joins we take a look at the damage and leak it details the money hidden in offshore accounts by big names we look at the political fallout if you're sure to come. true bastar right. ties with united states fourth largest goods trading partner saying quote we want fair and open trade but right now our trade with japan is not fair and it's not open and quote he's referring to u.s. trade deficits with japan of sixty eight point nine billion dollars in two thousand and sixteen with a total of one hundred ninety five point five billion dollars in goods traded between the two last year the top item on this visit you guessed it is to solidify support for thwarting the nuclear threats from north korea as he makes his way through south korea china vietnam and the philippines has announced plans to meet with russian president vladimir putin next week on the sidelines of the east asian

summit. no secret that the world's richest people stash their cash offshore but a trove of new data shows just how many big names and powerful leaders are actively avoiding taxes in two thousand and sixteen an anonymous source leaked millions of documents known as the panama papers the papers detailed how shell companies were used for a handful of illegal purposes from fraud to tax evasion and now we have the paradise papers which are shedding light on who exactly is pouring their money into offshore funds the latest data from offshore law firm appleby was leaked to a german newspaper and included over thirteen million files. one of the first names revealed was a member of the us president donald trump's cabinet. that right there is us secretary of commerce wilbur ross has a stake in a shipping company that receives millions from a firm owned by members of the russian president vladimir putin's family an inner

circle some of whom have been sanctioned by the u.s. treasury department after the news was reported ross told c n.b.c. that it was quote totally wrong for him to not disclose his ties the leak also exposed how queen elizabeth invested some of her private money in offshore tax havens while there is no suggestion that her state acted illegally some of those funds were invested in a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and that prompted an immediate response from british lawmakers including labor party leader jeremy corben. please understand this the public anger and consternation of the scale of tax avoidance real revealed yet again today we're talking about tens of billions that are effectively being linked of all public services by a super rich elite that holds the taxation system and the rest of us in contempt we must take action now to put an end to the socially damaging and extortionately

costly scamp. and that's not all stephen bronfman an advisor and key fundraiser for canadian prime minister justin trudeau also moved money overseas to avoid taxes it's a bad look for trudeau who rose to power promising to fight tax avoidance and income inequality on top of several other leaders from jordan uganda and brazil just to name some major businesses also like amazon apple and facebook they were named as well. joining me about the political implications of these documents is conservative t.v. and radio host steve malzberg steve a lot of big names on this how damaging do you think revelations like in the case of wilbur ross can be to people's careers here. well i'll never understand why somebody is savvy and smart and educated in as well as a wilbur ross wouldn't disclose this in the first place that could be problematic i

don't know though and i think he has said that it's not illegal in his position it's problematic because he's now in the administration but i think the key here is nothing apple has been accused of doing in these paradise papers having an english channel island where they have their money is the illegal queen elizabeth using the cayman island fun but the cayman islands is an illegal i don't see and all of that i just don't see illegality i think this is to. play the culture of class warfare populism or look at these evil people evil corporations evil famous people trying to avoid paying their fair share but you know what we when i say we i mean the less rich in finland is famous do it on a smaller scale we have accountants we deduct this we deduct that if it's allowed to happen if it's not illegal i hate to say it but there's not much wrong with it

if you think this is sort of a social pressure campaign obviously there are a lot of people who hide money in very illegal ways and in very bad ways that let's talk about you know they know they the political pressure is put on some of the people whose names are on these accounts and do you think this is sort of a social pressure operation and some kind of salute how will that have here i mean . no absolutely it's all about that it's all about saying how dare you i mean there's already outrage at queen elizabeth and i maybe there should be how much money does she have but again i do not want to says you don't need more money you have enough money no matter how much you have for making all the money you can and having all the money you can so she invests legally in offshore at the cayman islands and that's it but it looks bad it smells bad people won't stand for people living paycheck to paycheck. so i think you hit it right on the head lizzie this is the room people socially politically and to have the public opinion turn against

them one interesting fact well one one or two interesting facts i think is you know twitter and facebook of turned against russia and are. now we find out that this guy named yuri milner who invested big time in twitter during that he used a russian bank. bank that was under u.s. sanctions at the time so all those shares that were bought came from a bank on the u.s. sanctions and also he has another bank to invest in facebook i wonder what twitter and facebook are going to do now and get what they're going to say about that i know are you anticipating any backtracking on this i've got it we've heard a lot of backtracking. you know playing the victim and things like that do you think we're going to see some public backtracking on the part of his to media company. i don't know i just think i think most people will ignore it and let it go away that's usually what happens to news stories these days because tomorrow will be on to the next big story but i just again i just want to stress

