exit from afghanistan, now officially behind him, us president joe biden has now turned his attention to military aid for ukraine, as well as the future of the controversial lord stream to pipeline. in fact, wednesday president biden unveiled a wide range of humanitarian and military aid package for ukraine during a visit by the country's president at the white house. joining us now or so. what's in store in this package? joining is been one co host of boom bus been always pleasure to have you on here to break these things down. 4th, let's start with what is inside this ukraine, ukraine, humanitarian and military. a package within there? well, that's really what it is. it's a combination of packages on the military side, it's about $60000000.00 of newly designed military equipment which, you know, the critic me says it's kind of jarring the here even though $60000000.00 is not a whole lot of money for military equipment. when you left $90000000000.00 worth of military equipment in afghanistan, the fact that you're now buying brand new equipment to send up the ukraine just

seems a little tone deaf. but on top of that its anti javelin. tain't javelin anti take missiles, small arms and ammunition. so that's the military part of it. you also $45000000.00 of humanitarian assistance for ukraine were impacted by what they called the separatist guerrilla war in ukraine, as well as another $12800000.00 being used for assistance to ukraine. on top of another, 55000000 for coven related matters. so all in you're talking about close to, you know, a $150000000.00 in this a package. again, one part military, one part so called humanitarian. wow. so the u. s. is just sending weapons to everybody just like usual now on the candy. right? exactly. now on the issue of ukraine, the by ministration has begun. once again, talking about sanctions against the north stream to pipeline. in fact, the state department spokesperson did this during a news conference on friday about afghan. and stan,

why is the binding ministration? refocusing on nordstrom to, i mean, i thought we were over and done with this. yeah, you would think that we are over and done with it, especially when you consider the fact that if we're talking about north street to, if we're talking about the situation with, with russia that president biden's already said can do anything about it. so he's going to get out of the way, but then he doesn't get out of the way. so for instance, this last friday, during the news conference, by the way about afghanistan, the state department shifted gears, they changed the subject and they started talking about nordstrom too. and they mentioned a particular ship. and the company that owns the ship that will now be facing us sanctions, as well as a construction company from russia that will face us sanctions because of their work on the north string to pipeline that was pretty hypocritical about this is that there were no sanctions mentioned for the german companies who are doing work right now for the very same project, right? because the u. s. is trying to get along with germany, and they're still painting this as russia harming ukraine by essentially bypassing poland, the bypassing ukraine. not paying those transit fees, even though russia still says they will pay the transit fees and having

a direct pipeline to germany. so even though the u. s. a said, this is, you know, this project is 90 percent, some finished, and in fact, they say they know what's going to happen. and the back of the knowledge above germany and russia wanted, the u. s. continues to say we're going to punish the russians for doing it. it's a, it's a kind of a bizarre turn of events. and obviously ukraine keeps pushing for this to happen as well. it almost feels like a power play from the united states the way they keep injecting themselves into this discussion. obviously with the president, the liskey here from the ukraine. you know, obviously this was going to come up now. meanwhile, by the chairman of the board of natural gas, a of ukraine says that the launch brushes nordstrom to gas pipelines still can and should be blocked. are there any chance is that it might actually be blocked or are we just looking at economic car like sanctions going on in this? yeah, it's just going to be things that there's no way it's going to get blocked again. what can the united states do? the only way you can really block it with be to either declare war on russia or

germany or both. that's not going to happen. or you could demand that the germans don't do it in. germany's already made it clear they're going to do this. it's in their best interest in angela merkel. the chancellor in germany comes up and says, oh, well, you know, we're going to continue to make sure that russia doesn't use energy as a weapon. but the reality is they want this deal. and by the way, real quick on another thing that's not going to happen is this talk to you. crane is now pushing during their meetings today at the white house on wednesday at the white house and talking specifically about wanting to be in nato. and why are they not involved in nato yet? that's also not going to happen because the fact is, nato countries. one ukraine right now, because it's a red line with russia. so you're asking for an awful lot. they're getting military assistance, they're getting humanitarian assistance, but they're not going to get the north string to pipeline stopped and they're not going to get inclusion into nato. certainly not anytime soon. boom bus been swan. thank you so much for following the story today. they've got the binding ministration says it is officially done with nation building,

