Why Bridget Moynahan Is Living on $1.50 a Day

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


April 28 (Bloomberg) –- Actress Bridget Moynahan and Global Poverty Project CEO Hugh Evans discuss the “Live Below the Line” campaign. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

? this is "taking stock," for monday, april 20, 2014. i am pimm fox.


You will get a lot of it.

This hour, you will hear from an energy investor, t boone pickens, and another speaking from the milken global conference.

Boone pickens gives his perspective, while the governor of colorado discusses the benefits of his perspective of legalized marijuana.

Plus, an actress, bridget monahan.

She tells us how living below the poverty line can change one's perspective.

My producers will once again try to stop me over the next hour, but first, let's get headlines from my radio cohost carol massar.

Thanks so much, pimm.

After the close of trading, herbalife raising its forecast.

Plus, they halted their dividends.

The stock is higher in after-hours trading.

And out with results, a company reporting their earnings exceeding estimates, higher in the after hours of trading, buffalo wild wings, and there is a lot of backlash over donald sterling.

Companies, including virgin mobile and carmax, ended their sponsorship of the team after a ledger traces comments attributed to sterling.

Thank you very much, terrell massar.

And another delay in the keystone xl pipeline, and we have t boone pickens.

Erik schatzker and stephanie ruhle are standing by at the milken global conference in los angeles.

But as you just said, we are here with one of the legendary oilman, t boone pickens.

He has been in this business since -- 1951. why are you laughing?

I am impressed, that is all.

That i am still alive?

[laughter] i went to begin with activism.

It is a hot topic.

You are involved in this back in the 1980's. the business was so reviled to transform itself into a force for good.




I thought you were talking about the oil industry.

I was there before they had cars.

Because you guys in the media figured it out, that what was happening was a huge investment was made.

I bought stock in a company.

I want to make a company better, and it was reported that i was an asset stripper, that i was going to destroy assets.

For me to put my money in it and then destroy it, you have to be crazy.

Bill ackman and others are doing today -- in your opinion, is this any different from what was going on in the 1980's? no.

Why do you think it is different?

They are embracing the media, using the media as a tool, coming after each other.

Yes, i did.

I took interviews and everything else.

I was described as, you know, a raider.

I put my money in.

These guys running the company, they did not have any stock to speak of.

So when you see what carl icahn and bill ackman and the others are doing, the way they are conducting their businesses, do you think it is a good idea?

Sure, i do.

It creates value for the stockholders.

Wait a minute.

Let's you wrote in -- you wrote in "time" magazine that carl icahn is the best thing going.

A lot of people would say that carl icahn is the best thing going for carl icahn.

He is a stockholder.

How would they respond to that?

What if they make money in six months, but two years later, what the company did in order to make sure holders money in the short run turns out to be a bad idea?

They are there for the long term.

Sure, they are.

They are not shareholders.

Shareholders would rather make money fast and slow, ok?

Ask them sometimes.

You do not think activism is being misused in any way?


it is not perfect, but, no, i think it is more good than bad.

What would you say about the state of corporate america?

Our boardrooms more susceptible to that type of approach today or less so than back in the 1980's? x -- can you show me one place in the united states where somebody gets too high or their bosses?

-- hire their bosses?

Good point.

The directors.

That may practically speaking be true, but in theory, the shareholders continue to reelect them.

Are shareholders really paying attention?

Do you think though that corporate america is waking up to this?


Traditionally, it was an old boys network pick that is right.

It is better than it was in the 1980's, that is for sure, but you need to have another system.

You should use headhunters to get directors, not managers to pick whatever.

Many companies have age limits.

They cannot be over 75. i was on a board.

They wanted to get me off, so they gave me one year.

I resigned.

All they had to do was ask me.

I want to ask you a question about the energy industry.

For a long time -- that is the way you really fix america.

If i want to be on a board, say, like ge, i would have to have at least an average number of shares.

There was one board, the ceo had 23,000 shares, and the last one, the new director, he had 67 shares.

They do not give a dam about this company.

I have got millions of dollars about it.

It is very disruptive.

They can put up their directors, and i sent my resume in.

And they have three openings on the board.

They had come up with two directors for the board seats.

The way to do it, like you run for congress.

I was going to ask the question before we run out of time about alternative energy.

You surprised a lot of people a few years ago by taking a very positive attitude towards alternative energy, especially wind power.

It seems now that you have backed away from that position.

With over million dollars, would you back away?

I might.

Why is alternative energy a bad idea?

I am for wind.

You have to have six dollar natural gas to make wind work.

The margin is natural gas.

So when we build wind farms, and a lot of people are building wind farms, are they just throwing good money after bad?

They are using somebody who has to have that in their portfolio, to have a renewable in the portfolio.

Does make sense to you that the koch brothers are taking a public stand for subsidies for alternative energy, or do we need subsidies is alternative energy is going to be a viable industry?

I do not care if you have it or not.

They were against me for natural gas, because they want natural gas really treat -- cheap because they're in the fertilizer business.

So where do you and they stand right now?



We disagree on that.

They do not want natural gas -- but i do not have any conversation with them this has been an honor and a pleasure.

Are we through?

We are through.

We have to leave it there.

We have had an awesome line up today.

T boone pickens.

I did not even know we were on.

My thanks to erik schatzker and stephanie ruhle, speaking with the bp capital chairman and chief executive at the milken institute conference in los angeles, t boone pickens.

Coming up, pfizer.

Well, they want to offer nearly $100 billion to purchase astrazeneca, but as presented to, based in london, saysyou.

