it's just. there's a slick battle brewing between china and the u.s. it's date canada's oils so what will win out here principles or economic interest. and as u.s. president obama rides a bus across america trying to ease economic worries france and germany are taking a different approach to saving the grose own by actually balancing their budgets so should the u.s. follow suit. is meant to give you a loser that you can run if you look on the russians without going through national systems and everybody krupa through. the us system is this dell technology might to a global revolutionaries but it also be an excuse for the u.s.

to monitor the global playground. good afternoon it's wednesday august seventeenth or pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lister and you're watching our t.v. well as president obama is in his old home of illinois today there are areas is in right around the midwest on a one point one million dollar bus paid for by taxpayers unveiling a plan to convince them he's focused on creating jobs oh yeah and it's not a reelection campaign tour wink wink we'll have more on that later shows but what obama is trying to save face with americans his second in command is trying to save face with beijing joe biden vice president is on a five day visit in china trying to reaffirm the u.s. his status as a world economic power fresh off of course the debt ceiling crisis and the downgrade of u.s. credit but is the u.s.

losing out to china economically already and what's not. important country's principles or economic interests when it comes to these issues let's take a look at what's going on with oil in canada as an example so the u.s. imports about half of its oil in canada is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the united states that's followed by saudi arabia mexico and venezuela now canada's only major oil export market is the u.s. ok now enter the vast reserves of oil in oil sands in alberta the u.s. views this as the pillar of its future energy needs building a pipeline to deliver it but here's the problem it's been stopped by environmental concerns and regulations also this oil from the oil sands is known as dirty oil and environmentalists are not fans meanwhile as the u.s. flags in just what it wants to do someone is very willing and eager to step in its china and they're willing to spend big money for

a big piece of these oil reserves and check out how the leaders in canada have changed their tune in general towards china now that it's looking to the asian country as a customer for its exports to pick up slack from the economically challenge us for example back in two thousand and six prime minister stephen harper said i don't think canadians want us to sell out important canadian values our belief in democracy freedom human rights they don't want to sell that out to the almighty dollar back then harper was very critical of the chinese china's human rights record and the foreign minister back then accuse china of industrial espionage as well now about support the harper government calls china a friend an important ally saying things like it is clear that the strategic partnership between canada and china has never been more promising as the structure of the world economy changes more and more we are in a position to cool wopper e for our mutual benefit human rights are not such

a big rallying cry these days how things change so. what's right and what's wrong and what's going to win out here joining us to talk about that is host of freedom maine radio stefan molyneux thank you for being with us now you are sitting in canada so let's first take canada's flip flop on china what is more important principles like human rights which harper stood for back in two thousand and six the valiantly or economic interest which canada seems to be more interested in now when it comes to china i think it's a great question i think there's a bit of a for the economy i think it's really important to remember that human rights are the issue or the business of the chinese government whereas people who want to trade and do business together these are economic or property rights or free trade rights so i don't think that we want to punish people who want to trade in canada and want to trade with china for the actions of their government i think that would be quite on job so i think that with their amount of value and allowing this kind of open trade between the two countries so do you think essentially that it's a right thing for for stephen harper and his government to be put in economic

interest before values that they seem to really care about as the foremost priority before i think it is reasonable i think the way i would phrase it is to say that it is good for the government to not interfere with the choice of trade between individuals ok now let's bring in the us so the former foreign minister of canada said this about the us china dynamic he said there's a real sense in canada now that the americans take us for granted and that canada has to strengthen relations with china in order to get more respect in the u.s. do you agree and do you see this oil sand issue as an example of that. i think it is important i think that there's a certain amount of delusion around energy requirements and if you and if you production particularly in america so for instance almost eighty percent of the oil around the world is either owned or controlled by governments and the vast majority of those governments are not very friendly you could put their own people to human rights or to the environment as