while the term is often used by politicians who are looking to garner public support. it typically refers to situations where the u. s. fuel of the country with billions of dollars in foreign aid and home. so fostering what they refer to as a free democratic society by supporting the leaders of their choice. according to the data compiled by the nonprofit organization, open the books, the u. s. spent nearly $300000000000.00 on foreign aid between 20132018, averaging out to nearly 60000000000 dollars each year. i've dana stan, top, the list in 2018, receiving nearly 6000000000, followed by israel. more than 3100000000 than jordan egypt, and iraq. while the u. s. has been unclear about its plans for funding enough dentist in the taliban is empower. it's commitment to overall for an aide remains the same. to put it into perspective, the for an aide allocated by the u. s. government in 2018, which was nearly $50000000000.00,

with more than the federal funding spent by $48.00 state governments coming in only behind california and new york. but president biden continues to say, it's not just about ending a war, it's about ending an era. this decision about gains to is not just about to spout and need an era of major military operations to re make other countries we saw mission of counterterrorism in canada. and getting a terrorist and stopping attacks, morph into a counter insurgency. joining us now to discuss it, professor richard wall, host of economic update, and author of the sickness is the system professor. it's great to have you back on the show today. now when we look at the sheer amount of money the us spend and for a name each year, is there any indication that the u. s. is really done with nation building or they

just done with an afghan, a fan? i think they're mostly done with afghanistan and that won't last very long either. the nation building is mostly b. s. it's mostly a veneer to cover over what has always been. and by now it's really amazing that anyone can seriously talk about it. it's always been helping your friends, hoping that your friends stay in power in whatever the country is you're giving money to look, the world has learned. if you want to build a nation and you want to do it in a sustainable democratic way, that has to be done by the people themselves. it cannot be imported or imposed. the united states simply can't do it. it's key is learn the lesson in vietnam. it's learning it in iraq. it has now been forced to learn it in afghanistan. i could go on. what you're doing here is give it throwing money at your friend's invitation

marks. so they stay friendly to you and hostile to your enemies. if they could develop their own country, they wouldn't need money from the united states. mostly getting money from the united states means they can't or don't want to do it. and you end up sustaining a small group of people in power to whom the money goes. and after that, no one can quite keep track of what happened. the story is repeated over and over again. you know, professor, well, if i just listen to the talk there, and frankly, all i'm thinking is in a contrary in mind here is, can we have just done away with 2 or 20 years of war and really just could take, gave the aid and we would have the same result in the anyway, i think we would have had a better result and i think we're going to be able to test our theory. yours in my, in the next few months, in years as the united states adjusts,

the war will be over. they will want to afghanistan to be less hostile that it might, the taliban will say, ok, maybe if you help us out this way, this way and there's way something like that can be worked out. i mean, common le harris went to vietnam a country that we were also at war with for a long time. and she's all friendly and they're friendly and we're giving them help . this is the way, this kind of thing goes. it's a tragedy for the country. it throws him back 3040 years, it kills unknowable numbers of people there. and i'm not even talking about the dead and wounded americans. and yes, your question is one of the urgent questions of our time. what are we doing in these repeated wars when we could get much better results? never turning to that option in the 1st place and not to dwell on this too much. but, you know, afghanistan remains one of the least developed countries with an average literacy

