there's a movie that came out in two thousand and nine after the bottom shortly after the bottom of the market i want to play a trailer. so this movie was the road it was apocalyptic the cut line you saw across the screen said the end of civilization are we going to see more of this kind of thing or worse than this kind of thing because in our view it really doesn't seem like we've seen the kind of texas chainsaw massacre flood of horror movies that we saw in the seventy's and according to your theory that was during a fourth wave down in a larger bull market so should it be far worse now. well i think you know in the first part of the bear market it was in fact i wrote my book the way principled human social behavior in one thousand nine hundred ninety one clue to this chart showing the horror movies of the thirty's and they all bunched in

a very short period of time well well the stock market was collapsing from one hundred thirty to one hundred thirty two sledges thirty three fall the big names came in and the same thing happened in the seventies you pointed out the zombie movies a slasher movies and so on all of them were in the seventy's late sixty's down to the bottom in the seventy's all of that was bear market territory and soon as the market turned down in two thousand we started getting a slew of horror movies again and a whole new genre was born torture movies which you know unbelievable new thing that that grossed people out they were very intense you know the saw series was one of them the hostile films so i think they've already broken new ground just as the seventy's did in just the thirty's but to answer your second question absolutely if the market has another leg down and i think the odds of that are very high based on my interpretation of the only wave model in these sentiments of yours we've been talking about then you're going to see i think horror movies break ground that

people haven't even thought of. who knows there may be x. rated horror movies you could be quite a scene so if that's not your thing stay away from those kind of movies in the future they can be very intense i guess you heard about the one i think is called centipede gosh i was so disgusting they couldn't even watch we've seen some already ok so that's your prediction for markets and for movies let's talk about the economy of a talk about the eurozone crisis because every day there's something new going on and a prediction about whether the eurozone is going to stay together or not everybody trying to read the tealeaves you predicted that this kind of turmoil and disintegration all long before any of that back in one thousand nine hundred eighty four years before the euro with even in circulation what did you see that everybody else. most people as you say they're looking at tea leaves because they're seeing every one of these events as a cost that's the problem that's the traditional way of looking at it and say ok here's a new event what's it going to cause when we looked at it way back in one thousand

nine hundred eighty two about two thousand and two in the reforming the european union was that it was a result the market had been going up there since one thousand nine hundred seventy four really since one hundred thirty two all these waves were piling on to each other to major top we saw the lowest valuation of stocks the greatest build up all these reflections of positive social mood and here were these countries that have been fighting each other for a thousand years deciding they were going to form a union we said this is not a cause of something this is the result and because it's happening at a peak in social move unlike say the american revolution which occurred in a major major low in social mood after sixty four years a bear market in britain this is occurring in a major top it's not going to last and when that when the trend turns down toward a more negative social mode we will begin to see dissension and fracturing in the ranks and that's exactly what we've been seeing and since there's more beer market to go i think the odds are probably that ultimately an e.u. will not go together it's so fascinating and then some of the trends that we're seeing right now as

a result of the pessimism more and work out in your theory can for example the fractures we see the queen chairman think great with the emergence of all divides right now well it's certainly part of the dissension that we were talking about and we really think it's in the early stages i think by the time it's over you're going to see people say you know we're afraid this was a mistake but you know the main thing i want to say is not so much whether that particular kind of forecast comes true or not it's that the trend will be in the direction of social the stock market just keeps going up year after year after year and i'm wrong on that particular forecast then you'll see things begin to heal i mean in the bottom in two thousand and two slash three suddenly united states went to war that happened one week after the low in two thousand and three and after a couple years of recovery. well you know there was peace in iraq and that sort of thing so those are that's what's determining the outcomes however the song market decides to go so based on what we know now and what you know about wave theory what do things going to happen with the two thousand and twelve presidential election

it's really social movement it's guiding the voter who's on the fringe so people vote always the same way some vote philosophically but the swing voters are voting by social mood and we trust that we went back not just fifty years like a lot of these studies were only back to the seventeen hundreds the very first presidential election with two hundred years where the history we found of the stock market as a whole reliable predictor of whether or not an incumbent president running for reelection gets elected very high no significance on g.d.p. had far lesser significance unemployment and inflation is far back the day to go have no significance at all so we think we proved a bit of a point so maybe republicans should hope that the dow plunges in crashes but anyway you can read his study that he's come out with on social mood in elections at the social science research network also interesting i asked him what is the differentiation we see just the rising inequality the divide between maybe the mood

