market dynamics can and. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max conjure for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on our cheat. artist has been to rebuild the future on a stronger foundation the we had before. but in the meantime many are asking where is my job and as new jobs numbers point to a struggling economy is the white house in denial and could maybe be time to change the rules of how the economic system works. they say sharing is caring and that's what chevron and former secretary of state condoleezza rice are telling and a new venture spreading supposed economic goodwill overseas but what's really motivating this and why abroad at a time when americans are struggling at home. and it's not just the economy

president obama should worry about it seems his goal to reset relations with russia may be harder than he thought but at what cost to national and global security. e.v.g.a. is declared war against their own borders they don't support them no wonder the broadcasting board of governors employees voted is the worst branch of government to work for it hasn't stopped it from getting big bucks from the u.s. government. good evening it's friday june third i'm lauren lyster coming to you from here in washington d.c. and you're watching our team now it has been a bad week for the u.s. economy new jobs numbers revealed today the worst private sector job growth in eight months knocking the unemployment rate up from nine to nine point one percent and according to analysts at morgan stanley half of last month's job growth came

from mcdonald's now a distressing housing report came earlier this week and has economists saying the residential real estate market has double dipped the u.s. debt ceiling has been raised and moody's issued a warning on the country's credit rating as a result and today president obama right there. behind me in the face of these dismal jobs numbers gave a speech at a chrysler plant to celebrate the resurgence of the auto industry saying that in the economy there are bumps on the road to recovery but is it a is it time for a major rethinking of the u.s. economy but earlier i asked peter schiff he's president of euro pacific capital and smart money is going into gold look at the dow gold ratio is the lowest instead i think of the entire cycle it's around eight to one right now so money is moving into gold it's moving into commodities despite this correction stocks oil is still over a hundred dollars a barrel today on the close here in new york smart money is going off shore is

going into foreign stocks foreign currencies look at the swiss franc the dollar closed today an all time record low against the swiss franc that's the safe haven currency not the u.s. dollar so then how does the united states government get corporations to invest any of that money here at home in the united states and they're certainly not getting it from corporate taxes i want to bring up a chart showing what some of the largest companies in the u.s. have pointed in corporate taxes and they've paid zero or you had a negative tax rate i mean that doesn't seem fair needless to say but that money isn't isn't coming into the u.s. government despite the fact that these companies are making such huge profits there's a lot of talk about closing loopholes and tax policy you know lowering the corporate tax rate what i mean to help. well it would help to abolish the corporate income tax retire early because then corporations wouldn't waste so much of their resources figure out how to avoid taxes instead they would use their resources to generate more profits more economic growth and more jobs corporations don't really

pay taxes their shareholders do we're already axing them but they get their dividends the employees the corporations pay taxes when they get their paycheck so let's tax the employees and the shareholders don't tax the corporate level it's just a political a smokescreen but if we want or rationed for businesses to work harder invest more we need to remove the barriers such as high taxes all these regulations all these mandates all the legal liability the us government makes it very expensive and very dangerous for companies to hire people so why should that but peter at the same time companies are getting out of paying these taxes and there has been a lot of money flushed into the system that was supposed to get companies to loan money to people but money to businesses hire people and not have it happen they're hoarding cash corporations are sitting on cash as so what is going to address why what makes you think that more deregulation or lower taxes is going to stop that

well because in order to lend money they have to be able to pay it back so there has to be a climate where businesses can succeed in large and they can't with all the taxes and all the regulation they're not going to do it and would you want businesses to lend more money to consumers consumers are broke they can't pay back what they've already borrowed americans are drownding and mortgage debt and credit card debt. that money the boxes can't get money and small businesses can't get money not supposed to be one of the bedrock you know united states economy a little. sorry the u.s. government is borrowing want to have trillion dollars a year there's nothing left for business and not only the u.s. government is what it's directly borrowing the u.s. government is guaranteeing all the mortgages all the student loans there's no money left this is are starving for capital because it's all going to washington but at the same time i mean the government bailed out

