that people who think of themselves as more attractive think they belong to a higher social class so are there for less concerned with inequality because they benefit from it people who think of themselves as ugly associate themselves with a lower class and therefore have a stake in fighting inequality now back to why studies like this can actually do more harm than good this study asked five hundred arbitrary people some questions and drew conclusions that backed one of the worst arguments used by the one percent today but the poor are just jealous of the rich. and is just bitter because they don't have jet skis the ugly are just jealous of the beauty rationale we need to debunk in our society not propagate our government. has nothing to do with how anyone is.

tonight's let's talk about. the rest of them. well. technology innovation all the developments around russia we've got the future covered.

hello there i marinate this is boom bust and these are some of the stories that we're tracking for you today first up facebook's latest financial gains are making headlines and if you're feeling pretty crummy about it that may be because you spent too much time on face break up then facebook's mischief isn't the only big tech story making headlines from arab t.v. cell phone warns that are now necessary the u.s. supreme court is making a ruling left and right and alex daley is on the program to break it all down and give us his take on the latest from the world of attack and in today's big deal edward harrison and i are discussing the hardest places to live in america you know what want to miss

a moment and it all starts right now. our lead story today facebook now whether or not we like it for most everyone watching this program right now facebook touches our lives in one way or another myself included now some may be totally ok with that and some might not but make no mistake to facebook we are all true story last week facebook admitted that as part of a psychological study to examine how emotions can be spread on social media the site manipulated the news feed of over half a million randomly selected users in order to change the number of positive and negative posts that they saw now facebook's researchers found that the display of

moods were contagious the people who saw more positive posts responded by writing more positive posts likewise seeing more negative content prompted viewers to be more negative in their own posts now facebook is an apologetic about the emotional contagion experiment it conducted on its own customers the results were published in the proceedings of the national academy of sciences and uproar has followed as a result of the emotional experiment which only highlights the immense control facebook exerts over its users now researchers stress that when users sign up for facebook they technically agree to be part of such experiments facebook released an unapologetic statement to the atlantic claiming quote we do research to improve our services and make the content people see on facebook as relevant and engaging as possible we carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process now here's the thing how and i mean how does

facebook keep getting away with this type of stuff yet mark zuckerberg can claim that he only does this type of stuff for the good of his company. but still think back in college when he was paid to make a website called connect two but then decided to make his own website called facebook then he got into trouble with his company's i.p.o. which was completely botched oh and lest we forget the spectacular failure that was the facebook mobile phone and now the only reasonable next step emotional manipulation so does this really shock anyone i mean this company has been doing this stuff for years years and they're not going to stop it i mean why would they facebook won't stop until their bottom line is negatively impacted enough to make them until then they're just going to keep doing what they're doing and the only way that the bottom line can be negatively impacted is if we the users stop tolerating this type of behavior i mean but what am i saying you have a facebook page to go check don't you.

now take a look at it shenanigans aren't the only big tech issues in the news recently now the supreme court ruled that area t.v. is in the legal business but in another ruling the court declared that the law enforcement must have a warrant to search your cell phone all law enforcement that is so we want to check in with alex daly to get his take on the fast moving tech industry alex is the senior editor of casey's extraordinary technology and i first asked him to weigh in on the facebook facebook's repeated privacy violations here's what he had to say. i don't think facebook has a whole disregard for people's privacy i think it's a little bit more about facebook trying to make it service stickier there's an onslaught of competition for pace book every day base which is trying to figure out

what the thousands and thousands of things you could show any given user from the stream of content from their friends is going to create an experience that brings you back to facebook morrow. often let's be honest this experiment the problem here is that facebook revealed it publicly not that it's happening they're performing similar types of experiments hundreds of times each week as our google ads are anybody else in this space whether it's search engine social networks they're always tweaking their results with an attempt to try to drive now like the supreme court ruled that the broadcast t.v. d.v.r. service area is basically a legal an area has seized operation as a result so is this decision controversial and will it have a chilling effect on innovation. it's an interesting decision because you're really talking about whether or not there you have the right to provide something publicly and yet license for it privately the us has always held out that broadcast television had to be provided free in exchange for providing the airwaves to

broadcasters that was kind of the deal that if you're going to go out and you're going to use this spectrum which is highly valuable which the u.s. government could charge any number for it's going to provide broadcast television you should provide it for free so they can reach everybody and if you provide valuable services like news for years broadcasters have charged cable companies billions of dollars for these streams for allowing them to put it over the cable channels too so people didn't lose their local programming when they subscribe to cable had the supreme court found for aereo they would have been effectively killing that multi-billion dollar industry and that's certainly not going to happen from a lobbying perspective cable companies have far too much power and also be disrupting a market that's worked relatively well for the past thirty years in cable and satellite now where so i think it was wasn't much of a surprise that they found on the side of the broadcasters you know the us courts have always been very very supportive of copyrights they've always been very supportive of the ability of a content provider to control how things are distributed i think area was really

