i want europe to remain dependent on russian natural gas and that's why we talk about the facts that will go over soon but i'm humbled to think of the british lives saved by keeping the trackers at bay in the u.k. for a economic reason so it's economically viable. number two it's environmentally and viable and unsustainable and number three it has nothing to do with the propaganda that the daily mail is pushing but when you have a population that might be susceptible to propaganda they can easily be manipulated into thinking that fracking is something other than what it is it's not economically viable it costs more to get to frack then then then you make an profits it's cash flow negative it's also environmentally negative you destroy the environment incredibly compared to what you could ever possibly legitimize or justify as your output for this hellacious industry so we're going to go over some

of those it in fact in those details directly again these are just numbers reported to the stock markets where you have a lot of information by regulators demanded that you show your investors saudi aramco is about to go public of course the u.k. is vying for that business saudi aramco one hundred and eleven billion dollars in net income last year versus let's look at us shell producers negative six point six nine billion dollars now that's in a country with the reserve currency the u.s. dollar we can print as many much dollars as we want and give them as zero percent interest rate to investors to pension funds to invest in the shale producers in places like oklahoma texas with with population at like twenty people per square mile versus in the united kingdom you have over two hundred people per

square mile so i want to be clear fracking is a bit of a ponzi scheme in that their money you borrowed a frock can never be paid back by what you're taking out of the ground as a frack or because it's cash flow negative in the u.s. we don't have environmental regulations so if they can't earn money with no environment. well regulations free money. in the united kingdom they won't make money so just on the pure money and maybe you want it on other reasons you know national security interests and not importing oil whatever but you know the united kingdom had the north sea oil bonanza so even if you were to get a bonanza and you could compete with russia with cutter with algeria with saudi arabia with the united states and national gas production i'm going to point to the fact that the united kingdom and norway both have the north sea bonanza at the same time surely norway has a smaller population in the united kingdom but norway sovereign wealth fund has

over one trillion dollars in assets including one point three percent of global stocks and shares making it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund here's the u.k. sovereign wealth fund zero pounds so even if you had a bonanza it doesn't add to anything because you know as we've covered with that p w c document from about a decade ago they said had the u.k. had margaret thatcher when they had when they found the north sea oil done what norway did that the united kingdom would right now today have more power have more economic power more financial power equivalent to norway on the global scene had they chosen to just put away some of that income rather than pour all into tax breaks for property speculators so norway and the u.k. share the north sea oil fields norway decided to create the shortage of wealth fund the national wealth fund which is hugely in doubt britain chose to give property

speculators free money to speculate in the property market peaked out is now collapsing so it's a complete round trip to nowhere well that's the major source of wealth in the united kingdom from the individual because certainly incomes have not gone up and there aren't any manufacturing jobs or anything like that so you do have to rely on maintain. hell is so asked somebody in like oklahoma where there are earthquakes caused by the fracking damage on their property values insurance companies in the united states property insurance will not insure properties even fannie mae and freddie mac. by the way you know any loan mortgage loan backed by fannie mae and freddie mac. and those are u.s. government sponsored entities and they won't back and they won't give a mortgage for any property near fracking but here's china single party rule and this is what has happened in march twenty ninth teen just a month ago china experiences

a fracking boom and all the problems that go with it this is in the new york times again there's a thing called a richter scale and it's measured by geologists in the u.s. geological service have at will also backed the facts of you know maybe nato might contradict this but the actual scientists say there were three big earthquakes and douse shann in china and the locals got very angry because of the fracking operations nearby which they believe caused these three earthquakes killed two people and wounded thirteen more than twenty thousand homes and three villages suffered damage and nine collapsed completely according to a statement by the county about one thousand six hundred people or displace forced to move in with relatives or live temporarily and four hundred and seventy blue tents distributed by authorities the people of china showed up at their local

government offices in riot sort of situation and what has the chinese government done they've ordered a whole lot to fracking operations in the region you have the fracking industry with any equivocation it causes our quakes we know that to be a fact it uses the fluids to fry. known carson genic stats a fact we know that the economics are such that you can never make money in the fracking business the fracking industry in toto is a money loser there might be one or two individual situations where that's not completely losing money at the moment but in aggregate it loses money and all of these projects will lose money here you have dominic lawson of the daily mail in the u.k. who's not mentioning any of those facts now now he's on many of those yaks former nato spokesperson and right he's got a nato spokesperson so to distract the u.k. population from the fact that we help save lives in the u.k. we've saved more u.k.