on wall street and on main street what does that have to do with social mood he says they saw the same cross currents during the seventy's and end up coming together and ending up in one big leg down in his words at the end of the day. all right before we go a reality check so the u.s. foreclosure deal that we were talking about earlier this week two it's been going on for a long time now it's finally been reached between state and federal officials with the five biggest banks that were guilty of foreclosure abuses ok things like robo signing of documents that we've seen since the housing crash and two thousand and eight now this deal came after sixteen months they've been working on the thing and

it's billed as help for homeowners now here's how u.s. president barack obama was touting it in a speech today we have reached a landmark settlement with the nation's largest banks that will speed relief to the hardest hit homeowners and some of the most abusive practices of the mortgage industry and begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake. ok yeah it sounds good let's see what's in the actual deal so there's about seventeen billion bucks in it to pay for mortgage debt forgiveness three billion bucks for refinancing now the banks are in the driver's seat in this money and there's seven hundred fifty billion dollars and negative home equity out there reportedly now this is another one of those things too where if you're watching this show for sure you're sitting there you're sitting back and you're going ok who is this deal really good for struggling homeowners or the banks who

are settling on all of this fraud well i want to remind you what nomi prins author former goldman sachs managing director who's been following this closely said about who this deal benefits on our show earlier this week. as usual it's a it would be a good deal for banks in the disguise of being good for homeowners the banks would be in the power seat of deciding how they use their portion of that seventeen billion dollars to do their job which is to work with customers to refinance or restructure their debt which is something that the government did with the banks when it provided them all these subsidies and bailouts a few years ago but which wasn't carried over into the homeowner community which is why foreclosures have continued to rise defaults continue to be bad in the housing market continues to be anemic so now nomi prins says that nothing is going to matter until banks mark to market the lousy mortgages that are on their books as

for this deal for banks of course this is a probe of abusive foreclosure practices that's good news for them i wish i could tell you whether or not banks robo signed the agreement that i don't know but will they suffer that's of course the big question well one example i have j.p. morgan according to bloomberg won't even need to set aside additional cost to cover its share in the agreement so if that's any indication it doesn't sound like they're going to be suffering too bad as a result of signing on to this settlement i recommend you check out our full interview with nomi prins it's on our web site from earlier this week more on that deal and lots of interesting stuff that you should definitely go back and check out but for now that's our reality check and that's all we have time for thanks so much for tuning in feel free to follow me on twitter at lauren lyster you can also go to our website and give us feedback on the show at youtube dot com slash capital account you know we've read it you know we respond to it if you don't see our

producers responding to you on the boards right there i may respond to you tomorrow is viewer feedback day also on the show tomorrow we have the rockwell chairman of the bond nieces institute so you won't want to miss that but for now from everyone here at capital account and morning mr have a great night. wealthy british style. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max cons or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars

a report. download the official t. up location on the phone on pod touch from the i choose ops to. watch on t.v. life on the go. video on demand on tees and line bold costs and says feeds now in the palm of your. questions on the dot com. welcome to the. science technology innovation hall believes developments from around russia we've dumped the future covered. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big show.

but keep your eyes on the skies because unmanned aerial vehicles could be coming to an airspace near you so does this mean saying goodbye to american civil liberties. of civil unrest is taking its toll on syria and the body count is rising by the day but just how many people are still dying is a mystery we'll show you why some numbers aren't adding up. the wild swings and the like old additives that are added to the house foods and sodas and snuff. all

dining our way toward disaster the saying you are what you eat it's true that americans are genetically modified cell covered french fries covered in high fructose corn syrup and dipped in a vat of chocolate milk it's the obesity industrial complex and it's giving health activists heart palpitation. it's thursday february ninth five pm in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching r t. well get ready to look up at the sky and see drones hovering above as of now unmanned aircraft could only be used by military air space and by certain law enforcement agencies but this week congress passed a bill that would allow for commercial and private use of the drone so what would this do so what this would do is let any person or company that gets

a permit to fly drones wherever and however they please and these aircraft typically carry surveillance equipment even weapons in some cases so what does this mean for your privacy and safety well joining me now to talk more about the implications of this fella's scott whore and he is live in our new york studio he's the contributing editor for harper's magazine welcome scott so this bill would open up skies for almost anyone to fly drones what does this mean for the privacy of average american citizens while they're still going to be a licensing process but what congress is doing is turning the table a bit on the f.a.a. putting them under pressure so that they have to open the skies for the for this equipment and i think you know our expectation is now we're going to see twenty or thirty thousand drones over the united states by the end of this decade and certainly a good portion of those being privately operated and what are the consequences of

