they're looking for it to drop to a six point five percent before they stop the bond buying program and they may slow down or taper purchases as the unemployment rate drops for now it doesn't look like the fed has any reason today gets put off the printing prattled be sure to stay tuned to the r t news program at five pm eastern the i producer bob inglis and i will be there to dig into the old jobs report. and apple promises it's not snooping on you as do yahoo microsoft and a handful of other tech giants this is in response to get i'm not either story of government eavesdropping according to the washington post and the guardian and nine u.s. internet companies give the f.b.i. and national security agency director access to their central server allegedly this includes the ability to extract r.t.o. video tabs toggery e-mails and other documents and this is not good news for the i phone maker which is already failed to get antitrust case launched by the justice

department but the spying allegations are true at least discovery should it be necessary unnecessary we're talking about this case where you run broke the president of iran institute next here's what's in your prime interest. i've been making a lot of headlines recently probably not the kind of press they were hoping for with the new c.e.o. who's been criticized as not innovating since the untimely death of steve jobs the company has faced a saloon of complaints only to date. the company denied the press reports that it

sharing sensitive customer information with the f.b.i. and n.s.a. apple also went to trial on monday as part of an antitrust suit the justice department brought against them last year under the sherman antitrust act the suit named apple a mom with five other publishers who already settled with the government and alleges that they engaged in an e-book price fixing scheme and i had a chance to talk with ron brock of the iran institute earlier and i asked him about the merits of the sherman act pacifically whether or not the justice department is out of balance in this case and here's what he had to say. yes i do think they're out about because i think the law is inherently you know it's not just unconstitutional you know that's against the supreme court has decided is i disagree with them but it's all of the true that is no matter what a business does it lands of violating the sherman antitrust act if prices were high then you obviously have a monopoly if prices are deemed too low then you're trying to dump into the market

in trying to drive your competitors as a business if your price is exactly the same of as all the other competitors then obviously must be price fixing and working with everybody else in the same price so no matter what you do it's a business and could come after you and we see that when a business gets successful it's just a matter of time before the justice department goes after the justice department has thrown around allegations that price big thing they also use the term conspiracy and ringleader that apple didn't really have that much power in the e-book market i mean amazon controlled ninety percent of the market before apple even entered it well that's the great irony here it is it is amazon that has control and i don't begrudge them that control i think it's great that they have that control that means that they provided a fantastic service to consumers so we're willing to go to amazon and buy their product you know this is the this is the thing with large businesses they. become

large because they sued great products and because they serve great services apple was trying to compete with amazon and try to compete with amazon they negotiated a deal which was different than the deal that amazon typically had with with the publishes a deal which actually was quite favorable to the publishes a deal with the left publishers with more profit and therefore they could go out and publish more books than the deal they had with amazon amazon was forced to participate in that deal because they you know that because of the publishes you know the publishers can in a sense force the pricing power on them but look at amazon publishes books today say amazon itself is a publishes amazon is a competitor with these publishes the whole idea that this is monopolistic this is somehow controlling the market is ridiculous but look at the end of the day. customers don't have to a particular price customers can buy a not buy depending on whether they decide that the products with it are not worth it to them that's the right that they have produces have

a right to set prices and determine those prices and in this case i think this case is ludicrous but again you wait given that the supreme court has upheld the showmen ag given the way the show me the act is written the justice department can basically go out to any business in america at any time about any business practice well let's talk about the consumer rights the even buyers they're getting books for ninety nine amazon and apple steps and as the four hundred pound gorilla and according to the d.o.j. prices increased as a result so is there really any victims here why shouldn't customers have the right to a lower price than no victims victims imply force there was no for sure nobody forces anybody to buy anything yes consumers have to pay three bucks more for a book but nobody said this is no way they have a right to buy a book at one thousand nine what if it turns out that the only way to make those e-books available in a profitable way for publishers and authors and in others is to price them

a twelve one thousand nine what it is if the only way to create real competition in this market for apple to compete with amazon so that long term consumers actually have a choice is to price them a twelve ninety nine the point is the customers don't have a right to particular price they want why not make it zero that would be the best for customers that would be cool right we could get all of books for free you know that is wrong and one of the things of course that apple succeeded in doing is establishing a motto where we actually pay for music rather than stealing it so we pay a certain amount so these pricing models are products of marketplace negotiations between produces between dilute variety of different delivery mechanisms the customer has a. particularly delivery mechanism or particular phrase now the justice department they entered and to evidence numerous e-mails between various publishers and apple exact notably steve jobs himself then the lead attorney for apple says that the