lives you know probably going all the way back to when america belled up britain in world war two and i saved so many british lives instead of god dominic lawson. ignoring the fact that i'm a hero to the british people and instead claiming that putin is laughing in a complete non sequitur that's like i'm a gloss and saying i had tuna salad for lunch yesterday and. israel landed a probe on the moon like this guy is disjointed in the brain he has no cognitive ability to think anymore but he is relying on the organ ery person reading the daily mail a tabloid that has a tainted past to just read his propaganda and not go to google not look just look at financial times wall street journal and bloomberg ok investors go there to look at what their investments are how to allocate their capital look at those publications and fracking and see what they have to say about

it china like the united states and other countries has embraced the fracking revolution and hopes of weaning itself from its dependence on foreign energy sources just like dominic lawson of saying what you know the u.k. is doing sources just like dominic lawson of saying what you know the u.k. is doing this is from the new york times but the public. theory that unexpectedly boiled over and gosh and underscores the social and environmental challenges the country must overcome even in a tightly controlled political system so perhaps putin's also laughing at china for having to abide by you know the violent protesters storming the government buildings have been fracking stop you know what does what does dominic lawson think should be should have been done in this situation when the people stormed the government offices should they have just said you know this is for your own good well i mean to write here they rely on over their daily mail a population that has the blinkers on they don't go to the internet they don't look

at the world they don't have context for this obvious slanderous propaganda dominic lawson and this is why i have been very leery of bragg's it because is that the island nation of britain is already cut off from the world and brags it will mean it's even more cut off it will have more marauding tricksters like dominic lawson pushing this type of dangerous propaganda again finally in this last minute duke university study finds fracking related waste water rapidly increasing the study found a massive increase in industrial waste water attributed to oil and gas fracking from two thousand and eleven to twenty sixteen duke university one of the best universities in the wa world right here they looked at data from two thousand and eleven to twenty sixteen seventeen thousand wells in america we've been fracking for well over a decade and what they found was a one thousand four hundred forty percent increase in wastewater which they also know that this wastewater that noted that the salts toxins organic matter and

radioactive material and fracking related to wastewater poses a threat to drinking water supplies so it the more you fact the more water you need the more toxic waste water that is the natural result of it so you know these are discussions that should be had and debates that should be had a great well more to come i'm sure time to take a break and when we come back much more coming your way. they can come and blow our brains out at any given time and we can't really do anything actually america is the only country in the world where you can kill people outside of war and legally get away with. all the fire crawls

stillbirth you all the trouble here is very frail the point is it's hollow flying to k.k.k. exists because america wants it to exist they are the biggest terrorist group to ever operate in this country and they're dead to me they're worse all than the people who destroyed the world trade centers of the scroll why. is this is a stick from the water bottle phone in the stomach of a fish the brand is spawns of the coca-cola company which sells millions of bottles of soda every day the idea was that let's tell consumers they're in the bad ones they're the litter bugs are throwing us away industry should be blamed for all this waste the company has long promised to reuse the plastic. as the seeds to cook

out susie doesn't respond in a manner that seems cool sets their classes to seek a close ally and on your birthday when you don't lose that special projects funding he tells it to. be on the line your best bet is the end of a footy team but for now the mountains of waste only grow higher. welcome back to the kaiser report imax keyser time now to go to steven talley he's a prolific and amusing twitterer is also a lawyer you can find some of his cup there were pains at the crypto case law minute stephen larkham imax glad to be here i was

a follower of yours on twitter and that's all right said this interview coming to washington he said let's try to get stephen on the show so you're a lawyer who's now involved except us to tell us about how you got involved in crypto how much time you have about about you know what's out ahead of us or sell you know give us the short version i'll give you my my big coin origin story if you will wow oh yeah so i've been practicing law for in the story if you will wow oh yeah so i've been practicing law for a long time as my gray hair can attest and in about six or seven years ago i settled a lawsuit using something called a double blind negotiation where basically we gave a third party the numbers so somebody one person's offer and the other person's in the person's demand so it's not implied both the defendants and the plaintiff exactly that is something different exactly because one of the problems in negotiation is try as everybody has their bottom line number in advance and there's

a trust problem we could jump to the bottom line but i'm afraid if i do that you won't jump to your bottom line so we used to third party to do that i was reading about near a psychology of decision making and trust and i this worked incredibly well and it's very expensive well so quickly and i thought there should be software that does this long story short i ended up building software to do this and i taught myself to program i learned as a kid and i learned again and. the problem was i ended up with a centralized database and that's when i discovered bitcoin basically started googling and i came across their fricken gate kind of yeah yeah under i'm a toll on her yes it's only course you're in because i yeah i'm a better lawyer than i am a programmer right that's good enough so i don't i don't sell my services professionally as a programmer but it taught me about bitcoin and i learned about programmable money and that's actually what's interesting me about bitcoin is the notion of trust let's ask rob and not having a person in between right so now one of the things they say here is that client is