that step for civil liberties this is this is state of the art surveillance technology so they're going to be a lot of on in the skies staring down on the american citizens all over the country so if this becomes law can people expect that wherever they go they're going to be tracked is that going to become a reality of life. oh i think it's a dream come true for law enforcement authorities in some areas major revenue maker for enforcement of traffic laws for instance so we're going to see these uvas all over the united states and the instant you're out cruising on the highway over fifty seven miles an hour expect that one of these drones is going to snap your license plate is going to measure your speed and you're just going to get a bill in the mail this is going to be huge revenue raiser and you know and i think that's something congress now seems to be endorsing but i think the possibilities

beyond that are almost limitless and the surveillance technology that's been developed by the united states for military purposes allows the virtually seeing through walls it allows it allows inspection of conduct and areas that most americans consider to be private so i think the big concern about this step by congress is not that they're validating and open the opening the skies the drones everybody expected that's going to happen it's that the privacy and civil liberties issues that drones carry are not being addressed at the same time i mean in this area the europeans frankly are light years ahead of the united states they've been pressing this protection from surveillance issue pretty aggressively in the united states we've hardly even developed a lobby for it and we see no discussion of privacy issues in congress when this

legislation goes through which is very disappointing you said earlier we can expect twenty to thirty thousand grounds to be flying in our skies how do you expect companies i mean think big companies like google i mean you covered at the way a law enforcement they're going to love this because they can track everyone's moves what about company is how do you expect of them to make use of this aircraft . oh well i think you know you're going to see it for use by mining companies they do already you're going to see it being used by security companies private security contractors for surveillance and i think you're also going to see you know an increasing part of the nation's and of local municipalities and states law enforcement budget go to these private contractors so expect to see many of these drones privately operating but serving law enforcement purposes so this is another sign scott that our right to privacy here in the usa is deteriorating.

absolutely thank. you judge dredd i mean that was science fiction talking about the future and the proliferation and advancement of drones marks the realization of some of those potential horrors stories so it's you know it certainly is from one perspective the dream of law enforcement professionals from another a civil liberties nightmare and we're seeing this technology being introduced with out parameters addressing civil liberties concerns up front and that needs to happen i mean just note this last session of the supreme court the f.b.i. had run around putting g.p.s. trackers on the automobile is using this new technology just assuming it was all far in the supreme court near unanimous supreme court said not so this is a violation of fundamental civil liberties i mean it's just another example of how

you know aggressive rush to use new technology ignores frequently the civil liberties dimension that has to catch up years later and lastly just want to touch upon that what twenty to thirty thousand drones in the sky another thing an addition to safety privacy a safety safety concerns of those drones they have the potential to carry weapons you know the possibility for these things technology isn't valid proof to fly into houses or to crash into other drones i'm talking about maybe some of the safety concerns about this. well let's just talk first of all about air traffic so the principal concern of the f.a.a. is reducing the number of vehicles flying in the skies to keep traffic down for safety concerns thirty thousand of these vehicles flying around presents a nightmare just in tracking and monitoring and even though they'll be a lower altitudes there are all sorts of potentials there for collision that we're

technologically challenged and keeping up with beyond that these drones will crash they have crashed wherever we've deployed them rock somalia afghanistan pakistan they are prone to crash with regularity they can come down in populated areas and we have the question of use of lethal weaponry of course they're used overseas by the united states for for surveillance purposes but they're also used as a preferred means of assassination for targeted killings and so i think we have a big question about how they're going to be equipped and use of these are you know . sorry to interrupt you there or unfortunately out of time thank you for weighing in on that was scott horton contributing editor for harper his magazine. well as the conflict in syria intensifies various numbers are being reported on the death toll and casualties but amid the chaos it is difficult to get

a clear picture of what's really going on there which begs the question just how accurate are these numbers the british based syrian observatory of human rights is one of the most widely quoted sources of the figures but the group is now experiencing an ownership route which has left the media outlets wondering how reliable the sources artie's are better reports. the syrian observatory for human rights it's one of the most widely quoted sources of syrian casualty figures but it's not always telling the truth and ownership the syrian observatory for human rights is left several media outlets quoting false information as to rivals fight for the same name the original group was hijacked by opposition activists who are posting military deaths alongside civilian ones both sites claim there the official observatory this though is the original site in arabic with an english version on facebook and this is the fake site launched in the center and mostly in english

several foreign news outlets have assume they're one and the same thing quoting the fake sites casualty figures the consequence of a very different perspective of the crisis the original sites latest figures showed just over five thousand one hundred civilian deaths against almost two thousand military casualties the rival site claims well over six and a half thousand civilians have been killed and barely six hundred troops a difference many claim suggests this is a lot more than just a numbers game i don't think even the people using these figures are have any objectivity really they have an agenda a clear agenda is there just the fire by any means possible that assad regime is a brutal massacring regime and it needs to fall a soon as possible and we can see the united nations security council when that human rights strategy for regime change doesn't work how annoyed western