rate around 38 percent only 35 percent of the country has access to reliable electricity. so with all of that for day spent, again, the question really goes, we have nothing to show for this, correct? it's in almost the same position, maybe even worse. absolutely, it is worse. you've had 20 years of war, whatever under development, they suffered at the beginning. they haven't made progress since then, that was just more p r for thoroughly endless bombs and drones and all the rest of it. i mean, let me be stark because people have to understand this. for most of the last 40 years, foreign aid has been given to loads of countries that look like afghanistan. they've made some progress, not much. one of the big success stories of the world development, the biggest one is china, which never got a nickel of american aid because they, they were run by a communist party. but they were able to put together

a development program without american help. that is much more successful as everyone knows than most of the countries that got the help. and that should close the book on this mistaken notion of how you function in the world. when it almost seems like american aid becomes more of a curse than actually helping these countries to begin with. and if we take a minute to look at the sheer amount of money that has been spent, whether it's the budget for foreign aid or the trillions spent on the war on terrorism, as it is referred to, we see that the u. s. has spent the last 20 years throwing out funding without much oversight. why do you think there's been more of a push in congress specifically to reallocate some of that money to programs that would actually benefit the american people directly? well, i'm afraid that the, the answer to that question is one that will trouble people. we have a very powerful lobby that is interested in never ending wars. mister biden

knows it very well from all his years in the congress. and that's the enormous military industrial complex that president eisenhower warned us about. they stand to get the big contracts afghanistan, last, merican lost their lives. we didn't get what we went out there. we all know it, but there was somebody who did do real well. that was the people who provide the guns, the ships, the drones, the plains, the bombs and all the rest of it. and my fear is that they together have more muscle in our congress than all of the constituencies that would rather see the money used to develop this country before it is thrown into these hopeless counterproductive ventures abroad. you know, professor, well, you often tell me you said that perfectly, but you didn't go far enough. and i think that was the case. there is because they have the muscle of congress. now the u. s. is now putting afghanistan in

a similar category as nations like venezuela and iran, where is sanctioned, are based on the countries leadership. but we know that the sanctions really hurts civilian. so in the end, we're going to hurt the people whose country we went into. we bombed, we killed civilians anyway, so this is going to get worse as the sections ramp up. absolutely, and people don't understand, even though somewhere i think americans do. if you do what you just described, if the united states has war for 20 years, and now sanctions the country, the leaders, the people who have now taken over the taliban, they have an easy sell to their people. it's not they that are failing. it's the united states, as hostility, it's embargoes, its sanctions, it's doing everything to under cut them it's. it's happening everywhere in venezuela, in the iran. the leadership there turns around and uses these us hostility to

justify people not being angry at them for the mistakes. and the failures they have, but being angry instead that the foreigner, because the case is plausible enough that the united states is now making it harder than it did before. it's almost like the world is wagging a finger at the united states and saying, my goodness, you're a sore loser. on top of having done the war as badly as you did, and that's where the united states got itself into. to begin with, you would think that they would learn something after 20 long years. professor richard will thank you so much for your time and insight. thank you. so not for quick greg, but when we come back, could opec was soon be on the verge of changing plans for oil output straight ahead . we dive into the latest from the cartels virtual meeting that's going to break. here are the number, the me

ah, me and i make no, you know, borders and the blind number please. as emerge. we don't have a therapy. we go to the back seen. world needs to take action and be ready. not a job. people are judge governors crisis, we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenges wait for the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we need together in so

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy plantation, let it be an arms race is on often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, a very critical time. time to sit down and talk to the families that up with mark. sounds good. i took my punch in. you got a good way to check the number. do you want me, john? i got, i've got that really good. i wanted them off. you're gonna be

able to do the work for me about the about the news and the war drug started as a way to come back. a great problem. what's the one, it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just of north dakota, and it got to be something that you could get elected. this time, the fight against drugs took a check. he told us that andrew was a competent short form. this is way too dangerous for him to be doing. clearly they put him in harm's way. a rural college student does interest get shot in the head

and found in a river like something else had be happening the the welcome back, the organization of the petroleum exporting countries and allies, including russia, agreed on wednesday to move forward with the plan to gradually increase production in the coming month in july, opec plus members had agreed to boosting output 540-0000 barrels per day and monthly installment. the decision comes after the white house, so the cartels plan, the increase wasn't enough to keep up with rising gas prices in the united states. but opec delegate have maintained it is too early to release more supply to the market as many nations are still dealing with surges in cases of the delta variant of coven 19 on the news. the price of brent crude oil and west texas intermediate.