this idea of it's center ship resistance and it. it have it's solved the issue of trust yes and so formal from a legal perspective from a law perspective so you're not coming to this from where so many lawyers are involved now because they're involved and they are looking at the ice yellows and the securities or the securities laws are you coming to really from on the tax side in that this does solve psychologically speaking a question. of distributed consensus that's a term used is that is i correct that's i wouldn't personally use that term because that's not how i thought of it i thought of it as being able to program money and not having to set up not even to set up a bank cannot have it have been asked what if we could negotiate something where we didn't have to have a third party that's there looking at the other problem that a saw from a so my software business failed everybody's entitled to one my wife says only one . so i stuck with law but because i had learned

a program i started helping people build software and i had a client who wanted to be able to send a penny. electronically and there was the only way i could figure out to do it at the time was using a pay pal using something called a mass pay a p i pay pal is of course a centralized ledger but the other problem that crypto solves. sometimes depending on the transaction fees is micro payments vast micropayment so for me it solves that interesting tactical problem to right so let's talk about more of the legal aspects that people associate with crypto right now it's just especially in the last year or so that the initial coin offering now is a stockbroker for a long time and when i saw the first initial coin offering documents coming through i said this is a security you know i know the securities act a thirty three and thirty four and i know that yes they say if they looked at it they would say this would be a regulated by the sic by the city that so what is your thought going forward is it was that your reaction that they were flagrantly kind of stuck

in the face of the s. and say and what's the future now is that the whole market dead or is it going to evolve worse like so would i told people at the beginning when i started representing people in space and i tell people now is that the law's the law when electricity was developed one hundred twenty one hundred thirty years ago cordes didn't say oh what it says now we don't understand what to do it's the same thing here and when you look at courts opinions that talk about crypto does what judges say this i want you know if there is any case will apply existing kate's new technology i think that that sort of initial flurry of i see oh you know you turn out a white paper you get a slacker dischord channel and you raise five million bucks that was a six month to a year flash in the pan that's gone i personally don't understand the attraction of using experimental technology to raise money in

a regulated fashion it seems like you're adding a layer of complexity to it but maybe there's something there i think that's sort of it was what two thousand and seventeen two thousand and eighteen until about june of two thousand and eight in. that's not going to happen again so are you in the planning or you want some firm i'm with the law firms ok so n so are you seeing more work come down through the door related to crypto is it a big is it a burgeoning business capital anger so i'm not i don't to sit transactional securities work so that was never a big that work i tend to refer out there certainly a fair amount of disputes work that we're seeing i call the magic bean disputes i'm seeing a lot of that you know i was a i was promised you know two million cheese tokens and you know you can get them more good side what about as a lift i.p.o. because there is now litigation that there was a horribly handled people are down on their left investment and that's.

the basis for that because you know i.p.o. is a risky business return the prospectus this might not work right i mean if you read the prospectus which everyone should do you know that says a sigh risk investment i haven't followed that incredibly closely i think the arguments that the lawyers will make will be a. they will look at whether or not the representations that were made in the offering documents were consistent with what's happened if people said things that were unsure if management was acting appropriately sort of standard securities litigation this is our great expense that many were going to buy my freedom yeah. so do we need new laws. and as the is the f.c.c. i mean when i talk to people at these events they would say well the f.c.c. needs to change and i'm like well i think you need to change for us and let them all change when they change but you know what do we need new laws and what do you think is going to happen the thing i like about the how we test is actually fairly dynamic it's it's a flexible test right out s.s.

are less so unfamiliar with it just give it a bill the plate is set so that how we test is a it comes from a case involving somebody named how it's an old case and it involves an interpretation of what a security is under the thirty three act in the thirty. for act and it defines a security investment contract in particular as an investment of money. an investment of money with the expectation of profit solely from the managerial efforts of third parties and that can mean a lot right that can apply to all sorts of situations so i'm not sure that we necessarily need a change here or revision in or an amendment to the securities act or to the exchange act i would say that there are some areas where we could use some greater regulatory clarity that might be with respect to the bank secrecy act and how that applies to crypto to crypto transactions how the bank secrecy act applies to exchange of assets between different chains some of the regulations when read

literally don't necessarily make sense you can almost think of an interchange an interrupt chain exchanges bang if what you're effectively doing is converting one asset to another just like you're converting a word document to word perfect document does it really make sense to apply the bank secrecy out to their shares are i go ahead from the cypherpunks is that basically a big call in his code code is speights and speech is protected in america the constitution i have for free speech out of the first amendment i believe it's the first and you know it's code and code is speech and speech is code is tax this is already tried with a pass the encryption p.g.p. p.g.p. right this was already tested they were up on a word doc they printed it up and they said it's protected speech what's wrong or is that correct argument so there's a difference between static code written on a piece of paper typed on a computer in code once it's executed i would say that executable code is not the

