so yes, it is the worst part about the less about the me and this is when by someone's is sure you can't afford to miss. i'm rachel robins in washington. coming up g 7, leaders call on emergency needing to discuss the future of the blocks role and dennis dance and how they should approach the roles of russia and china. and the region. plus the federal reserve is gearing up for its annual jackson hall summit. so what can we expect from officials with the theme centered around the i'm even economy that the f t a has officially approved pfizer cobra, 1900 vaccine. so will we see more mandates across the country? and how does this approval differ from the last one? we'll discuss. we have

a pack show today for dive right in the we leave the program with the latest on an emergency meeting of the g 7 alliance in response to the u. s. and it's ongoing withdrawal from afghanistan. you may remember just a few months ago, world leaders met for the annual g 7 summit. and the 2 countries talked about the most were china and russia and how to contain and limit their influence. now the g 7 is still talking about china and russia. however, this discussions around how to include the 2 countries in an attempt to contain afghanistan, days before the u. s. is set to reach its deadline for its withdrawal from the country. but will the us go along with the plan? that remains one of the biggest questions as vice president harris to or se asia,

and make comments like this one about beijing. in the south china sea, we know that beijing continuance to coerce to intimidate and to make claims to the vast majority of the south china sea. these unlawful claims have been rejected by the 2016 arbitron tribunal decision. and beijing actions continued to undermine the rules based order and threaten the sovereignty of nations. joining me now, this gas is billed moscow, her fan investigative journalist been fond now, then we know that president bite enjoying this emergency call between g 7 leaders on tuesday morning, which was actually coordinated by u. k. prime minister boris johnson. and it was johnson's comment about russia and china that were surprising. what to the up to a. yeah,

they were somewhat surprising and i think somewhat realistic, which is essentially saying, look, the situation in afghanistan has deteriorated pretty quickly. it's been, i think shocking to most of the world to actually see again a thin fall in a matter of weeks to the taliban. a fighting force. we should remind folks only 75000 against an african trained army of 350000. that you get a couple days for them to basically take over the entire country. it took them just a weekend to take over the capital city and take the presidential palace. so having said that, the u. s. recognizes in the u. k recognizes in italy and france, a lot of these natal countries that they cannot stop what's happening there and moving forward. they really, really are not going to have a presence. so who can actually deal with the taliban? both china and russia are keeping inside of afghanistan right now. they're in the seas, they're keeping them active and there will be working with the taliban. both russia and china have said they're going to work closely with the taliban and are hoping

for a peaceful resolution to whatever is happening there and that the taliban will be open to women's rights, etc. so the fact that you have these regional powers in russia and china who are dealing with afghanistan, quite frankly, that's the only way to go in this situation. certainly not the u. s. trying to re exert some kind of force in a country where quite honestly, we've been pretty embarrassed over the last few weeks. yeah. embarrassment is an understatement, especially when we had the by an administration swearing up and down that the afghan government was going to be just fine. and then we saw what actually happened . okay, so on what level is the g 7 alliance having to really humble themselves at this point? when only months ago they met to discuss the threat of china and russia? yeah, i guess i really shouldn't laugh because it is another embarrassment, right? so just a few, a few months ago and we talked about this right here on the show, right? the g 7 summit was really primarily focused on 2 entities on, on, containing china and limiting their influence around the world. and then also

really kind of cornering russia, enforcing russia to do whatever nato wants. and that's been kind of the goal of the g 7 summit. they were the primary factors in all these conversations to, to then turn around out of those conversations and kind of take your hat and put it in your hand and go back to russia and china. and they will, hopefully, you guys can be the ones to deal with what's happening. and again, it's them because it's also be clear about this. rachel, china and russia did not go into afghanistan 20 years ago, did not overthrow the taliban. and so china and russia have not been at war with the taliban, or at war and afghan stand, but nato has the united states as the u. k, as the italians and the french have. and so now, because they have been embarrassed over this situation and recognize that they left essentially the country with an enormous power vacuum that was filled almost immediately. it's a pretty humbling situation to now say to you, to russia and china, who are seen as these great threats in the world. you're the only answer to