we're both down slightly regaining losses from earlier in the day. so what does opec's pluses latest policy meeting tell us. c about the state of the commodity. while the discuss, let's bring in the i and david mckelvey, the ceo of mckelvey financial group. david, let's start with you here. so what's the take away from wednesdays? meanings? did we really expect anything to change after it took the cartel a considerable amount of time to come to the latest agreement? ignoring us pressure to increase production did not surprise us. the white house was concerns with inflation and increased political costs, sort of accruing from that coming into the 2022 election while their real opec implicitly communicated. that's your concern, not ours. if you look at july credit data from china, we know that there, we knew that there would be a series of economic statistics emerge in august would support the notion of slowing economic activity in china. sure enough, those numbers are showing up,

export demand is falling, manufacturing slowing, same here in the u. s. we've got the u. s. purchasing managers and x is the p. m. eyes, which give us an indication of slowing economic activity on the horizons. we have both the service and manufacturing p. m eyes weaker than expected. still growing out the pace, but deceleration is here. so there is enough supply chain challenges. there's enough economic indicators, is enough, coven concerns globally. and some of those concerns extend to the supply chain issues to support opec's decision to stay on track with gradual increases, who's the right choice by opec. and it was based on non contentious economic data. and now chris, the u. s. shell output is expected to arrive to $8100000.00 barrels per day, starting this month, the highest outputs in april of 2020. while the us is a net export or we have heard the white house that we just talked about. call for further production from opec. what effect will this and shale boom have if you want to call it a boom?

obviously it's just coming back to where it was have on the oil markets. i mean, it means that consumers will finally have some relief with gas prices. oil settled down amount of one percent on tuesday, post fans 1st monthly last since march as apply increases. so the us, us plenty of shell, but i think the industry is going to be very cautious here. i do not over flood the market. it is in no produces interest to over produce and drive the price of their own product down. and opec makes some very good points about the overhang risks of coal, the dampening business and holiday travel for the remainder of the year. so i think the price will certainly come down a bit as the us ramp up to the production. but it's going to come down gradually because as much as the us can produce an export, it still pales in comparison to the buying the opec can do. and now david, iran is looking to further increase production with some estimates being close to up $1000000.00 barrels per day in the near future. much of this will be continued on sanctions the nation is facing. but if they were to get back to that nearly

$4000000.00 barrels per day, they were previously producing. how would fellow opec nations compensate and could they go beyond that? yeah, rinse production, is it 40 year lows, it's just under $2000000.00 barrels a day. and they could get to say 3000000 barrels a day by the end of 2022. if roadblocks will remove that is if sanctions were removed or if trying to further supported their exports. the problem there is that china needs to blend light crude with the heavier iranian crude. so you can have some, some issues there. but here's an interesting twist. if opec will not do the bidding of the white house and increase production around may separately work around opec and by the administration, you know, you've seen the cooperation with iran already. that that could be an interesting dynamic, one of the founding members of opec doing something that perhaps they're not supposed to do. it's possible that iran could get the obama deal of a lifetime from his v p current president. and what's interesting is we already

have nuclear material being refined at higher and higher grade, not yet at the 90 percent for weapons grade, but moving in that direction and not a lot of comment from the white house in that respect. it's not even clear that the u. s. cares just this week. we have north korean plutonium production. back on at one of the reactors in white house was kind of silent. so my guess is, and if i would have been a $1000.00, it would be the iranians and the sanctions that is reassessed and maybe eliminated by the end of the year. so 2022 could be an interesting year for opec. and for the oil markets, in this case, i think you could have some crude awakenings with lower prices. that is really interesting that the white house hasn't had much to say that's certainly not normal for them. now christie and other story here is the finance minister of iraq, a founding member of opec, wrote an opinion piece for the guardian calling on fellow oil producers to move