a whole and so if you want to do business around or oil you're dealing with twenty one percent of private companies fifty eight percent of those are in canada so if you want to do free trade around oil you have to go to canada canada is alberta and the majority are ninety seven percent of canada's oil reserves are in the star sand projects so i do think bad china wants to do business in canada they are canada's second largest trading partner they are the main source of canadian immigration to repair the strong ties between the two countries they need energy canada is sitting on massive resources of energy american special interest groups particularly hyper environmentalist seem to be i think inordinately concerned about the environment which we all want to have a clean environment but let's look at the reality is that if america does not get its oil from canada it's going to have to go to the middle east or someplace in africa or some other place where there's some godforsaken government oppressing its own people so it's not like there's some magical solution where you can get clean oil perfectly with no human rights abuses i'd like to think that canada sits at the top of the human rights compliance regimen relative to almost all the other

countries that produce oil at least in this quantity ok well let's get a little bit more into that has you brought the us into his conversation with the environmental concern so you have the u.s. saying we don't know about these oil sands because of the environmental issues this oil is thirty the pipeline can pull in drinking water and china just jump and says sure we'll take it we don't care about those things and they seem to have a lot of the pay use more broadly it's dread then purely by business interests which lead with less concern over the environment or that kind of thing which is working better in a country's interest said because you mentioned that you know the united states really wants of oil should they really be that concerned about the environmental concerns and bring in from canada. well i don't think so i think the environmental concerns are pretty questionable there's a lot of flak back and forth about whether it's better or worse to have this kind of oil through the u.s. is it is it better for the environment as a whole to have it produced in saudi arabia where there's almost no concern for the

environment whatsoever and then shipped in dangerous supertankers across oceans with storms and lightning i don't know that that's necessarily a big improvement the question of these kinds of decisions is always compared to what so we can get the american can get some oil from canada compared to what compared to shipping it from africa and doing what china is doing in africa which is letting down lavish bribes to dictators get access to these resources we have to make intelligent decisions about how these resources are going to be bought and i think that dealing with canada which has one of the strictest environmental controls in the on the planet dealing with canada with private companies who have profit motives and a controlled by shareholders them and consumers that is the best and cleanest way to get your energy going over to the middle east which is significantly anti-american and it's going to be a significant evil supply moment i think is not going to be a winning strategy for america in the long run and philosophically you mentioned ok you gave the example in china and you said they lay down lavish bribes to african dictators to get oil that's our thing so if inflation were china puts business

interests in your example i had any concerns about human rights or what a country's leader is doing to their people that sort of thing is is that making them more successful than a u.s. model that puts concerns about what a country's leader is doing or what the u.s. considers the right human rights record or environmental concerns ahead of its business interests who's winning china or the u.s. . well i think from a purely economic standpoint because it's clear that china has experienced the most extraordinary growth since the early part of the industrial revolution in western europe so china's growth has been seven eight nine ten percent for almost twenty years so there's no doubt that getting out of the way of people who want to do who want to trade freely is the best way to grow your economy there's also very strong argument to say that the best way to get environmental protection is to grow your economy to have the excess wealth that is necessary to have luxuries like scrubbers on your smoke stacks and think of all the people who drove to work using gas to invent email of the fax machine which is vastly reduced the amount of gas that is

required to ship documents around the world so i think that what you want to do is get as much wealth as possible that you see the excess wealth that you need for environmental controls denying a forty five billion dollars of economic growth from these tar sand projects is simply going to impoverish america and that means that there's going to be fewer excess amounts of proper bailable for environmental protection and that's a great point you brought a full thermal year in here especially thing that the u.s. is hurrying its ability to protect the environment by holding this with environmental protection that right that's exactly right yeah i mean if you raise the price of gas you're going to hurt your economy which means you keep your growth is going to be lower which means you have less money available for regulation and you have less money available for environment protection you need wealth wealth well to protect the environment so when you see it leaders like president obama who have come out and said that gas prices are threatening the economic recovery or threatening to bring the economy into recession obviously regulations and that sort

of thing factor into gas prices so in order to help the economy with the best thing be to lessen those regulations and allow this kind of a project without as much concern for the environmental standards absolutely and now environmental standards have been taken over by the state to pay existed long before hand where people could take companies to court for polluting the land over here this has been all taken over by the government and of course. governments around the world i mean some of this of course from the russian example from the one nine hundred seventy s. and one hundred eighty s. governments around the world that my father worst polluters on the planet the amount of waste and pollution that the exude is staggering so i think that we should return to a pretty free market private interest model where shareholders and customers and to tort law and civil litigation is the way that we protect the environment that way we don't just hand things over to bureaucrats who have no direct financial incentive in keeping the environment clean but if they're not given a lot of trust of people there ultimately put their bottom line above everything else well sure absolutely but the bottom line should include complaints by