Are all of these date deals good for medical science and for patients?

We will get some insight.

And our mystery guest.

? this is "taking stock" on bloomberg.

I am pimm fox.

Big pharma.

Pfizer with nearly a $100 billion takeover offer for astrazeneca.

The london-based company shrugging off the bid.

They are coming up with options.

Our bloomberg news reporter is an expert, and we have the president of a securities company that specializes in the pharmaceuticals industry.

Great to have you both here.

Shannon, i want you to start it.

What about the play for astrazeneca?

As you said, pfizer made a play for astrazeneca, and astrazeneca said no way.

Coming back with a better deal.

In the meantime, maybe somebody else can make a play, maybe amgen possibly.

Bigger money, or someone else's going to come in.

Steve, if anybody else comes in, don't they have to check their balance sheet and see how much money they have offshore outside the united states?

That is very important.

We are trying to figure out an acronym.

Divert attention.

Increase profit and reduce taxes.

So doing all of you are of these things with this potential deal?

If you can pull it off, doing all four, because what you have here is a situation where they can have people focus on what is happening right now, extending the pipeline a little bit, and, of course, increasing the profits, because just by adding the revenue and by continuing all of the expenses, you are good to go.

And then with a lower tax rate, you are in good shape.

Explain that to people.

Pfizer has got about $70 billion outside the u.s.. if they want to bring it back to the u.s., they are going to get taxed on it.

This is really a deal about taxes, and the other tags element is if they buy astrazeneca, the company can be domiciled in the u.k.. they u.k. tax rate.

And the u.k. tax rate is lower than the u.s. corporate tax rate.

Does this seem like a deal about pharmaceuticals or about research and development?

Astrazeneca is not known for their pipeline.

This is a deal about taxes, about increasing revenue, increasing profits.

I do not think this is one of those good old deals, where you look at a company that has products, and you say, i have to have that, the future of medicine in there.


We have been looking at this.

They said no negotiation of prices.

But, guess what?

You buy the lowest-priced drug, and that is what we have been waiting for, and it is happening right now.

All of the 60 ipl's that we had last year, that is the real research.

The question, who pays for it?

All of these new technologies can go out there.

The pharmaceutical industry should.

Will they?

That is the $64,000 question.

Is big pharmaceutical companies are going to be funding their own research and development, then these are just financial engineering deeds?

A lot of analysts are saying that.

If you look at the pfizer products on the market, their top 10 products, their blockbuster products, even viagra, they came from acquisitions at one point or another.

They have not come after the pfizer research and development lab.

Acquisitions here and there.

This has been happening for a while, this shift, where big pharma is becoming the acquirer of the financial company rather than real research-based items.

I they were back in the 1990's. more coming up this week with all of these deals.

All right, thanks very much, shannon, our bloomberg news health reporter, and steve.

Much appreciated create all right, coming up, we're going to the interest -- introducing you to actress bridget moynihan, looking at extreme poverty around the world and doing something about it.

More on live below the line.

That is next on "taking stock." the global poverty project says that more than one billion people, in fat, one point 2 billion people live in extreme poverty around the world.

Now, in an effort of in gauging there is in poverty, what it is like to go hungry, my next test actually participated in a program called live below the line.

They are living on just $1.50 per day, for one week.

Joining us from washington, d.c., hugh evans, and here with me in new york is the act is bridget moynahan, who i hear has a birthday today, so happy birthday.

Thank you.

Hugh, i want to start off with you.

How did you come up with this idea for the global poverty project live below the line?

Well, for the last few years, we have had this question, pimm, what it means for people to live on less than $1.25 u.s. per day, and until we have experienced it for ourselves through the live below the line challenge, and one man in australia challenged himself to do it for a month, and he founded, obviously, incredibly challenging, and he built a movement out of it, and people started doing it all over the world, and now, just one year later, there will be 25,000 people over the next five days living on just $1.50 per day, including drink.

There are anti-poverty initiatives around the world, and that is on the website.

B ridget, how did you get involved?

I was at a summit at the u.n., and they came up to me after my speech, and i enjoyed what they had to say.

They take something like this, and they do not just throw money at it.

They ask people to purchase goods, and by doing that, you are forced by putting your mind and body into a situation into it.

You are making different choices.

You are thinking about things differently, and hopefully people will take that forward.

Now, you helped start this.

$1.50 per day.

What are some of the restrictions?

Going to the refrigerator and trying to live on that amount of money?

I cannot eat anything in your studio here, no bottled water.

I have a team of four, and we pooled all of our money and bought in bulk.

We made a very strict diet, tried to keep it healthy, and we are just going to keep with that for the rest of the week.

Hugh evans, what is the menu for you for this week?

I actually have to say that i with they -- feeling very hungry because i was up in the studio, but i started the morning with a banana and eight tiny bit of porridge, because that is all i could afford today.

My diet is probably not as nutritious, but the truth is, i am really not going to know what it is like for one .2 billion people living in poverty, so i have gotten it pretty good and do not take anything for granted.

A few quick weston, if i can't, because it fits into the theater.

What is your favorite food if you could have it this week?

Steak with potatoes chips.

Steak with potato chips.

Hugh evans, what would you love to have this week?

I would like enchiladas.

I like everything mexican.

All right, hugh evans, what is your worst habit?

You will have to ask my wife.

I am not sure.

She would probably have a better idea.

I eat tortilla chips and other chips about 9:00 in the morning.

That is a habit.

Thanks very much, hugh evans and bridget moynahan.

This is "taking stock." ?

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change