a lot of those mortgage backed securities because that's what investors all over the world head how they were essentially reinforcing the major investment that countries like china and russia had me right but where did the money come from to bail out those investors who should've lost money it was taken out of our pool of capital so that money is not better for businesses and even if it was there would they really want to take the risk of borrowing it and have to pay it back when the climate is so hostile taxes are high and going higher regulations are numerous and there's more room in the pipeline the legal exposure is increasing you know who's going to want to invest in an economy that the government is of deliberately destroying as peter said president of euro pacific capital now former secretary of state condoleezza rice chevron and a think tank have all teamed up to launch a new project to look at how to promote quote economic development livelihoods and reduce poverty worldwide this from oil companies that refused to pay an eight point

six billion dollars court ordered payout for poisoning the ecuadorian amazon rain forest killing especially fourteen hundred people and this call for foreign investment on a day where as you just heard jobs numbers are just one example of the difficulties facing the u.s. economy so what is behind this well are to christine for that want to try and figure it out. it was billed as an initiative to promote the leadership of the united states to develop economically communities around the world. and featured former secretary of state condi lisa writes partnering with chevron one of the largest oil companies in the world we can help countries to begin to build the infrastructure that can attract and properly use private investment and business development which and then produces jobs or it's people why the launch was short on details there were many references to the important role the u.s.

had to play in improving welfare around the globe. what will welfare be not be something that pops into the minds of citizens around the globe when they hear the name conda lisa rice more commonly associated with supporting president george w. bush's invasions of afghanistan and iraq you don't lot or another afghanistan out there you don't want the northern border that's like a state. you don't want yemen to as it's doing right in the civil war and become the new somalia or the new afghanistan despite a ten year presence in afghanistan it still has one of the world's highest rates of infant mortality and death in childbirth people has this is part of a larger campaign on the part of chevron companies to change my comedy companies can make a difference or oil companies they say should to support their communities we

succeed when we make a difference in people's lives changing people's lives is exactly what they did in this community in ecuador millions of gallons of toxic waste water spilled by texaco at a court ruled contributed to the deaths of fourteen hundred people texaco was later bought i shove run a judge in ecuador ordered chevron to pay nearly nine billion dollars in fines an order they ignored and a us judge supported them instead they're spending money on marketing chevron is is continuing just a scorched earth legal political. and p.r. offensive to evade accountability while people in ecuador continue to get sick people on our core continue to die of oil related illness cancer this documentary rumble in the jungle examines what happened to the people who live there filmmaker greg lost says it was turned upside down then left to fend for itself just opposite

their p.r. campaign in fact they impoverished and oyster area and the one reason it's the poorest here is that chevron were in their texter. and meanwhile here in the united states people continue to suffer through an economic recession unemployment rate right now ten percent almost and figure so that nearly forty million americans are living below the poverty line the entire system for developing the welfare of its citizens under threat of dismantling by proposed cuts to social education and health care benefits so this begs the question if the united states is really the country right now to be leading the way in development and poverty reduction around the globe in washington i'm christine for sound r.t. and for more earlier i spoke with writer and activist ron your colleague here is part of our conversation. when corporations go abroad in you know try in and talk about development and wanting to do great things for you know people in other

countries to help their markets grow and to help you know to help their communities prosper and it usually ends up being the exact opposite. they usually end up destroying their their land usually and you know if they end up if they do end up getting them jobs that usually ends up being really low paying jobs i mean just look at ecuador you don't really need to look any further than ecuador where you know chevron has like you said refused to pay for the devastation they left there after poisoning the rainforest and leaving village or sick you know and dying of cancers and having children born of birth defects so you know this of course it's very serious and questionable when any corporation tries to you know spend money to sort of give themselves a pretty face. a broad you know there's there's ways that they can if they really wanted to show themselves as benevolent entities there's a way they could ways they could do that by repairing the damage they caused it to go point on one side you could argue that at least if they're going in and investing they're doing something for the country that they're going in and doing