customers that should include damages and people getting sued companies getting sued for the damages they create absolutely i think it takes a lot more naivety and faith to put your trust in government regulators bigger question bigger picture i want to ask more philosophically which do you think is better for the world to make decisions based solely on your economic interests of the country or to make decisions based on some kind of principles about human rights or how people are supposed to operate or the values that you hold dear as a country. i think that in the long run the economy drives human rights it's no accident that for instance we've been getting rid of child labor a significant advancement in human rights that occurred because parents became rich and after the industrial revolution the children didn't have to work and so that's just one example among many if we drive economic growth we gain things like luxuries of human rights i think that nagging people about human rights at the expense of their economy only harms the growth of what we want most in the world

which is the greater legal equality among all races the genders and everybody so ultimately you think it everyone make is made decisions just based on their economic interests as a country the world would be a better happier safer place. interesting all right thank you that was hosting freedom and radios to font of freedom in radio so if on millennium thanks so now as i mentioned as obama rides around on a bus trying to pledge to save the country france and germany are trying to save the euro zone feeling the weight of crippling debt for some members in the eurozone they're calling for a collective economic government and they are pushing euro zone countries to adopt this new rule here it is we want the seventeen members of the euro zone to adopt the golden rule that their annual financial laws must be subject to a return of the balance in the budget it is a rule of common sense which must lead to the reduction of deficits and the reduction of debt that's a novel approach to reducing debt in the u.s.

tried it joining us now to help me figure that out is radio host an economics blogger at covering delta dot com dimitri kovtun thank you for being here now france and germany are calling for a balanced budget in the euro zone they said that there are they want that now they're ruling out euro bonds for now first is that the right move for the euro zone. balancing the budget yes. i mean the thing is that now get the usual going to be a stereo and i steer you something that's needed but it's not a two way street so imposing austerity on people but not imposing on the backs of the real problem and i think it just doesn't go far enough i mean. like reason of all the arguing it will you get are staring right at the same time you're also going to circle the banks that were causing with relations that's not what you have been in the euro zone you have he's not growth which is basically keep the banks. prosperous keep rockets going there don't remember having right now and then at the

same time clear stary you know in a nation states so that's not going to morrow but if they back up what about i stare any foreign governments having government that spend only what they have to spend is that the right approach and is that what a balanced budget means will surely you cannot chronic current account deficits that's what the united states is not of the past forty years and you see the result so how do you balance budgets or find keep that source a good thing most also ironic that germany and france are proposing this now because they were really getting those conditions the stability growth back into those so. i mean there it's a good feeling but i don't really see them implementing i mean i don't see that being solution you know itself why what do you think the solution. well the solution this illusion is the is revamping the entire model the entire monetary system is the root of the problem and so you know if you are certain measures and putting down the system isn't creating your own bonds and you create fiscal

integration and you can do your musical bank more power is not going to solve an armed also the problem is the system which is you stabilizing and you create imbalances and structural imbalances in the global economy so that's aggressive we're going to have a crony relationship between the central banks and the private banks or one of the central bank does central bank in europe or what does that benefit from what france and germany are proposing when they benefit more from euro bonds will be used to be better will be used to use a client of the back so it's really they doing the bidding of the banking system so that it is the benefits it's the seat and the accuracy of the market because it would be a bigger market within which these you could play like if you were sort of the treasury bond market you would give it more power manipulating interest rates and you just loosen the price of money and by keeping interest rates low allows the banks to get cheap money so i don't like what the same time it pushes down the

