imagine for a 2nd, we'll switch to green energy and stop reducing c o 2 in the atmosphere. all the factory is a close and you think this will suddenly, i don't know why it's coming up next. well, don't be fooled by his adorable look. a polar bear, we'll go after anything that's moving. if it's there time, it's midnight. but look how bright it is. it looks to me. we are on top of the old coming together and go it. it came more from konstantin to morrow. if we can store him out in time, the finance behind the big stories next though with boom bus stop, which i'll have your next update from auntie and moscow. see that the

join me every thursday on the alex simon show. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics, sport, business and show business. i'll see you then. me sometimes a 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 tech executives. it's as plain as the nose on your face, and you can see it in the numbers. this is boom bus one business show you can't afford a men branch bar. and i'm rachel blevins in washington coming up. the president of ukraine is at the white house for a special meeting with president by then we'll take

a look. 6 at why the u. s. is pledging an extra $16000000.00 and military aid and what it means for tensions in the region, plus fight in the u. s. is done with nation building. we'll discuss whether that's really the case and how much washington is still handing out in foreign aid each year. and opec plus members met wednesday to discuss the future of oil output as the delta various ways our demand will bring you up to speed on the latest developments from the car itself. got a lot to get to. let's go with the highly criticized exit from app ganeth and 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? joyce is been swan 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 go. 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 with a military equipment and again, a stand 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 tech missiles, small arms and ammunition,

so that's the military part of it. you also have $45000000.00 of humanitarian assistance for ukraine's who were impacted by what they called the separatist guerilla 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 class. 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 and vacuum state department spokesperson did this during a news conference on friday about afghan, a stand. so why is the binding ministration? re focusing 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 that 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, by housing, ukraine, not paying those transit fees even though russia still so 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 the fact that they say they know what's going to happen. and the fact that the knowledge above germany and russia wanted the u. s. continues to say we're going to punish the russians for doing this. 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 the discussion. obviously with the president, the lives key 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 chances that it might actually be blocked or are we just looking at economic cars like sanctions going on in this? yeah, it's just going to be things. 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 would 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 and 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 that ukraine 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 factors, nato countries don't want 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. thank 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 is a 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. afghan stan top the list and 20 teen receiving nearly 6000000000 followed by israel. more than 3100000000 than jordan egypt. and iraq, while the us has been unclear about its plans for funding and the dentist and the taliban is empower, it's commitment to overall foreign aid remains the same. to put it into perspective before 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 against is, is not just about to spout and need an era of major military operations to re make other countries we saw mission of counterterrorism, and i can stand getting a terrorist and stopping attacks, morph into a counter insurgency. joining us now to discuss it, professor richard wolf, 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 an aid 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 friends and go taishan 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 results and i think we're going to be able to test to 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 afghan and stand to be less hostile that it might, the taliban will say, ok, maybe if you help us out this way,

this way and this 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 the 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're 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 that 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 isn't 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 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 contract 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. and 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 the sanction are based on the countries leadership. but we know that the sex

is really hurt 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 wrap 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, it 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 and they have but being angry instead at 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 now for a quick break, but when we come back, could opec plus soon be on the verge of changing plan for oil output? had we dive into the lady from the cartels virtual meeting? let's get a break here. the number to quote me ah,

driven by adrian shaped banks control. those in me dares thing. we dare to ask me. i can't rec, 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,

any up to something wonderful, very often they're harmful effects and up to something terrible can bill. so all ills are, are trying to mitigate life itself. i just think i was like, i was just scared. i was just here a little girl, the 24. and like, didn't have to be so complicated the welcome back, the organization of the petroleum export in countries and allies, including russia, agreed on wednesday to move forward with this plan to gradually increase production in the coming month and july. opec plus members had agreed to boosting out put by $400000.00 barrels per day and monthly installment. the decision comes after the white house said 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 macro vini theo, of macaroni 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, which support the notion slowing. he can amik activity in china. sure enough, those numbers are showing up, export demand is falling, manufacturing slowing. same here in the us. 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's 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. now while the u. s. is a net export, or we have heard the white house as 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 dance 1st monthly loss in march as apply increases. so the us has plenty of shell, but i think the in this is going to be very cautious here as to not over fled 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 risk 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 says 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 vine, 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 the nearly 4000000 barrels per day, they were previously producing. how would fellow opec nations compensate and could they go beyond that? yeah, or inspection, is it 40 year loads? 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 the byte 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. that 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 a 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 cares just this week we have north korean plutonium production. back on at one of the reactors. again, white house was kind of silent, so my guess is, and if i were to bet a $1000.00, it would be that 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 and 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 technology, saying things will have to fund a 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 stands, 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 sold 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 petro 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 or to cut down on a mid 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 in 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 and see from the infamous bank. see, for just $336000.00 worth of a theory, a while pranks the claims of purchased the picture after following only from the street artist official website to be enough to market place open, 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 n a t 's 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 the time. i boom, but we'll see you next time. me

me long long. when i would show the wrong, when all just don't the rules. yes, to fill out the thing because the attitude and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground.

only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking to that is a nation's allowed to do anything. all the master races, and then you have the mind, nations who are the slave. the american, this 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 into this dangerous man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy. so some of it on your own. i english v i v. i not leashed off in one tablet, block nato. it's our we move eastern, the reason us head jimmy. it's a dangerous is the last, the sovereignty of all the countries,

the exceptionalism that america uses. and it's international. war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is founded, shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large companies would lose millions and millions or is business and businesses good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fascist. begging to go through. because what i've seen and witness in background was so destructive to this day, i haven't gone to sleep. the 1st of all in depth investigation into the victims of america's brutal war on terror. up with a line drawn by the us pull out from afghanistan, former guantanamo detainees, about some bag share, the horrors he endured. they had a son or a woman in the, in the next room, the.