all of those things that you mentioned are they helping at all i mean you know when corporations do go abroad and you know they enter other countries it's really just the really just and they're trying to make the market more beneficial to themselves and they really you know they end up trying to you know force the government to make policies that are beneficial for their bottom line i mean that's what we're creations really care about is their bottom line i mean that's what they're driven that is that is there how they're set up they're driven to maximize their profit so what is in it for in this case a partnership with you know former secretary of state condoleezza rice and a think tank for the u.s. to the involved in this what what what drives the united states government to be involved in helping chevron make business easier in countries like you're saying well it's you know the government's full of people like you know former secretaries the economy the race who were. normally you know heads of large massive you know corporations. and so you know it's sort of that revolving door where they go from

private to government to private to government so you know i don't really look at it as a partnership between the two i would look at it as you know they're all the same people at this point so you know when the u.s. government is involved in this type of stuff it's because you know there's people who will end up going into those industries afterwards you know they're you know the people who are involved in government you know look at dick cheney and donald rumsfeld i mean they're like the perfect examples of people who work for private corporations and then went on to be in the government and now have benefited immensely you know in huge gains in wealth from their time in office making policies that were beneficial to corporations that used to work for and there's no doubt that at the end of the day corporation do you have so much power when it comes to the money to states and the dollars that they have at their disposal yet we've seen a lot of the consequences of that when it comes to oil companies like you just mentioned when it comes to nuclear energy when a great example would be the near meltdown in japan so what is really the cost of

the power of corporations and the way that they're set up well here's the thing is corporations are not evil and they're not good they're a moral entity is they they exist for the sole purpose of making a profit so you know i i have a hard time believing that they're ever doing anything good just to do something good because you know they're always looking over out for their profits but. you know i would say that you know when they go abroad and do this they're really just looking to exploit more resources and the consequences of that are you know sicknesses people you know losing their livelihoods and i mean it's interesting too because if you if you look at what corporations have done in the united states for these u.s. corporations to go abroad and pretend like they're helping people who are less fortunate is really silly because you know there's situations you know there's people who are less fortunate at home right now what a great point i mean right now we see do a horrible job. numbers that come out we see economists saying that essentially housing is in a double dip so what what are corporations and the government doing in terms of the

economic development at home are they helping or hurting in their policies right now do you think i mean we see g.e. paying no corporate tax rate i mean two thirds of u.s. corporations pay nothing in and federal income taxes i mean if you or i were to do that the government would be after us and so you know clearly the people in power in the government right now that are scooby representing us are representing the people you know the interest that got them elected which is generally these large corporations and i was a writer an activist ranya colic that is now when it comes to u.s. president barack obama's reelection campaign and foreign policy achievements he's likely to tout the reset of u.s. russia relations as one of the big wins but as two thousand and twelve approaches and we see disagreement over missile defense as just one of the roadblocks and relations between the countries will this kind of real transformation be possible well my guest came here to help me sort it out steven cohen author and professor of russian studies at new york university also

a contributing editor at the nation magazine here's part of our conversation earlier. it goes back to right after the soviet union ended the clinton administration in the ninety's took the view that the united states won the cold war that isn't true just historically the cold war ended before the soviet union but american policy ever since the ninety's it's been based on the premise that russia is a weak and defeated nation and therefore we can have it a unilateral or asymmetrical relation that is we can demand of moscow but we don't have to give up and that's exactly what's happened with the reset even under obama who promised to change policy with russia get warmer for example where they gave him some cooperation or lots of american supplies now go to afghanistan through russia moscow is help the united states rein in iran's nuclear ambitions that's always been very important thing for obama's foreign policy but name once and i say

this to my friends in the american political class name one thing of any meaning other than the words that russia has gotten in return that abets that furthers its own national security so far as i can tell nothing and they're supporting the political class in mosco understands and that's why there's not much support for the reset in moscow ok so then why do you think that u.s. policy makers see the policies that they're pushing as being very fair and why do you think that it's ok for them to still have this language of russia as the enemy i mean even just a speech that paul ryan gave on american exceptionalism he said you know what do we want to world that's run by china or russia and these are two you know two of the largest investors in the united states is that really wise to do. you know every nation has its mind set is shaped by its history russians have a mindset that we don't understand americans it's not it's that russians don't