ability of workers to stay and live it is the middle class so it's a futile mark when you have several times that keep interest rates not mode which is what we have here i mean we're not over to the united states because this is somewhere where our central bank is keeping interest rates very low it's also somewhere where we've heard calls for a balanced budget amendment this is going on during the debt ceiling debate there was a vote on it now there will be a vote on a resolution which isn't binding in the debt deal that was passed this is something that ron paul has been calling for for a long time living within the country's means and methods which seems to be resonating with a growing number of people if his supporters are any evidence of that so should the u.s. follow the calls of france and germany and have a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. unfortunately i asked my dear man i think you should get rid of saddam back on the federal. plan that you need to settle back if you don't have a central bank you can have these sorts of problems so i think you should go through it goes again to the issue of regulations

a lot of the regulation that you want to control the banking system are there because you're going to get a lot of the big just do things that it would be able to grow otherwise so i think that ultimately you game if you really want true you know little freedom and freedom over money credit you have to get rid of the central bank mt you can't allow banks to have a front company that manipulates the price of money and acts as a backstop therefore he can if they can be extra externalizing credit risks so the rest of society socialize merriest socializing the losses and privatizing the gains and understood by you can do that which is why banks have always been the ones that cliff for central banks and the war started to recognize them more and more but it's still not something that you can recover more simply because at the end of the day if you accept a model where you get rid of the central banks you're going to have to go through some sort of depression when there is liquidity and that's what no must not about and people are free to accept so do you think that this is all just window dressing i was just reading a guardian editorial saying that the u.s.

and europe have their understanding of the economic troubles wrong and that the most dangerous net that is repeated by the mainstream media is that this is a debt quite crisis and can only be resolved through fiscal austerity is that just went oh dressing for this bigger problem that people maybe don't understand or want to deal with. are well you know on the one hand you do need to score thirty but it shouldn't be imposed by a central authority which subsidizes banks so yeah. a lot of this stuff is going to addressing and also part of that is just that the people that are advocating solutions don't believe getting rid of a simple bank is a good thing where a lot of economists from school and get their permission to use except in the notion that we need to have a certain and then we need to have several planning in simple control of interest rates remember it is the price of money and money is out of every transaction so it seems absurd to someone and think we should control the price of internal computer chips which you can for the price of control the price of well we cry i don't know

but yet we take it as a matter of course that we should have a central bank or controls the price of money so in that it's all the creditor in your sleep so i think a lot of people are are are committed out here and so they're pushing in from an iou article standpoint they believe in it as well so it's when addressing in the sense that they don't want to look at the root of the problem which they may not necessarily think is a problem well it certainly is so then i think euro zone imposes that staring everybody balance their budget balance their budgets and the us impose that staring at everybody balances their budgets well that even solve the problem the economic problems that either the region they're facing. you know we just keep the big the biggest problem we have is the international monetary system and that system obviously was six the problem just an accelerated after all it is you have chronic current account deficits in the states and you are countries running giant going to concert was like german like china like germany then in the case of china you see

what happened in a big room in china and a missile a kitchen of capital there with a built production capacity for a man there is collapsing in the united states in the case of germany export a lot of their capital outside the credit i was around europe and then you have structural imbalances there the root of the problem is the monetary system that's the problem so trying to impress piecemeal these different things and keeping the system in place is not going to solve the problem it's only a few diversity of solution one of feudal model is that a good thing if you want to have individual sovereign universal freedom and true democracy and then you have to ask for a system going to last for a competitive price of everything including the price of money so then when the euro is out when countries are having to have war about collective fiscal of forty is that a good or a bad thing. it's a bad thing because it would be again it goes back to so costly more power it was several of them already and then how would you use a theory everything is good in theory socialism would be great in theory having a single bank is a backstop in case because you're still going to have booms and busts you're still

going to have bank run you're still going to have next one solvent you're going to lose money you know in a sure gold standard for a commodity based system but the reality is that if you try to do some of those problems by creating even going to melt well meaning way by centralizing power you're going to eventually have a corruption of power and if you give a central authority your ability to issue money credit that power is going to never we you be accused of seeing that right history and we're seeing it now and we're going to syria on time to be sticking trusted with the ability to create credits and through their control goods and services need is there going to use those credits and their own benefit and are going to create a misallocation of resources through mixed market signals even then you'll let me ask you that we're almost out of time but if you're saying that neither thinker as own nor the united states is willing to take on what is really the problem and their economies and what would really be the solution then what do you think is going to go over the cliff into the ocean first the european economy or the united