away from fossil fuel dependency and into renewable energy. now, calling on members to speak, an economic renewal, focus on environmentally on policies and technologies, saying things will have to fund to mentally change if the world wants to hit net 0 emissions by 2050. are we seeing a push towards renewables and do oil producers have any motivation to actually move away from big oil money? yeah, well this is certainly an interesting stance, especially coming from big oil. but you have to applaud his foresight because renewable energy is the future. and is so then these countries that are currently solar dependent on their oil exports must begin to plan ahead and start pivoting and investing in the future. so this would include things like solar power, nuclear reactors, etc, all which would reduce their dependency on fossil fuel exports. and then of course, big oil would prefer this not to happen and for the status quo to remain the same. but the global agenda and focus right now is turning toward sustainability. and if

other countries started to ban petrol power cars, then oil will not have any demand at all. and these big oil dependent countries would suddenly lose their biggest export products from lack of mand. so while they don't have any motivation to necessarily change and or to cut down on emissions and the for the sustainability and good for the planet, they are motivated to protect their own financial interests and diversifying adapt towards renewable energy. chris b, i and david mckelvey. thank you both for your time and analysis today. thank you. the and finally to a bizarre, a story that remains a mystery in more ways than one collector who goes by the name pranks, the claim to be the 1st ever to buy an s t from the infamous bank. see, for just $336000.00 worth of a theory, a while pranks the claims of purchase the picture after following only from the

street artist official website to the n f t marketplace opened, see the banks, the team was quick to say that's not possible, and they have yet to venture into the world of n, f t's, but it doesn't end there. the collector then said the money he spent was mysteriously return to him with no explanation. as a result, the number of counterfeit banks, the teeth have exploded online. and while the collector said he believes the official website was overtaken by hackers, the question now becomes, who is the real prank? if only all people who are scammed could get their money back, we're going to have to follow this story because we don't know what's going to happen. that's it for this time. i boom. but we'll see you next time. me

me the the the the, the, the the, the, the catrice drugs are essential for millions of patients or are they, they want that pill that they hope will take care of their problem thoroughly and rapidly in the short term they really work. the problem is in a long term, they're mostly disastrous. suddenly stopping

a drug can cause withdrawal symptoms more serious than the condition it was meant to treat instead of the beneficial effects of these different medicines ending up to something wonderful. very often they're harmful effects and up to something terrible. can pills so of all ills? or are we trying to mitigate life itself? i just think i was like i was just scared scare a little girl of 24. and like, i didn't have to be so complicated only one main thing is important or not as an internationally speaking to that is that nations are allowed to do anything, all the master races, and then you have the mind, nations who are the slaves. americans, rock, obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as

long as it serves the american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians enter this dangerous man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy. so them walk into a new one. i, english g i, b, i not leashed off in one in tablet, block nato's and it's our, we move east. the reason us hedge emily, it's dangerous. is it the lag? the sovereignty of other countries, the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if need disbanded, shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in larger companies would lose millions and millions or in business and businesses. good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is faster. sometimes

the simplest answer is the correct answer. and a lot of people ask, why are these tax tax so high? why is the stock market so high? and the simple answer is that it's a transfer payment. the federal government is transferring the paper money that they print into the pockets of the executives. it's as plain as the nose on your face and you can see it in the numbers. the british foreign secretary has quit by a piece of his question live across his sin. i've got to stop. while he was, we're actually going to beach when couple felt the thought about when did you for the holiday will be you for the holidays. so they didn't, they are what i made. what date would you go holiday please say i think.