understand i grew up in kentucky the southern heartland of the united states and this is the way we were raised to think that america was an exceptional nation to be extended that we were involved in the world it was to lead the world or save the world or guide the world and it's something that still perpetuated in our textbooks but you know in some ways it's not all that important because great leadership both in moscow and washington can supersede that only twenty years ago there was a totally unexpected break from by a cold war american president reagan and a russian communists gorbachev because they became new thinkers as gorbachev said maybe transcended the culture and the mentality of their own countries particularly their own political classes because i don't think it's the people that are affected by this nonsense it's the political elites so the answer is the short answer is with the lacking at this moment in moscow i mean it washington and i voted for obama i'm not anti obama but what's lacking is leadership on the part of president

obama to break with these post cold war miss it we can tell russia what to do and we can demand from russia things we are not prepared to give that's a recipe for more cold war and i think we'd get if was right that we're headed to a new cold war if missile defense and nato expansion aren't stuck so do you believe that president obama has what it takes to have the kind of leadership that you think he needs to to overcome some of these roadblocks and how can he win for example the house is controlled by republicans. because we're out the last question is easy to answer because an american president unless it involves a treaty can make foreign policy on his or her own i mean reagan didn't have much support even in his own party for the breakthrough with gorbachev but he just believed in it then he this embassador and secretary of state went ahead and did it and obama could do it if he wanted to do it but i think because he has no people

around him from thinking a new way about russia these are all leftovers from the clinton administration that obama himself may not understand the need for new thinking but he has the power if you want to create a new russia our city. going to training editor at the nation magazine and professor of russian studies at new york university now they have been given a bigger budget than ever this year but many in congress still complain america's foreign broadcasters are falling on deaf ears archies kalen for it has more on the broadcasting board of governors the latest battle for the airwaves and for their funding take a look domestic public broadcasting is on the congressional chopping block. but there are more taxpayer dollars for u.s. international broadcasting then every seven hundred sixty eight million dollars to be exact our sales pitch has obviously been very good because in the budget agreement from last week broadcasting board of governors was actually given an additional ten million dollars to work on internet circumvention few americans have

ever heard of broadcasting board of governors the agency responsible for overseeing voice of america. a trusted source of news for the region now does the u.s. government. but the agency's nine part time governors play a full time role in shaping the u.s. image abroad from our perspective we've got to target every place all the time because we think everybody has value and every country has importance former radio free europe director tom tieing says nonprofit organization freedom house is a map of the world best describes baby g. efforts iran russia china egypt and africa if you follow the freedom house map you'll see that i was following the map even though i didn't have it in my office freedom house a stated mission is to promote democracy abroad but it's come under fire by critics who say its mission is to remove regimes that aren't friendly to the us says

broadcasting to business and civil society leads in the muslim world is the priority today in the middle east we were seen as the aggressor occupier and that's a hard that's a hard position to be but the biggie is also in. proposition at home senator tom coburn called it a quote most worthless organization and the federal government full of people who know nothing about media or foreign policy and its own employees rank the worst government agency to work for tim shamble is the union representative for b.g. employees it's like a one strike policy in europe. and also the feeling of the b.g. has declared war against their own employees they don't support them they don't support the voice of america blocking sickleave spying on employees who leave early or make personal phone calls and political interference in the newsroom are all something shameful says he's fought against they tried to shield themselves from any kind of congressional oversight. and they've pretty been they've

been able pretty much to to run the agency any way they see fit regardless of what congress thinks there's also a battle as to whether the b.b. g.'s mission is to influence a bra or for your pre-literacy and i know. who are television. because i know that firsthand. are looking to influence the influential our broadcasters continue to serve as examples of free and professional press but the baby jesus is its mission is to inform is that right and he also helping pins us foreign policy through house students b.g. now the mission is what it is and we stand firm to it and when all else fails some say washington should do what it does bats create yet another new agency that will comprise all major public diplomacy functions of the government including the state departments usa id peace corps and the b.b. g.