emails were quoted selectively in fact one statement d.o.j. laughed out it actually said had amazon is selling these books that ninety nine and who knows maybe they're right and will fail even at twelve ninety nine so take it up its value i mean it simply seems that job was simply making an economic calculation and he was willing to take the entrepreneurial risk and this in line with the government's definition of price fixing what in the context of antitrust legislation. no but again that that's never stopped i mean all these antitrust lawsuit so almost all of them are completely groundless but this is that's exactly what you quoted is exactly an example of that steve jobs are saying look amazon is ninety nine look at a price that high we're taking a risk maybe nobody will buy books at twelve ninety nine this is this is what it means to take risks in a marketplace but we need that twelve ninety nine price point in order to profitably so books amazon might be able to do we can we need twelve ninety nine

let's see what the market will be let's see what consumers do and if the quantity of books declines dramatically because we're selling it too high a price then we'll lose money will suffer the penalty that the marketplace will inflict on us and that's exactly what businessmen do every day they choose price points they test the marketplace they test in a sense supply and demand then they adjust based on customers response and all this is is jobs in the publishers trying to figure out what a good price point would be for them to price the book so that they could compete effectively with amazon barnes and noble and others out there in a marketplace and remember they're always potential competitors what about the you know where was apple ten twelve. years ago where was apple in terms of selling books three years ago there is always new competitors google might start selling books tomorrow so you always have to think in terms of competitive markets and

that's how these products always get priced and that's why the sherman antitrust law is a cake it's true and it should be scraped off the books of legislation well do you think the government with thing that was disingenuous when he said that the entire venture can fail and i quote i don't. know i think they don't care i think their whole point is look steve jobs talked to five publishers and together they agreed on setting a price we books twelve ninety nine in this case that to them it's collusion because you're not supposed to have five publishers talking to one another about price setting and the fact that steve jobs was in the middle of that's just him organizing this collusive power in order to fix the price so from their perspective they're interpreting it based on the sherman act the problem here is not in my view the justice department is going to go after any successful company they have they go if they google they went after microsoft they're going to go they're going after

apple that i'm sure they'll go after apple again they'll go any ask anybody who's successful because that's what the sherman act demands that they do the problem here is the law the law should be abolished the law should be scrapped and as long as the sherman act is on the books you will have these. type prosecutions against this really a focus on penalizing success that's the essence of antitrust it's don't get too big don't get too successful because if you do the government will find a way to get to you want to know steve jobs of course he's not here to defend his own statements and his e-mails and this affecting the case at all. i think it is a think that steve jobs had a certain charisma and a certain way. of articulating the case his position i think if you was here to defend himself i think that the government's case would be a lot weaker now this is of course not being tried in front of

a jury it's being tried in front of a judge you know another technocrat within the system so i'm not sure how much jobs would be able to influence the judge but i think at least in the p.r. campaign there's no question in my mind that if jobs was defending himself he would be scoring some major victories it's really hard for people to talk for jobs and it's hard for anybody to kind of project the kind of charisma and confidence and knowledge of the jobs that he was certainly one of a kind and we've also seen other antitrust suit against ted giants most notably microsoft their primary charging that microsoft had coerced consumers of its operating system which was windows and to using their bundled web browser internet explorer now this is where both in the united states and abroad you know what were the results and did consumers benefit from that no i think they were horrible for consumers i think the consequence of their antitrust lawsuit again microsoft was

that microsoft stopped innovating microsoft went into a decade plus period from nineteen from the late ninety's until the intel about a year or two ago with they were under the control of the regulators and as a consequence you saw the company in many respects shut down they didn't innovate they didn't promote new ideas new products because when you're under the gun of the just the supposed when you're under the gun of these legal accusations you can't create you can't produce you can't really innovate but this goes back. it was iran of brock president and executive director of the institute stayed soon because of that crime and just because they're just seen under health will be here with a couple of grass to explain what's behind today's unemployment and jobs. for this then that bob inglis and i address and do a comment and also on the over what the happiness factor is and how it relates to the economy.