just trying to create a loophole that never really existed there but what's really interesting about aereo is how it shows how easily the cable business model is now disrupted how simple it would be for broadcasters themselves to put their streams on the web for free for anybody who wanted them internet has become a new medium for broadcast just like the airwaves once where for radio and television and they'll continue to be a threat models in their margins for a long time to come hulu netflix all these different services or just for example the growth of what they call over the top video what do you make of amazon's new fire it seems pretty expensive. so two hundred dollars eighteen to you with a contract is not very expensive it's funny how sometimes the media picks up on a ma'am just because somebody says something the wrong way in a press conference or the right article is framed that way the cost of the fire phone without a contract at six hundred fifty dollars is very comparable to the cost at most carriers of an i phone or any other android device of similar specs without

a contract you can get it with a contract for two hundred dollars which again it's very similar to what you can get things like the galaxy s four and s. for the i phone five s. four so amazon really did price the phone competitively i don't think pricing is going to be its issue though i think the problem with the fire phone is they're n.c.r. entering the market relatively late with a device that frankly isn't all that much different everybody who's going to buy a flat smartphone has a smartphone today one in two year upgrade cycles are relatively common so i can see a lot of people picking one up just to try. phone it's not that exciting it's no different than any real hand handset for man droid and frankly it's actually a lot more limited because at amazon hasn't really done a good job with their app store and they haven't provided nearly as many apps as you can find on the general google play store i think overall for amazon this is going to be a lot like the kindle fire tablet it's not going to be number one in market share it's not going to be number five in market share but it'll be

a few million units for amazon which will certainly be profit for amazon from years to come one thing you have to understand about that company is seventy billion in revenue it one percent margins still isn't all that much a profit for amazon what they need to do since they're really giving up all of their profits are the people who are carrying their inventory selling all the games and toys and books and things that amazon sells amazon really is now in the business of selling digital goods that's where all of its margin comes from and every million phones every million kindles every million kindle fires you can put in somebody's hand that actually profit growth for amazon and i'll be the first time since this company is founded that we're really going to see any significant growth on the earnings side so i think the fire phone is good for amazon even if it's not going to necessarily like the market on fire this first day now google announced that it will shut down the or coke social network in september and the facebook phone was a total flop as well now amazon comes out with a new phone so here's the question why do you think these companies are trying to

do everything from mobile devices to internet searches instead of just trying to specialize and innovate within their own you know capabilities. it's funny that those who are most likely to attack are those who are most paranoid that they will be attacked if you look at a company like google you look at a company like facebook these are companies who have made their business effectively disinter mediating as you brought up earlier just like netflix has to the cable companies these companies understand that if they don't position themselves to really own that user experience as a constant never ending frontline relationship with the customer they're potentially a victim of things like what we're seeing with net neutrality now you know what happens if comcast pushes all of its customers to use a different search engine than google somehow a happens when someone who has that relationship with the customer when you know sony for instance has now disappeared intermediating google on its handset sony in russia and a couple other markets has launched a effectively a clone of android that it controls completely that uses sony's own search engines

it uses sony's own software we're seeing similar type of thing with samsung to samsung just launched two weeks ago its first handset in russia that uses samsung's own mobile operating system so you're seeing these companies that own the and relationship with the customer suddenly pushing around the suppliers on the middle tier so companies like google are you know making their threats with the satellite internet service that they're going to disintermediation around comcast at some level it's a defensive war you know what's a billion dollars for google to launch a few satellites the company sitting on about sixty billion dollars in cash and the potential loss of revenue it could. it was to block google or somehow push its customers away from it is it is a huge deal so i think what you're seeing over and over again is companies trying to make sure they own the and experience of the customer they're learning from apple apple devices apple app stores apple applications apple owns the whole stack

and customers would rather do business with apple than any of its vendors and what that means less for riaa be for customers it also means higher margins for apple and a more defensible market share and everybody's effectively trying to chase that business model that was alex senior editor of casey's extraordinary technology. time now very very quick break but stick around because when we return calling roshan is on the program now call and sat down with me to discuss some of the problems he still sees in the u.s. economy despite better numbers recently and in today's big deal edward harris and i are discussing what and a way are the hardest places to live in america are today and remember you can see all segments featured in today's show on you tube dot com. lou i love the way through a dot com slash dash but now before we go here are a look at some your closing numbers of the bell come on back but.