there's nothing illegal in any of the stories i've seen and not about the paris papers maybe there was some and yes people use offshore. i guess channeling of money illegally all the time or i guess hard as they don't get caught but nothing here none of these mentioned people not bondo not the former prime minister of canada not not. the current assistant to the prime minister not the queen not apple not of the not wilbur ross nobody has been accused of doing something illegal when i'm sure if they want to dig up some really heinous money hiding those stories are there but but with regard to the avoidance of taxes let's touch on that we're talking about a sort of. large very large scale. tax on the highest earners in this country we just saw a tax reform come out it's this bubble at the top a lot of people are shocked by it it's huge it's nearly fifty percent of the income

of the highest earners the languages being hidden in the bell what do you say about this sort of surprise amount of nearly fifty percent for the highest yeah yeah well well what you're talking about here is you know that on thursday the republicans held a press conference and they didn't mention this oh by the way there are there are so many brackets for brackets but if you make a million the next two hundred thousand if you're a. single the filer if you have a million if you're single a million two if you're a couple the next two hundred thousand will be taxed an additional six percent so the rate is forty five point six percent of that money and that is outrageous this is all from the democrat playbook pushing the wealthy pushing the millionaires and i don't understand it and i predict and i hope i'm right that that will go bye bye when the senate passes their own version of the two come together and make one bill a lot of people were waiting for this we saw that postcard they said simple and

people are waiting for the shoe to drop thank you so much for joining me conservative t.v. and radio host it was always a pleasure thank you. it's been a stunning train of events in saudi arabia over the weekend so salma separately a how well more than double in the next target of one hundred seventy five given its current rate of expansion and thirty were new level sources electricity needs. are going to go to break now but stick around because what we do with our wallets and experience plans where we could be saving more plus we take a look at how effective antitrust laws are of controlling big business as we go to break here's a number of the cousins out. here's

what people have been saying about rejecting the night was to us it actually was full on awesome the only show i go out of my way to launch you know a lot of the really packed a punch oh believe it yeah it is the john oliver of mark to you america is doing the same we are apparently better than blue nothing that i see people you never heard of love redacted tonight i'm president of the world bank so very. many seriously he sent us an e-mail. to. apply for many flips over the years so i know the game and so i got. the ball isn't only about what happens on the pitch for the final school it's about the passion from the fans it's the age of the super money to kill you know a loan to spend spend to do the twenty million like. it's an experience like

nothing else going to because i want to share what i think what i know about the beautiful game but great to want more chance with. the league's going to. it's time to talk about how we spend what we make how are we so easily captured by the murky deals offered up by marketers the free shipping those super sales what about the five dollar beverage we happily buy and vacation that we won't pay more than one dollar for here at home why does buying the item with a more expensive label but no added value sometimes feel so good my guest has a pretty good idea of what's going on in our heads joining me now dan areality the

author of dollars and cents how we missed think money and how to spend smarter interesting read here in your book you mention how j.c. penney a good example your attempted to do fair and square pricing which gave a set price that would have been the final price after they had raised and discounted the product to customers didn't like it they hated that concept j.c. penney lost over nine hundred million dollars so almost a billion because of that why did this happen. so what happens is we have to think about how do people assess value how do we decide what something is is worth and the reality is it's very hard it's very hard to look at the like a piece of clothes and say how much is this is worth so what do we do we look at relative value relative to what relative to past prices so if something used to be to cost one hundred twenty dollars and it's now seventy it looks like it's great a great deal if you just seventy what do we compare it to not very clear so j.c.