news today ball and says once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations rule the day. one of the world's poorest.

special coverage.

the bureau of labor statistics monthly jobs report was released this morning and the numbers were barely in line with expectations non-farm payroll employment rose by one hundred seventy five thousand but the unemployment rate takes up one percentage point to seven point six percent however these numbers are still subject to additional revisions and adjustments so let's talk to private interest producer justin underhill who's an end up analysis on the jobs report. just seen what did you find in these numbers all the months of months job numbers give us a very myopic view of the economy so let's take a step back and look at the trajectory that we've been on and the most common measure of unemployment is you three and sense two thousand and ten it's been on a fairly. go it's been going downward but it's important to understand that this

measurement is somewhat narrow you must be actively looking for work to be counted in you three you're not counted if you haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks and this measure doesn't include discouraged workers who have given up looking for work and this creates an interesting relationship between the economic recovery and unemployment if people become discouraged and stop looking for work this can appear to make the unemployment rate drop or the converse of job prospects start looking better during a recovery unemployment me spike upward as discouraged workers are into the labor force and start looking for jobs are there any other measures unemployment that we should use when we're this is take into account yes so there's another measure called you six and the you six rate is. discouraged workers as well as part time workers who would prefer to be working full time and this is during the recession

this increased at a much more rapid rate than just the regular usual standard unemployment measure but since two thousand ton it has been on a steady path downward most recently in may sixth dropped to thirteen point eight percent and you three ticked up just a little are there any factors that these numbers don't reflect well there are several there are other factors to consider when looking at unemployment such as the age of the workforce youth unemployment has been in the high teens since two thousand and nine worse than any other age group and the duration of employment is another important factor the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to find a job and as of may almost forty percent of those who are unemployed are long term unemployed and another trend to consider is the labor force and the unemployment rate is always calculated as a proportion of the labor force and we've seen here that it's been on

a pretty steady trajectory downward so changes in the size of the labor force can change the unemployment rate even without a change in available jobs so a retired persons are not counted in the labor force as baby boomers retire the labor force shrinks and employment in some cases look worse on the other hand as students graduate those students are not considered as part of the labor force when they graduate they can and they can't find jobs we can see an increase in the unemployment rate and this is exactly what happened in may when there is an infusion of new people looking for work and this increase the size of the labor force and then therefore it pushed up the jobless rate or how is the market responding to these numbers one of the things that we've seen is that the markets were up today when people look at these numbers mostly for is what the. fed is going to deal with them and so what fed officials have said is that they're going to continue their eighty five billion dollars

a month in asset purchases entailed the job situation on the labor market seems to recover a bit more and right now with these numbers it seems that they have quite a bit of leeway to continue their asset purchases for a while longer yeah it seems like the fed still has the pedal pushing on the battle with quantitative easing so thanks for joining me this incessant under help from its producer thank you. and it's time for the daily deal with bob are you happy you look at the things

still great great it's friday as a. kind of kind of what else do we know about happiness well. although the numbers of jobs are up the happiness factor in down and this is according to the harris poll only one in three americans said that they were very happy now a spokesman from the harris poll said that the happiness factor is a reflection of the state of the affairs in our country and only sixty seven percent said they were optimistic about the future which is down from seventy five percent in two thousand and eleven and u.s. optimism levels are much below the international average which is eighty nine percent worldwide and why why is this i mean what are the factors that are going into this i mean you've got a breakdown in terms of demographics and i think what we're seeing is that young people especially are being. they can't find work and here's something economic conditions might play a role in declining happiness levels and this is from

a report and increasing stress levels among recent college graduates of the millennial generation more generally rising college tuition costs mounting student loan debt and high levels of unemployment have all contributed to generation y. being labeled america's most stressed generation that make any sense so i would somehow i times i feel very stressed but i'm not just looking for work because i'm working. but you know i think it's interesting you know just to kind of see where people are they moving we have take into account too is the fact of how heavily medicated our society is. more than i think when fifty percent of americans are on some type prescription drug and i think that can play a factor into this as well ok. well we also wanted some time to get to our viewer feedback our first comment is from joe how we on facebook and he's. talking about the interview we had with peter schiff on monday when we spoke about we on banks he