bringing stability there. oh, absolutely. and especially when you look at the fact that over the last 20 years, the u. s. and its allies has actually made the taliban more legitimate than ever before. and now you're at a point where you've got china and russia saying how they're going to deal with the taliban. at the same time we've actually got biden. and the g 7 leaders now discussing whether or not to recognize the taliban as well as the legitimate government of afghanistan. so will this happen? and if so, how likely is the us to unfreeze that $9500000000.00 worth of atkin assets that are currently being held in us banks right now? yeah, well the, to the 2nd part of the question 1st i think would be, i would say unlikely that they would unfreeze those accounts. and yet, if you recognize the taliban as the legitimate government of afghanistan, how do you not unfreeze them 1st, 2nd of all, the idea that the u. s. would recognize the taliban as the official government,

not because of an election, but simply because they conquered the country is kind of shocking as well. i mean, remember, we don't recognize nicholas madura as, as the actual leader of venezuela, even though there was an election in venezuela. we don't recognize that the u. s. is arbitrarily declared. there's a different president and the different leader in the country. and yet we're going to recognize the taliban, who conquered the country, essentially rolled over the military there and took it by force. we're going to recognize them as the official government in afghanistan. and yet i would say the likelihood of that happening at this point is probably pretty high. it's not as low as she would think. it will probably happen. and that alone is a shocking idea. yeah, absolutely. and i've got just a few seconds left. but those comments from the harris, i mean is the u. s. actually likely to not. 7 only admit defeat, but to also admit that they need to back down when it comes to china. do you see that happening? well, i don't see them back on china, but here's the thing. china is literally laughing in their state media laughing at

the united states right now laughing that this debacle. that is up canister in. so much of the world is looking at us gamma stan and saying the u. s. made promises went there for 20 years and ultimately resulted in billions of dollars being spent on nothing. and so the chinese are real probably saying the most people in their region of the world don't just lean on the u. s. and expect that they're going to be here to protect. you were to bill you out where the real power we're the real force. i think that's what's happening. and it's pretty embarrassing for b. p. harris to get up and threaten china at this point when we have such a mess on our hands, just a few miles away enough and all of it the united states did to itself kaden's that as always, boom bus spends one. thank you so much for your time. thank you. the federal reserve is gearing up for as highly anticipated jackson hall conference this week, but rather than meeting at a gorgeous mountain resort officials will be holding their talks online for

a 2nd year in a row due to concerns over arise and covered cases. now this year the theme is built around addressing the uneven economy with all eyes on chairman powell, amid a growing divide among the officials who say the fed is on the right path and those who say action should have already been taken long ago. so joining me now to discuss our snyder partner and director of training research and education for the market gauge group and ted oakley, managing partner at oxbow advisors. it's great to have you both on the show today, michelle. i want to start with you. so for months now we've heard powell say that progress is being made just not enough and that inflation is rising, but not for long. are we expecting to hear anything different from him this week? well, i don't think so. if we look at the fact that it's now virtual as a metaphor for how the whole federal reserve is feeling, then we could say that they still have concerns about something. no one really knows how it's going to play out the delta very and,

and that's essentially what they're going to address. and they've already said that they're committed to following the data points that they will accommodate is they have to. and so what more could they possibly say at this point with so many variables on know, and i think the title of the whole conference is interesting as an on even economy because that actually is true. so whether or not they bring up inflation, this time is anything more than transitory. i find unlikely, at some point that will come back to bite them that i am certain of. but in terms of this one, they'll still be the same. talk about paper down the road maybe and this year maybe the middle of 2022. but a lot of it will depend not just on the very end, but also on the labor force, which has been another big concern of pals. yeah, it really does seem like this is kind of a metaphor when all of a sudden they say that they're going to hold this meeting online once again. now ted, speaking of the theme, their path themes for the summit has simply been implications for monetary policy