states. no one's going to do it really well you know mark is going to have to carve the collapse and i have to be a break in in the sovereign bond market and that's what you're starting to see in eastern europe and that's why why gold i'm such a big role in this downturn because people are looking for statements and you can stick their money in and protected. them sorry thing that they you're as i'm going to go going to go over the cliff first yeah i think that years and we were the first because it just there's a there's a concern about the structure of the monitor yourself not because the european economies are rest help the u.s. economy sastre but it's the monetary union that's in question in europe so i would think absolutely and it could be the first to go would be you know not the united states not not the japanese bond market i think it's the european sovereign market all right well that's why you're thin fairhope you know plunged too far to the ocean but i guess the u.s. where over here right out right there behind you that was radio hosts and economists thought going to take a famous. now still ahead here on r.t.e.

ever heard of liberation technology well the u.s. is attempting to aid revolutions abroad with the internet in a suitcase but is this still system really flying under the radar. point.

now after the arab spring shook up the middle east and north africa the u.s. moved in with a proportion plan to make freedom and democracy just a click away as in a tweet facebook message or email courtesy of the u.s. government but the u.s. government's quote liberation technologies also pose some tough questions about who's watching who and for what purpose also about hypocrisy of tunning internet freedom abroad well threatening to shut it down at home when protests break out in say san francisco or when riots rocked the streets in a country like britain artie's kalen for looks into america's new shadow. when a wave of revolution crashed over the middle east this spring. was the. oh

many said which ended in the streets began with one hundred forty characters or less and social media like twitter and facebook. thanks to harness the power of on line communication the u.s. state department is providing two million dollars in grants for a quote internet in a suitcase program it's part of would secretary clinton calls a venture capitalists approach to addressing the wide range of challenges to democracy and human rights activists face in internet repressive environments around the world thank you lie servers like this one can easily be cut by governments but the internet in a suitcase is the sign to give dissidents a mobile web with mess technology that runs through cell phones and other devices making it harder to cut the founder of his own clearinghouse of confidential documents john young worries that american suitcase servers will serve another purpose to shoot piece is meant to give the illusion that you could run if you look

chronically washers work out point through the national systems and that may be true but they will not be out of the us system young says the suitcase is just part of so-called liberation technology that has its advantages for the u.s. project for being in power for you to watch what you're doing and probably influence more computing and it isn't just governments according to the hackers collective anonymous which will be seventy thousand classified emails from defense contractor h.b. gary federal about the romas coin program from a cohen surveillance approach you have. you have who participated in oh group you know national intelligence agency says robust point is partly designed to manipulate social media one of the really more bizarre and dangerous well you. know. the you. and. this software would allow the u.s. military to push their agenda by flooding social media forums already influenced by

so called witness bloggers international outrage at the kidnapping of a self declared lesbian blogger in syria had real policy implications until i mean it turned out to be this american man but i feel really guilty about this. other say there's a contradiction between support for internet freedom abroad and subpoenas alerted wiki leaks collaborators at home including private bradley manning. pozner says the suitcase is just part of a larger internet freedom agenda don't shoot the instant messenger. instead address the underlying grievances but these platforms appear less welcome when activists take to the streets at home video release a surveillance video that in san francisco police cut cell phone services on the metro during protests those who you know work for san francisco city. traders the bars. and you can go whoa oh oh look you don't see the

two in following riots in london there is talk of shutting down social media we are working with the police the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence disorder and criminality. is us will spend seventy million dollars and internet circumvention technology in two thousand and eleven abroad even as tough questions remain at home. or to our t. washington d.c. . now you just heard about liberation technology from our key correspondent helen ford we will be discussing this more in our five o'clock show the ever growing trend of the shadow web spun by the american government we'll talk to author and lawyer eva golinger that is coming up in just thirty minutes until then that does it for now thanks so much for tuning in for more on the stories we cover go to our team dot com slash usa cannot argue two pages you tube dot com slash r t america follow me on twitter.