we won't so there are nate and i we mark to a precocious on the our team at work. boom bust it's going to give you a different perspective give you one stock never i'll give you the information you make the decision don't worry about how breaking the work is the revolution of the mind it's revolution of ideas. it frustrated with the system it's very very your problem if you would be described as angry i think i'm a strong you know you're single. and you're going to the market like. this if you don't.

like it or have you with us here on our t.v. today i roll researcher. welcome back now all the u.s. macro economic indicators are pointing up the question is whether or not the fundamentals of the u.s. economy are strong now call in a row spent several years at merrill lynch global wealth management and he is the founder of or cam financial group and a blogger at the finance site pragmatic capitalism dot com now column spoke to us about some of the problems he still sees despite the good numbers in the second part of our interview i asked him about inflation and if the excess reserves have led to the type of inflation that some analysts had feared here's what he had to say. you know again i think this is you know we're in this sort of new paradigm

here where you know we've we've had this huge explosion in the fed's balance sheet and i think a lot of people were. the understanding of the way that that banking really works and you know what you see in a textbook model is this understanding of the money multiplier that banks need reserves in order to make loans and what we've discovered in the last five years is really that banks don't lend their reserves and that reserves really have no way of escaping out into the economy in any real practical sense that would impact the rate of inflation so you know i've said for years now that the fed really it's not really right to think of the fed as printing money in this environment although they're technically creating more deposits more reserves they're actually reducing the supply of another asset so while they're printing technically a deposit they're on printing a treasury bond from the private sector so the result from

a balance sheet perspective is just a clean asset swap and you know it's if you think of it at a personal level it's sort of like slapping your your savings account into a checking account and you know it's no reason why you would spend more or go out and build up goods and services just because you slopped your your savings account into a checking account so you know it's the at the the quantitative easing level it's the same exact sort of example where at the aggregate private sector level of the private sector you know they might have technically more money as we define it but they have to you're fired so you know if there really is no mechanism or no direct mechanism in the monetary sense in terms of more money chasing fewer goods you know the old sort of you monetarists thinking would go that would lead us to have a really high rate of inflation due to quantitative easing or what the fed is doing right is more just rearranging furniture as opposed to moving to a new home i guess is what you're saying exactly exactly now are you all concerned

that the stock and bond market bond markets are showing signs of access. well that is the one thing that i've said is the danger of quantitative easing is that you know it's very difficult to predict how markets you know market participants are going to behave relative to what the fed is doing because you see there's so much misunderstanding about all this there's so much sort of mythology and you know although some people like to think that the markets are efficient i really think that markets are are highly rational that people misunderstand. a complex concepts and that you know all of this misunderstanding leads people to sometimes position themselves in ways that are not necessarily right although the markets or the markets that doesn't necessarily mean that people are behaving in a way that is totally irrational so you know there's some truth to the idea that if people people really thought that the fed was never going to unwind q.e.d.

that oh well i can buy stocks that any value and i will eventually be rewarded and obviously you know that's the sort of thinking that's dangerous it's sort of the bubble mentality that leads people to you know they chase trends they chase things that they believe are sort of sort of self-fulfilling prophecies that ultimately you know the fed's policies don't have an underlying fundamental impact on the economy then there's a very low probability that you know the value that people bid up asset prices to will actually be justified in the future so i think that that's the one big risk is it's on the behavioral side there is this risk that the the fed could trade imbalances that leads people to to bid up asset prices to unsustainable values now what do you make of the record high amount of buybacks and dividends money and the vix the index that measures market volatility hitting new record lows good sign or bad sign. probably a sign that you know we're getting into that sort of stage in the in the market

cycle where we're seeing some of those excess to show you know we're seeing now corporations are very competent in their cash flow streams obviously that's why they're increasing their dividend their corporations actually borrowing huge amounts of money to to buy back stock and you know the the vix is a sign that investors are positioned in a way that they're basically not insured against huge amounts of downside and again you know going back to you know the last comment on the way the fed is sort of affecting behavior i think that a lot of that is directly correlated that the fed is you know they have. duce the supply of some financial assets and sort of forced people unwillingly into other financial assets and that's had a very real impact on prices and you know as a result it has the potential to create this environment where you know potentially the market prices become sort of disconnected from their underlying fundamentals and that has you know in a sort of weird way chewy can be destabilizing in

a way that the fed doesn't really you know expect or you know it could be destabilizing in a way that you know they would it would be. would be a stabilizing policy in their views so yeah i think that all of those indicators are sort of signs that we're moving into sort of a later stage in the market cycle than really the behavioral cycle now the government budget deficit is declining pretty quickly so why do you think that is. well you know a lot of people have confused this with us austerity and that's really not what's going on here what we're seeing is the private sector has just and. boss five years and what we're seeing is just a huge gains in tax receipts if you look at the state budgets the you know i think california now it's been running a surplus for a few quarters and and that's all tax receipts it's primarily in the you know places like california tax receipts from real estate improvement and you know just