or challenges for monetary policy. so what kind of a message is the fed sending this year when they notably chose the theme macro economic policy in an uneven economy? well, i think, i think what it does is it says, hey, we don't really know what's going to happen. so we'll get our cell, so that's code presenting, we don't know what's going to happen. so we'll, we'll give her a cell sound either way. trinity, i think that's where they're headed and they don't know. and so that's very much like the, i mean that's, that's basically what they do, you know, talk out of both sides. oh, absolutely that's, that's something we've been hearing for months now. and i mean, michelle, speaking of this theme of an even that also. 6 applies to where phone officials stand right now with some becoming more vocal about wanting to pull back on asset purchases sooner rather than later. so from an investor standpoint, how do you see the difference and is it hurting their confidence in the fed? oh i was so i, when i saw that you were going to ask this question,

i went back and really thought about different fed chairmans we've had through the years bernacki yellow and now of course powell and i think ultimately the market react to what they say more than what you have in terms of the division between the or i should say among the different fed members. so i would really focus on what paulson cation point last week, f, l m. c. came out, minutes were a little bit more hawkish. he said, no, no, no, no, we're still very darvis considering we don't know what's going on. so that's kind of that. what's so interesting is the fed themselves, they bought $120000000.00 sort of buying $120000000.00 worth of bonds. at the start of the pandemic, they stabilize the market. and i still think to this point, even though they stabilize the market, they triggered inflation and the fact that they still think is transitory. it won't be. and i've seen other members kind of say, well, maybe it's not really, it's going to be up to how to finally decide that he has to make some action.

because guess what? inflation is so transitory and they're not there yet. so i would just follow power . and now tell you, what's your response to those sort of uneven fed officials who are admitting that they don't agree on the future of policy? do you think that those disagreements are going to have any impact on where the fed actually goes? you know, i don't, i don't think so. i'd have to say the last bad present that i actually believed was paul volcker, from that point forward, you know, they've all said things and then done the opposite as well as powell. so i don't, i don't, i don't really take much of that with a grain of salt because i know one thing for sure. the market falls by 20 percent. they all pull in quickly and go the other way. so i really don't, i don't really read too much into it. they're always measured with their words. and they want to make sure that they've got it under control, which is couldn't be further from the truth, really when you get right down to it. but that's why i'd say from here. yeah.

especially when they don't know exactly what's gonna happen now. ted, when it comes to the market, we haven't seen it react, not just what the fed policies are, but also to what chairman power has to say about the economy. how do investors see this summit? and is this a case where the fed is actually between a rock and a hard place no matter what they do? well, i think investors will, they always try to find a word or a sentence. and really i think powell is more measured with his words than that. so you're gonna going to find anything from that. but i do think they are somewhere between a rock and a hard place because just a michelle mentioned, you know, if you inflate from here, they've got a problem in that they have to come in and, and really move the rates a bit. that's more of them for the stock market if you go the other way and all of a sudden things get really weak and the market looks up and says, well hey, the money's not working,

then you have another problem. so i think investors think about it like that and whether it goes to blay, but that's true. the good point or i got the hard places where they are. it certainly seems that way. now, michelle, when it comes to chairman powell, i mean, he has not only his legacy but the upcoming end of his term to look at. do you think that that's playing a role in his decision making right now? one would hope not that he really actually is looking at the data points and he's actually looking at what's happening here in terms of the pockets of strength versus the real pockets of weakness that we have in the economy. but one thing i just want to add, you know, you can listen to fed speak and your mind can explode. so i kind of try to focus on what the market is doing, and particularly the jung on market. and also the high corporate grade bond market . because that's really what started to stabilize and really lead in terms of the whole recovery when we started to, after we swooned in the pandemic back in march,