penney for a long time had this relative comparison everything had a high starting point and a low discounted price and people are said to themselves not in an explicit way this is amazing value let's get it once the price was just fair and the regular price but without these high reference price people could not assess the value in the same way they couldn't figure out whether something is a good deal or not and they basically bought much much less now it's kind of an interesting thing that you can think about it is a mistake on one hand right if something used to cost one hundred twenty it's now seventy why is it a better deal than if it used to cost eighty but on the other hand it also says that it's really hard for us to evaluate things in a general way and we need help we rely on cues on your wrist ticks and different strategies to help us figure out what something is worse worth and there's lots of cues like that another another example is the question of fairness imagine you come

to visit me i live in durham in north carolina you come to visit me and you park and you look for a quarter in your in your pocket for the parking meter and you don't have a quarter and i passed by and you say hey do you have a quarter and i said yes i have a quarter are sell it to you for a dollar most people say i'm not interested i'm not going to spend a dollar for a quarter i'll take my chances with the parking authority but think about case number two the same. think you come you park you stop you don't have a quarter i stop by and you say excuse me do you have a quart and i say i don't have a quarter but there's a bank five blocks down the street if you want i'll run down fast as they can i'll come back and i'll give you quarters but if i run all this distance for you how do you feel about giving me a dollar now you feel very happy giving me a dollar now in every possible way you were soft you have to wait for a few minutes to get where the coins but why are you happier because there was

effort involved so many times we think we assessed the value of what we get the reality is we use all kinds of irrelevant cues what was the historical prize how much somebody ran for us in those things help us figure out how much you're willing to pay for something that kind of explains why people who earn their money versus people who were handed their money have a different idea of the value or need the appreciation of that what should we be cautious about this mechanism the free shipping mechanism we see by retailers free shipping but there is the surcharge on top of that that we don't see to circumvent the loss for the free shipping. yes absolutely so imagine the following case imagine sell you something small and shipping and together they cost five dollars in one case i say the shipping is free the thing itself is five dollars in the second case i say they each are two fifty in the third one they say this thing is

free shipping is five dollars in all three cases the final payment is the same people feel very differently about those things the worse one is the one in which we don't get free at all we pay two fifty for shipping and two fifty for the product it's better to pay zero for the product and five for the shipping and the one in the middle that's the best one the best one is free product and five dollars for shipping in the one in the middle is that you get three free shipping now what that suggests is that the moment we have the word free it kind of pushes a hot button for us like an emotional map and we say if it's free how can we lose it has to be a great deal and then we go for it and and there's a little trick to fix it because the only thing you can do or one thing you can do is to ask yourself how would they behave toward this offer if it wasn't free if it was let's say twenty five cents and if you basically see that you would have

behaved differently you say i have to drive all the way across town to get this free whatever if it was twenty five cents with a drive all that way and if you said yourself no i wouldn't do it for twenty five cents then don't even do it if it's free well sort of a standing versus spending versus saving you quotes rough out there am or send money up and costs too much saving versus spending a misconception people have when it comes to that you have some pretty interesting explanations on your part. well first of all we have to recognize that saving is very tough saving is about novices later it's about abstract versus concrete everything you have right now is concrete and it's now everything in the future is later and what exactly are you getting if i want a new bicycle now it's now if i'm saving five hundred dollars more for retirement what exactly am i getting and we need to recognize that those trade offs are novices later are things we don't do well in general we don't eat too well we don't

exercise and there's lots of things about novices later that we fail on and if we need want to do better on those things we need to create rules for a one k. automatically reaction personal rules otherwise if we're going to have to face the decision every time will fail not every time but will fail way too often to pay yourself first of all it sounds like good old fashioned self-control something that's kind of hard to find right now if you watch great but great read dan ariely professor and author of dollars and cents how we missed think money and how to spend it smarter. the department of justice is reportedly preparing litigation to block eighty's acquisition of time warner if the two cannot satisfy after trust regulators kind of telecom giant like a t.n.t.

with more than ninety million wireless customers and twenty million satellite subscribers merge with a content creator like time warner which possesses c.n.n. and warner brothers without violating antitrust laws as possible attorney david balto joins me to discuss this a lot of people are looking at this going i don't know how to squint your eyes tilt your head eighty five billion dollars merger is it actually violation antitrust laws in your perspective well that's for the department of justice and perhaps a court to determine there are some kinds of concerns that might arise but they're not the traditional concerns they give people really upset or two people are direct competitors in the time warner aren't direct competitors so will it violate the trust laws there may be concerns those are typically taken care of by some kind of settlement between the department of justice and t.n.t. right so this is a vertical merger and it seems like the d.o.j. would be obviously preparing paperwork for any sort of eventuality when when this