said end of the interview he never makes the distinction between truly government issued currency and commercial private currency and there is. a distinction to be made here which i would agree i think i don't think he's talking about when he talks about commercial and private currencies maybe bitcoins and things of that nature and sure i think some people would quarrel with the definition of not being applied some people say the big claims are actually money and usually when you're talking about it means that it's government issued you have to be able to pay your taxes with it something along those lines but if we're going to broaden the definition of to include these cryptocurrency these coins these private currencies i think you spot on there. and i think one of the most important things differences between coins and government money is that it's decentralized although it's still there's nothing technically backing it it's not. under the guise of the government it can't be controlled except the fact that if you want to

use a bit coins you've got to get them somehow and that's what we've been talking about this pipeline has been shut down to some degree where we have these companies where you can trade your u.s. dollars or euros. that are under the fire right now because people while the government is spending money laundering through them which at times could be the case could be the case and we talked about money laundering on this show before but i don't think we have to touch that right now the people use cash and do illegal things that all the time you know see the government trying to shut down. maybe they are the government has not issued a greater denomination dollar bill than the hundred dollar bill in some time no and with price inflation steadily chipping at the hundred dollars bills purchasing power you can see that the government is kind of slowly getting people out of cash . we are seeing you know transactions. and that's going to. on demand for electronic currencies well definitely so our second comment is from kotor monk

from you tube and he's talking about china being the biggest importer of iraqi oil and he said if the u.s. dollar or if the u.s. and other western countries are concerned about this and they need to penalize companies which set up manufacturing offshore in places like china instead of their home countries and there has been a lot of calls from congress to do this i'm not completely sure i would agree with this because i wouldn't necessarily want to penalize a company that's doing what it has to do to be competitive in a global market. and there are a lot of competitive market moving forces in the u.s. that come from the government it's very expensive to do business here and there are reasons for that we have an incredible bureaucracy so is it hard to blame or some of these other companies going offshore and trying to do things more efficiently there but with regard to manufacturing there's also outrage that the u.s. has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades and a lot of them have ended up in china why do we see that one factor is that china

artificially devalues its currency but it's just a peg to the u.s. dollar so really it's just trying to keep its currency in line with the us dollar and who's responsible for the us dollar is devaluation so i think we also have to address the labor issue here labor is obviously much cheaper and a lot of other countries where they don't have labor unions but one of the biggest tragedies we've seen recently was the huge factory and where because one thousand people died sure. now which sells clothes here in the united states i think they actually were able to use that factory and that's a story that even. so so you're part of the problem i'm just trying to be but it's unfortunate that you know they don't have this type of protections in these countries and i think we will see some type of waiver uprising and china and india in the future just because people are going to be. clearly tired of the condition well i'm not going very well to increases in a society in general conditions improve that's what we saw here

a hundred hundred fifty years ago so thank you for your comments if you want to weigh in on today's show you can join us on facebook at facebook dot com slash prime interest and you can follow bob on twitter at english p.r.i. and i am at perry and r t bob thanks for joining our do. it was a spooky days today at prime interest i deserve a rise in whistleblower blew the lid off a snooping arrangement with governments bills our favorite tech giants and went on the defense denying they're doing the same but apple sure wasn't hesitant to take on the feds after they got the sherman act grown in their face you run brooks said you just can't win and here

a big profitable business but at least we weren't afraid of the jobs numbers because it was all too much ado about nothing i can tell just going to the participation rate and revealed all the discouragement out there and we had to look over our shoulder after learning only one third of americans are very happy there's a following in the summary that you thanks for watching come back on monday from everyone at prime interest i'm terry and boring have a great weekend. i don't want to. do anything to hurt.

thank. you and i think. seriously way. thank. you if. i was. giving you all the music you actually move the movie. live

live. live. the speech. live. live live. live live live. live live. live. live nation and free live cretaceous free lives for judges free living humans free live free lives to type free

linsley broadcast live in video for your media project a free media dog hearty dot com he. says it's sick. carol you have to. come out and you're not

computing. bamma talents of privacy for security deal in the fancy of a massive surveillance network exposed by leaks a web so vast and she heard that even lawmakers who approved it say they're shocked . a love hate relationship the u.s. press is china over suspected hackers attacks as america's shaky recovery becomes increasingly dependent on chinese investment. sam feminist move to get a lads' mags with scantily clad women on the cover taken off british elves but critics call it an attack on free speech.