same thing as a speech that people also have to remember that the fact that speech is protected doesn't mean that you can say anything i heard to say i heard this interview the other day. and the point someone made was look you have you do have free speech of the first member but you defect that you have free speech in the first moment doesn't mean you can go into the bank and hand somebody a note that says i'm robbing you hand over your money so those are two two things i would point out one that's an executable document he said i got executed if you don't yes argument that's that's exactly right so i would say distinguish between your freedom to write and your freedom to turn something into. something that acts or acts upon other people as a well defined in the constitution and any company documents that one might be associated or is it up to the course to interpret that the framers do not talk about software right understood. what do you guys use that to guide you

case law that interprets the first amendment and so here is the current thinking is that disparate does not protected under first meant speech and your be of at this time. well it depends it's hard to say in the abstract what is or what isn't i would say is in the abstract i would distinguish between static code on a page and executable code something that exists in the world apart from having been written down this is a mis conason or of on the top of my head here but is there like a bit of a confusion about what point does the machine start in the code begin in other words it's a it if it's if it's then bedded in the machine in the machine does stuff does that make any sense that they are a by just not liking any senator you're making sense it's a it's a people are drawing a bad syllogism they're saying software is code. they're saying software is code code is speech speech is protected under the first amendment

therefore software including bitcoin software is protected in the first moment the problem is a failure to distinguish between static code and executable code when it's been compiled and is running that is different than b. then there are the written word on page if you look at it on this in the wild so for the sake of those who want to believe that they have a minute claiming first amendment rights they should perhaps revise a revisit that because there are same to be a bit of an area to be interpreted that conclusion yeah right so that is not a get out of jail free card it's not and people can hear this and say well palli is a status shill i can do whatever i want he doesn't i'm not saying you're saying that but but i have this experience i almost said it was a bad so this is another the first time anyone's ever sent out of this out of so must yes something exactly what i was a cat you not but oh oh i've got another bad so lazy for work before i forget and i

also ask every lawyer i meet what's the best depiction of lawyers on t.v. in the most realistic one who think is really really good what paper chase was not lawyers on t.v. that was also law school and they actually similar he felt that it resonated with their experience as it absolutely did. i don't know that's not the question as actually no it's not right and so my question answer that question. so law and order is not like actual practice but some of the courtroom scenes are correct you know not yet you know how the music rises when sam waterston is it out so late now it happens all the time or the music always rises now but one of the things that's true about that is one way that you get a witness to tell you what they want as you get them off are you a courtroom lawyer did guess what it is europe your defendant their defender now your prosecutor in the. civil litigation i like i said i represent both plaintiffs and defendants but mostly but and closed doors in front of the arbitrator already out there in our way that i would had

a three week trial in broad federal court in brooklyn about a year and a half ago as my last trial now i stand up in court instead of the art yeah well this is fascinating always you're going to do more you and i we have to say goodbye sadly i was just getting into this anyway anyway thanks come on the end of it every time all right that's going to do it for this edition of the kaiser report with me max kaiser and stacey are bloodsucker gusty even tally you can find in my crib what's occurred krypto twitter handle it's steven deepali at stephen deepali it's very simple isn't it pretty much on a catch us on twitter it's kaiser reports and i stand by all. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics school does this i'm show business i'll see that.

during the great depression which are old enough to remember there was most of the family were working. there wasn't it was bed you know much worse objectives in today but there was an expectation. things were going to get better. of there was a real sense of hopefulness there isn't today today's america was shaped by the turn principles of concentration of wealth and power. reduced democracy attack solo down to engineer elections manufacture consent and other principles according to no i'm chomsky one set of rules for the rich opposite. that's what happens when you put her into the hands of a narrow sector of will switch will is dedicated to increasing power for chills

just as you'd expect one of the most influential intellectuals of our time speaks about the modern civilization of america. total or. not he didn't. oh you ought to go to zero it's a good move for you. with coal make this manufacture consent to step into public wealth. when the ruling classes protect themselves. with the finest

larry go around lifts only the one percent. we can all middle of the room six. million more you'll need. what holds his hands to. put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president or injury. or something want to. have to go right to the press this is what before three in the morning can't be good. i'm interested always in the water out. there should.

be the guy was me. oh. maybe. after a third unsuccessful bid to unseat the venezuelan president from power the opposition leader one why does bradley supporters on the streets of caracas starts as nicolas maduro visits the military forces who refuse to betray him. the u.s. code is considering what is a painter over a mural dedicated to founding father george washington after the all what was deemed at risk of traumatizing native american and african american students. if art.