league was told to the media everyone freaked out oh there it's going to be blocked but in these types of mergers traditionally they're not blocked they go forward all the time you know lindsay the last time the justice department went to court to block a vertical merger was in the carter administration that's the 1980's so not for a long time have they gone to court to book one of these deals do you think the government has been aggressive enough in applying antitrust regulations in the united states well there's a lot of sentiment especially in the democratic side of the aisle that the answer is no that consumers have so. for from higher prices and list choice because of the lack of aggressive and i trust them for sprint well there is one interesting marriage that's being the subject is being broached anyway broadcom ltd semiconductor manufacturer has it's heading home from singapore they're repatriating their company it's a fortune one hundred company and it's made

a one hundred three billion dollar offer to compare qualcomm some people say this would be an example of antitrust others saying no it's pretty hard to see how consumers will be better off by the two biggest. manufacturers combining would create a monopolist that would be in the terrific position to significantly raise the cost of the smartphones we all depend upon right it's sort of a public it's just maybe test the water there what do you think about data the law seems to always have to catch up with technology and technology companies two thousand and ten google snapped up software airline data company it had to promise not to block others access to this data for five years cut to two thousand and seventeen some companies relying on that data are getting cut off by google is this an example of something that shouldn't have happened or it's something that regulators are going to have to keep on top of more in the future with the

ownership of data. is a really complicated subject and it's one in which the antitrust and forces are becoming more and more sophisticated right. so it's tremendously important resource and it's not something like manufacturing we were talking about looks out of an asshole or the e.u.'s screaming about this lenses frames we all know about ray-ban perfect example you say this is a perfect case of a problem combining the frame manufacturer with the dominant lens manufacturer is going to make a which is brew. environment in which consumers will suffer from. choice and higher prices what's particularly problematic here is looks owns the most dominant . insurance company i made in the united states and that puts it in the gate keeper position where it really can control competition restrict choices force consumers

to use only looks article products consumers will pay more and suffer from that kind of arrangement but after some of these deals are closed it seems as if regulators take a long time to catch up alcoa. had similar practices a long time ago decades ago where they they just own the industry no one could compete and it took two years for any movement to be made legally do you think that it takes too long for the government and regulators to catch up to these cases well there's a world of difference in the world the manufacturing world we lived in fifty sixty years ago the pace of the. wasn't quite as much of a problem but in the kinds of high tech markets we're dealing with today we really be sophisticated and they trust approaches that can act rapidly to deal with change rapidly changing more complex can happen with the exotic and as far. as giving it a thorough scrubbing it also of the federal trade commission is in the united

states and hopefully they'll either block the deal or seek a really strong remedy to protect consumers and competitors thank you so much for joining me on this attorney david thanks so much lindsay. thanks for watching be sure to catch him on direct t.v. here in the united states you can find us on the r. t. channel three two one and if you miss us on direct t.v. catch her bus on youtube youtube dot com slash the best r t thanks for watching the next time.

the financial tape arm the financial parasite is in the body it cannot make and it's destroying us from within this predation that's happening in the pharmaceutical industry is just another aspect of the host that we have become for the parasites and the pharmaceutical industry in australia and other various industries and south what's the cure for how to get rid of a table to get rid of a parasite. we all willingly accepted the risk of being shot wounded taken prisoner but noone has signed up to be friggin poisoned by our own people i've seen those nuclear biological and chemical products said to not truck tires all types of styrofoam polystyrene these batteries

trucks there was a complete denial i think at all levels of government that there was any connection between berm pits and what these brave soldiers were suffering from to compensate every soldier marine airman and sailor that was on the ground that are complaining about illnesses from their exposure from the berm pits would really literally send a v.a. broke and they don't want to pay it so the wady in decades a lot of those soldiers will die in time and they won't have to pay and. paltrow don't get the middle finger. the movie is. delayed. even. if the conditional is to keep it as i live it here for yourself and. finally. i believe.

i d. . be done. we have many things in this world and this is you know for everyone and why some peoples of also take our things all the power just for themselves and to see whether the other way.

headlining right now revelations of global offshore tax avoidance by the super rich become a gold mine for the mainstream media which chooses to root out russia links as the big story. donald trump well. in south korea on the second stop of his tour of asia aside the diplomacy he's also drumming up business for the u.s. arms industry made high tension on the korean peninsula. he will shoot him out of the sky when he completes the purchase of lots of additional military equipment from the united states europe and russia one hundred years since the socialist revolution which fundamentally changed not only the country but the entire world

will take a look at the dramatic events of one thousand nine hundred seventy.