2020. and right now they're both saying caution, but things are ok. there's still a risk on when i see that change, i won't care what anybody says to me. that will be the indication that we're going from risk on to a real serious risk off. excellent points to consider here. michelle snyder of the market gauge group and cad oakley of oxford advisors. thank you both for your time . thank you rachel. time now for a quick break, but when we come back as the f. d, a gives full approval. the pfizer is coleman 1900 vaccine, the department of defense move mandated for service members. we'll take a look at the legal implications next. and as we go to break through the numbers out the clothes, shoes ah, ah,

ah, the the the me, the, the, the world is driven by dreamers shaped by those in me dares

things we dare to ask me. oh, i use a military mission against him. we'll conclude on august 31st. i want to go to what i thought the quote unquote a young girl who i really want the proof for my you got to be of subtle

company the cut, cut over the whatever the month. okay. that i'm on the 7th, not to get a quote to ship a minute. this was the right weapon against the right. no, no, no body. somebody does not. go through z o o, z the, the signing of the us to all about agreement. and i laid the groundwork for the road ahead toward a lasting peace in afghanistan. and i know we still need that. i'm a dunaway and as i have the

welcome back, less than 2 weeks after suffering a major hack of more than $600000000.00 worth of bitcoin poly network now claims it has recovered virtually all of it. the company to, to medium on monday to announce the final $141000000.00 worth of a theory and, and wrapped bitcoin were officially recovered. the only exception being $33000000.00 in tether, the owner had already frozen. now prior to mondays developments pauleen network and are ready recovered, the majority of the stolen crypto with the hackers returning a huge amount of the funds just days after the initial hack. the development also raises the question of why did the hacker attack the block chain network in the 1st place, while boom bus kristi? i address the rational recently here on this program in the cybersecurity hack space, not all of the hackers, but a lot of them. the motivation behind an attack isn't monetary or political gain or

anything like that. it's basically just to prove that they can do it, and the attack is their way of fueling. what they believe is the greater cause. so basically the tacker is kind of trolling that proving himself and his abilities and that is done for the sake of showing the world what he can do. basically the same way an athlete would want to show off to the world state of the lympics the us food and drug administration has given full approval to be pfizer by on tech cobra. 19 vaccine for used by those 16 years of age and older, full approval from the da also means more employers and schools may now require people to get the to, to vaccination. but can they do that legally? joining me now to discuss is legal analysts. molly barrows contributor to america's lawyer, are molly the biggest question here is, what does it mean for the public now that the vaccine has been fully approved by the da? well basically fully approved means that the f d a has given

a rigorous scientific review and that they have met those standards and it says the public. rachel can be fully confident the defects seen meets the f. d, a is high safety standards that it's effective and that the manufacturing quality is good. they looked at a number of things in this analysis, including the drugs, benefits, like how people did after they had it for 6 months, you know, after they've been vaccinated fully for 6 months, how they were doing. and it also looked at clinical trials from the drug maker. so taking into all that into account the f d a has approved this code 1900 vaccine. it's actually the 1st one that's been fully approved and because of the certification and now replaces that emergency use authorization that was granted by the f d. a last december that the vaccine has been given under up until now. so now it's fully approved. it is no longer under this emergency use authorization. well, and of course, the full stamp of approval they hope is going to create more confidence in it. but millions of people have already gotten this vaccine. so how does this pull approval differ from the emergency use authorization that we've had for the last several

months? right, well, in a nutshell, basically, the emergency use allows a product to be available and used in a public health emergency like the cobra. 1900 pandemic, and under this e u a, the f d allowed people to use any kind of an approved medical product if they felt like there was a life threatening disease. so in order for that to happen, manufacturers take input from the f d a. they decide whether or not to submit it for you a what is still in place for those under 16 age 12 to $15.00, they still have to get an e. u a if they want it or for those folks who are still immunocompromised, they still have immune deficiency diseases of some kind and need a booster shot. so it's still available for emergency use with those types of groups. but for the public at large, they now can get it and have confidence. like you said that this vaccine is going to do what they say it's going to do, and potentially hopefully they will be more willing to get it is what the f d a is hoping. now we're already seeing government agencies like the u. s. department of defense requiring service members to get back to needed. so it is