the broadcasting board of governors it's frequently brought before congress for oversight hearings but some say without real structural reform they will continue spending taxpayers' money while falling on deaf ears human ford artsy washington d.c. . and for more on this topic its author and lawyer every goal and her she joins us now from caracas venezuela so much for being here today nice to see so many people don't know that the united states may not know that the united states funds these kind of media operations all over the world and venezuela where you sit has been a target of what some would call a media war what has that look like in venezuela what does the united states do there. well and also actually in the budget of this year of two thousand and eleven there was a special amount of money through the b.g. dedicated to use voice of america to broadcast pro u.s. propaganda in venezuela and so what we're seeing are really more deals mean with local t.v. stations private stations such as global reach yon here in minnesota that's

a major voice for the opposition for the any child is heard and what they do is basically retransmit voice of america report but overall i mean the us propaganda media like voice of america or radio marti the t.v. marti the radio free europe which actually radio for europe probably had more of an impact than the others i mean in general you know voice of america is not a major international media but i think what also people forget is that outlets like fox news for example which are also broadcast even here ministry and cable and satellite have a tremendous impact in promoting u.s. propaganda and even if they're not official state department propaganda outlets they're still broadcasting the point of view of the united states in promoting u.s. agenda around the world to the u.s. actually has an apparatus a media apparatus much larger than just what's out what's coordinated by the b.b.c. and and this is what i think as a as a broader impact in

a much more powerful impact around the world in promoting us agenda and does it have an impact though i shaping public opinion in places like venezuela because commentary i've heard from people in regards to these u.s. funded operations is that people in those countries know they're u.s. funded and as a result they don't put much credence into them but yet this is something that's supposed to shape image abroad and we heard in that report that there's accusations that all this funding really is just money outlets that are falling on deaf ears what have you seen to be the reality i mean i think that the b.g. and likewise in america again and the radio and t.v. marti here have been complete waste of millions. millions of u.s. taxpayer dollars i mean absolutely everybody knows that voice of america is the department of state propaganda operation by the much more powerful for example is an outfit like c.n.n. which broadcasts in spanish all throughout latin america and it's the reference really of news throughout this entire region and so again it's promoting a u.s. perspective u.s. opinion u.s. agenda and obviously is pro u.s.

government so i mean you know they and now that they're extending more and internet and seeing that they're allocating more fines in danger and i think that the d.v.d. or us state department propaganda could be have a larger impact over cyberspace than it does over the airwaves and television was and certainly i mean over the past few years other countries have been catching up and doing much better designed broadcast out of their own state apparatus than what the b.b.c. has been doing i mean yeah i think that that it doesn't surprise me that the u.s. government is revising those operations and is looking for ways to reach a broader audience with their direct propaganda because certainly they're behind in doing so and when it comes to looking at other countries and and other and initiatives such as tell a story in that america or even russia today or you know the iranians are now launching spanish language media i mean yeah the u.s. is kind of behind on that but they have other outlets such as c.n.n. and fox interesting quite and we have seen the b.g.

officials say that very thing you just mentioned we've heard secretary of state hillary clinton kind of your sentiments but one of the things that here in the united states is you know that i've seen is the backlash against the stations here like tell us or like russia today our team our station by the mainstream it here in the united states is that a little hypocritical do you see a double standard there between you know what are stations like r.t.r. and what the united states is essentially doing in other countries oh yeah there's always a double standard when it comes to u.s. foreign policy i mean oh as for the united states government it with. good for them to do abroad is never good for anyone else to do at home and certainly we're seeing that and at the same time i think that there's a major difference between media like tele sort of russia today or even press t.v. because there are media outlets that are are not necessarily promoting government propaganda whereas when you look at voice of america or radio t.v.

marti or even radio free europe which was widely associated i mean publicly with u.s. intelligence agencies like cia i mean people know that these are absolute propaganda outlets they're not doing any kind of regular programming you know news and opinion that that's done in any kind of balanced perspective whereas i think other stations like russia today are they telling are trying to do that that they're not just government propaganda outlets you know they're real they're a media outlet such as a c.n.n. could be and could be seen which is why i think the u.s. not just goes well beyond state department to include such a c.n.n. and fox ally thank you for joining us and i do want to clarify that r t we are not run in any way by the russian government to our viewers we have a completely independent editorial staff mission etc that's that has nothing to do with with the russian government i do want to clarify that as we were talking about and you mentioned that that was author and lawyer. thank you now we want to take a minute to think thank you so much to our.