general business improvement and when you look at the the federal level it's more of the same the federal government's tax receipts have just soared in the last three or four years and so what we're seeing is a big reduction in the but it's you know in terms of what it was you know nine ten percent three or four years ago it's significantly reduced and that's because you know it's not because the government is doing implementing some sort of austerity like in greece it's because the private sector is actually getting better. now are you at all concerned about wages as the week a wink in this recovery in the u.s. economy and the markets. i am i mean i'm i'm worried about the imbalances in the way that this recovery has occurred and i don't think that anyone really knows what it means because what's going on and what's been so unusual about this recovery is that you've seen huge gains at the top so the top one percent have seen enormous gains in their net worth the you know even there their wages are

increasing substantially whereas at the median level the median household income in the median net worth has been much more moderate and nowhere near where it's back to you know back to the pre-crisis levels and so yeah i think that that's disconcerting i think that we're seeing and again that a lot of this goes back to what the fed is doing the fed has directly boosted asset prices and i think it's it's making people feel better it's particularly helping those people who obviously. but at the same time you know we're seeing the middle class is still very very weak you know so i do. that was colin roche founder of or cam financial group time now for today's big deal.

i think the all time with edward harrison and today we were discussing a recent post on upshot at the new york times that talks about the hardest places to live in america so i first want to pull up a graphic of the map itself and i'll check this out and we have it so that's the hardest the hardest are the ones that aren't in the blue or in the better one so that's really really comprehensive it's every county in the u.s. now can you give me a breakdown of how upshot came up with this map that you know the. number of different criteria education household income unemployment disability life expectancy and obesity to say overall your quality of life. is. and therefore it's more difficult to do that one thing that wasn't there was any quality and so i got a lot to write so they wanted to just look at sort of like generic descriptions of

things that you want to have good quality of life and if you were low on those schools then you would score hard to place to live right now you know in general you sell the rust belt those are two places that you know higher distribution of tough times but what's your take on the. overall on this map if you look at that basically it's just an enormous orange yellow in that is in the south and and sort of extending a little bit up into the north in the rust belt area so it says that it united states hasn't you know there used to be a thing about there's the south and north there's a huge divide but now there's the noose and everything is moving up but what it says is that you know in terms of poverty in terms of you know education all of these things that we're talking about still there's a lot of problems in the south now i mean some people kind of say because people

people know that the south has had a tough time for a long time but what's your sense of inequality in america even though this was an include on the chart what your sense of it and do you think that the map mirrors inequality today is as we know it you know it's hard to say based upon that but you know in the coastal regions where you had the housing bubbles where we saw the most inequality in terms of you know the richest people live in those areas we're talking. san francisco boston new york washington d.c. sorts of metropolitan areas are where you saw the the the biggest housing bubble. i think really it's the median income as well as the grinding poverty in these places that are in orange and that are the real trouble points that were a scene now we talk about secular stagnation a lot and you know the new normal following the financial crisis but you know as i mentioned before that the south tough times we kind of know that but there does this have anything add anything new to the story of

a secular stagnation at all you know i don't think that it really does i think it just points out that. there is a divide you know for me i think you can think of it would in terms of the political divide what does this mean in terms of that that area how do they vote differently would be interesting to see an overlay of you know the politics of the regions where you see the so-called hardest place to live and the actual political stances that are related to that or is there some sort of overlap is one leading the other but it doesn't really necessarily tell us in terms of stagnation because you know where we saw the biggest increases in the biggest drops in terms of house prices in the effects it's not necessarily in those areas i mean we're into twenty sixty we might see that very. dramatic shot or maybe here on our show if that's all the time we have for now but as thank you as always and we love hearing from you so please check out our facebook page at facebook dot com slash the best our team and

please tweet us guaranteed edward and from all of us here have been best thank you for watching we'll see you next time bye bye. well. science technology innovation all the latest i'm elements from around russia we've got the future covered.

i would rather ask questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on r.t. question for. your friend posts a photo from a vacation you count for. different. your boss repeats the same old joke of course you like. your ex-girlfriend still pens tear jerking poetry keep. norris.

post only what really matters. to your face but you speak. today on larry king girl meets world stars ben savage and danielle fishel a lot of the motivation for making the show was to address the issues and concerns that kids nowadays are going through being back in the spotlight is something that still kind of new for me i had with all the social media i had grown very accustomed to my quiet little life in orange county i think it's a much more difficult and the harsher world than we grew up and not just from an acting standpoint but from just being a public figure plus their newest costar rowan blanchard well you film twenty one episode you right now if you enjoyed it it's been a blast you know as we got more into the season you could see all the kid cast like slowly.