full f d, a approval of this vaccine mean that employers and other organizations like schools can then mandate that people get it. it does, it takes away the argument of people that you did see a few lawsuits filed from people saying you can't mandate this, it's only per approved for emergency use. it's not fully approved. so for those folks who wanted to use lawsuits or legally use that as a challenge and not to get the vaccination whether it was to attend to university or to work at a certain workplace, they can no longer use that particular excuse. because it does allow us vaccines to be administered and emergency circumstances, even though the hasn't fully approved it. a lot of folks said, hey, that's not good enough. there was a suit in federal court in texas, but even then they dismissed it. it was against houston methodist, which required like $26000.00 employees to get vaccinated or be fired. and so that actually was thrown out even before the vaccine was fully approved. but, you know, they're still not a lot of clarity legally,

but we do expect to see more universities more employers start to require it. and then you, you know, depending on the reaction from the people that they're requiring it of. c you may see more lawsuits challenging for different reasons. yeah. and we could even see some of those lawsuits go all the way to the supreme court now when it comes to legal precedent here. is there a legal precedent in the u. s. for mandatory vaccinations? yes, and this is what so interesting. speaking of going all the way to the u. s. supreme court states have the legal and constitutional authority to require that people who live in that state be vaccinated or to introduce the vaccine mandate. and this goes back to a case dating in 1905, had to do with smallpox. that comes from a case in massachusetts jacobson versus massachusetts. there was actually a smallpox outbreak in cambridge and cambridge introduced an ordinance that required all adults to be vaccinated or re vaccinated against smallpox or face a $5.00 fine. and in this one guy suit, he said,

you can't make me do that and the u. s. supreme court heard the case and said, oh, contrary, we can make you do that because one state police powers in the us constitution and to we are going to consider the great good, like for a health emergency, which was that was what it was considered. the greater good outweighs the needs of the individual. so there is a precedent if states do want to move forward with requiring this kind of vaccination. it just depends on if states will require it or if it's going to fall in the lapse. the decisions of individual universities and employers and the like, yeah, it'll certainly be interesting to see what happens at the state level of the individual level. and of course, what exemptions they agree to accept along the way. molly barrows, of america's lawyer. thank you so much for your time and insight. thanks rachel. and finally, what would you do if you had a spare $1300000.00 to spend? and what are the odds that you would spend it on a picture of a rock? ok, so it's not just any rock. the cartoon is one of 100 from the brand,

either rock the crypto collectibles, have been around since 2017, making them some of the oldest non fungible tokens or an s t's on the market. the image of this particular rock on the theory block chain was just auction off for your $1300000.00. if you're wondering why, while the brand admits the virtual rock serve, no purpose beyond being able to be bought and sold and giving you a strong sense of pride in being an owner of one of the only 100 rocks in the game . goodness, $1000000.00. that's it for the time you can catch boom bus on demand on the portable tv app, which is available on smartphones and tablets through google play and the apple app store by searching portable tv. portable tv can also be downloaded on samsung, smart tv, and roku devices, or simply check it out at portable doc tv. well see you next. me.

ah, ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? tice relation community, are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend, ah, to join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah,

i'll take a trip down memory lane to the history books, talk about geo politics as it was a 100 years ago, 150 years ago from some big brain sort of looking at the big map and how that's relevant today. americans love buying homes. ah, this was fundamental part of how our political leadership and our country at large, understood the bargain. you get a home and then you will rebel, right, as the things you don't revolt if you have a stake in the system. be really interesting to dial back and think about no longer deeper history of what housings meant in the united states. not just that old question of the american dream,

but the bigger question of who the dream has been for the the taliban says it will no longer allow after a national to leave the country restricted cobble airport access to foreigners. only the groups also confirmed. it won't agree to extend the united states withdraw deadline beyond august. the 31st us president joe biden, meanwhile, says that he will stick to that day despite calls from world leaders to secure a copy of the airport for as long as necessary. the meanwhile, former down interpreters who worked with nato forces during the 20 year campaign slammed the british government for not getting their families out. many fear reprisals from the insurgents now in power either in the grapes of.