you take the top 200 celebrities, there will be no scientists, not one. charlie: things like the "time" 100 where they recognize scientists and include them on the list -- it's an arbitrary list by "time" magazine doesn't make it a perfect list. yuri: that is true. if you take twitter following are some other criteria, you will see a very different picture. charlie: let me move to what you want to do. we have the breakthrough prize which is to encourage people to go into science and encourage recognition of great scientists so they get their due for the work they do. here we now have you and stephen hawken announcing in london a
$100 million breakthrough initiative to dramatically accelerate the search for intelligent life in the universe. we want to know if there is intelligent life in the universe. and you are going to help us find out. yuri: we will do something that was never tried before to that extent. to be fair, people have been doing this for a while and in the last 55 years, there were a number of initiatives. some of them funded by the government, some of them funded by the previous generation of silicon valley entrepreneurs like hewlett-packard. it is time for a new major initiative which will potentially make a difference. there are three things that make it now so it is really the best possible time.
one is that we all know due to kepler mission that there are billions of candidates for life in our milky way alone. there are billions of earthlike stars with roughly similar size with liquid water. those are many billions and maybe thousands of billions just in our milky way and our galaxy is one of 100 billion. there's a lot of opportunity for life to emerge and there is some opportunity for intelligent life. charlie: i have inquired about this a lot. the interesting thing is that everybody says it would be the height of arrogance for us to assume we are the only intelligent life in the universe correct? yuri: possibly. charlie: on the other hand,
there is zero evidence. yuri: yes, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. so i think that we as human beings have a responsibility to try to answer that question. i want this quest to continue until such time that we find an answer. charlie: which brings us to what you and stpehen hawking are d oing. what are you going to do that is not being done now? we have a lot of big telescopes around the world looking into the sky, trying to find them -- find and hear anything they can possibly here. what are you going to do that is different? yuri: now as we know there are so many possibilities, the question is what do we do about it. what we are doing is taking the
best of what silicon valley can offer and combine this with the power of the best telescopes. we start with three telescopes. one in greenbank, west virginia. those are the biggest existing telescopes. we don't really need to build anything. they are the best. this telescope can hear the mobile telephone conversation from mars. even if you reduce the signal one million times, they will still be able to get that signal. they are very good machines sitting there. but -- also an equally great machine in australia called parks. we are going to rent some significant fraction of that time and we will dedicate this time to that particular search. that is something that was not
done before on that scale. you can imagine the amount of information that those telescopes will generate per second. so then the question is what do you do. here silicon valley comes in the game, and a very smart group of scientists at berkeley university have developed and will further develop the data processing technology that did not exist before, and we will use the best software and hardware to analyze and process information a few orders of magnitude better than any previous search. we would collect as much information in a day that was collected in a year by previous projects. charlie: that a collection is exponentially better than it has been ever, and processing. yuri: we will also engage the public. there are 9 million computers
connected in a network. we will use this network to process this information. we will also do something that was never done before on that scale. we will open all the data to the public. all the data that will be collected will be opened to the scientists and to amateurs who might be able to find something there that we would not be able to find. in other words, the signal can be discovered by anyone who will have access to the data and we will make sure that the data is open. charlie: breakthrough, biggest search ever undertaken for intelligent life beyond earth. significant access to the world's most powerful telescopes. 50 times more sensitive than previous programs dedicated to seti research. will cover 10 times more sky
than previous programs. the world's deepest and broadest search for optical laser transmissions. the financial commitment is $100 million. how confident are you that you will hear something in the next 10 years? yuri: i think this is one of those low probability high-impact projects. i understand why government does not and maybe should not be involved in funding projects with so small chance. charlie: but high payoff. yuri: if you multiply those two factors, you have a nonzero result. because the stakes are so high and the importance of this question is significant you would agree with me then i
think this effort should be supported and we should never stop looking. in 10 years we will have bigger machines, bigger telescopes, better software. we should keep going and continue the search until such time that we have an answer. whether it's going to be in 10 years or 25 or 50 i don't know but i think we should not stop searching because it is one of the existential questions. charlie: are we alone? yuri: yes. charlie: how did you get stephen involved? yuri: i'm it him for the first time in 1987 when i was a physics student. he came to russia, where i was studying at the time, and i found a picture where he speaks of that particular event. -- at that particular event.
that was the first time i saw him and he was my hero at that time and he continues to be my hero. charlie: did you get to meet him at that time? yuri: yeah. i was one of the many people. the next time i saw him was on stage when i was giving him the breakthrough prize two years ago. but he kept talking about that throughout years, and he was the big supporter of this initiative, and i thought that when i was ready to announce we contacted him and he was very kind to agree to participate. charlie: still his main inquiry is the theory of everything? yuri: yes. charlie:simply put, he is interested in the biggest questions, and this is one of the biggest questions. it's question is in the center
of his intention, i'm sure. charlie: anybody involved in technology knows at least three of the biggest questions are platform. we will talk about data, the data, and the impact of that. it talks about mobile and the impact of that. they talk about the cloud and the impact of that. what is the most exciting part of technology for you today beyond the science and the computer power that would enable you to do more with these things? yuri: it's kind of really the same. and of the day, everything goes down to analyzing the data. whether you are analyzing the data you get from the telescopes or you are analyzing the data that you get from people's interest, the data on the e-commerce platform it's really
how smart we are in analyzing this data. we already have google that is a significant part of our human brains already. google and facebook and companies like that is really the beginning of what i would call the emergence of the global brain which is really combination of all the computers and no human minds. thinking and acting collectively. i think the future -- this is one of my main interests -- is really trying to think, what are the sets of data that can be analyzed to provide more value to the people? charlie: which is the point
angie: not so precious, investors flee gold. china is heading for its worst month in two years. the mystery -- initial report say the peak in reunion.com from the plane. a flight of fancy. facebook has plans for internet drones to help people get connected. welcomes the first up coming to you live from bloomberg's asian headquarters in hong kong.