governments are how have got syrian observatory original observatory strictly opposes military intervention the man who hijacked it's name disagrees. used to translate at the real observatory he was fired after falsely claiming to be an official spokesman and using a live interview to call for a no fly zone since then he's launched a smear campaign against the original group victory claiming. the imposters as are we and these figures have been quoted by the b.b.c. c.n.n. and a.b.c. australia the other groups say they tried to pass some political views censored like calling for no fly zone for international intervention and we made it clear that sitting on the server tree for human rights. original. is that we are i guess an interventional we are against a no fly zone all we need is to stop the bloodshed that is going on in syria as always and is great refused to speak on camera stating i cannot waste my time

talking about this is the moment whilst people are dying in homes there are my priority right now he did refer us to another opposition group based in london and they too refused to comment on the ownership of the observatory but they did confirm that reporting military deaths was not in their interest it's not our position to report the casualties of. government troops the b.b.c. and the guardian had to withdraw material after falsely quoting as always the human rights observatory the un stopped counting the death toll claiming it's too difficult to keep track of but its human rights chief also said five thousand civilian deaths should be enough to provoke international action the real observatory still documents the deaths civilian or otherwise but it may be too late for the numbers to matter i've been it. london. and earlier i spoke with christopher chambers journalism professor at georgetown university about the

unstable situation in syria i asked about the likelihood that some misinformation is being reported to the public. i mean when you have an unstable or combat situation a lot of the conventions that you think you know especially about journalism and about sourcing a lot of that goes out the window and i think you're seeing an example there i mean you have to also mix that with the realities specially in the west of declining newsroom personnel you know either on the ground dealing directly with stringers or at headquarters doing the research and the homework to really back this stuff up because that doesn't pay the sensationalism pays but the ground work the homework part of it that doesn't pay so that corporately gets cut out so when you have unstable combat bloodshed in the genders mixed with a corporate agenda then the truth tends to go out the window settle out all the ancillary facts get mixed oh exactly exactly i mean you have to you know when you

have an unstable situation the weather you're talking about syria where you're talking about here square i mean these news organizations particularly in the west are going to have to rely on either stringers which is terribly unreliable when you don't have the the back office back up and research back home and then social media and then with social media you have people with agendas or you just have playing the stakes i mean i'm not going to say this is a more benign example because it's not but look at what happened with joe paternal his death a long time coach at penn state university with regard to the child abuse scandal was reported and you know he was in the hospital but this was a social media event that basically snowballed and major outlets cable outlets from cable cable giants down to blogs picked that up off of twitter and then you had people basically magnifying that on facebook and then it turned out to be wrong so

you know so you take that situation and put it in just. flammable situation on the ground in syria whether you're talking about the opposition or the assad government there are going to be problems with facts also want to ask you how numbers can be used to kind of skew the picture and. push an agenda well clearly i mean the next most important thing to pictures in the media pushing any agenda or ber's and if you've got the pictures the pictures you know that can be doctored too but when you have the pictures you have to mix them with the numbers that tell the story so if you show children lying dead in the street in damascus you need to back that up with numbers as well now where do you get them i mean if there are no in geos on the ground or n.g.o.s that you trust or government has kicked them out and you don't have social media that can back up the figures with

anecdotal evidence i mean you don't have those those mechanisms on the ground a lot of times what happens is is that you take the government's numbers and you take the opposition's numbers and you take some hopefully objective third party that's there and their numbers their. whatever accounts they're making whatever anecdotal evidence that they're that they're using and then you basically make a best guess now is that is that journalism one o one is that what we teach georgetown no but what what else are you going to do. very interesting calends post today and how it can affect public perception of what's going on there wanna switch topics a little that speaking of media decisions this week c.n.n. suspended one of their political contributors on the same as roland martin for making a series of off color tweets and here they are the first one is if

a dude at your simple superbowl party is hyped about david that comes h m underwear ad smack that out of hem that is what they hash tag super bowl the next one ain't no real bra is going to h. and m. to buy some damn david back i'm underwear also the super bowl hash tag. and i think this is the one that started the most controversy who the hell was that new england patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit. needs a visit from hash tag team whipped at ass. so he was suspended this guy was suspended for these tweets but this is the same network that allowed one of their contributors to publicly condone peeing on the dead taliban i think we have that that clip can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that some one piece.