the ah, me the, the me this is boom, but the one business show you can't afford to miss ambridge bar. and i'm rachel weapons in washington coming up. the fcc is continuing as pressure campaign against the crypto currency sector by threatening to point. we'll discuss the latest claims

in the ongoing crackdown plot, australia as high court says media companies are responsible for the comments made by the public on their post. we'll take a look at what the major ruling could mean for the future of social media. and in the wake of a coup in guinea that has upset aluminum market. could we soon see china turn to this out? later on? we're gonna take a look at the under how the unrest is affecting global supply chain. perfect. so today, click that right in the and we leave the program with regulators in the united states planning to file a lawsuit against one of the world's largest crypto currency exchange it the securities and exchange commission has notified coin base global that it will through the exchange if it moves forward with plans to users to earn interest

lending digital assets, the news was announced in a statement from coin basis chief legal officer who said the lender product would be delayed until at least october. while the fcc says it doesn't actually comment on quote, the existence or non existence of possible investigations. chairman gary gary gansler has previously characterized the crypto space as the wild west and said some of the products offered by trading platforms, bring them under fcc oversight. meanwhile, tuesday was a wild day for the world's most popular crypto currency, as el salvador became the 1st country to adopt bitcoin as legal, tender. now while there were issues with the roll out, big coins, price based, a wild swing, plunging from $50000.00 to just below $43000.00, but has regained some of those losses moving into wednesday. other popular tokens like a theory on an x r p, also followed a similar trends on all of that news. so for more on this, let's bring in boom by co host chris, the i and michelle snyder, who's

a partner of and director of trading research and education at market gauge dot com . christy. i want to start with you from what we know about the situation. why is the fcc taking issue with this plan from point a and beyond a delay? how are they responding? while apparently the fcc has said that some to show assets and platforms are operating ads, are offering security, which brings them under the scc oversight. now, previously they've characterized all points and securities until their team does not. when they see brian armstrong, now defeating the view that the lending product is the security under the purview of the he tween that on wednesday in $21.00 post. brad detailing the fcc feelings with the firm saying that there has been some really sketchy behavior coming out of the fcc. recently, armstrong, explain that point. they approached the earlier this year to them on the up and coming coin with len program that basically just offered

a 4 percent annual yield on the part of your dc. nothing too fancy. so i'm found that i think they responded by telling them that the lending program is security without any explanation. and so to launch, they've refused to tell us why they think it's a security. and instead the peanut a bunch of records from us, demanded testimony from our employees, and then tell us that they will be doing if we proceed to launch isn't 0 explanation as to why. now the point basis chief legal are also disagrees. the fcc question, the assertion that the lemming feature can be deemed as an investment contract or a note because customers wouldn't be investing in the program rather lending us the fee that they currently hold on point. so the only clarification that the firm has been provided so far is that the lending program is currently being under the how we have the how is security test. so according to the tweet, the fcc won't share the assessment of the test. so only the fact that they have

done it. now, michelle, i want to go back to gamblers, wild west characterization of the criptos space. we know those in the industry have pushed back against regulation. so does this really fall into the peer review of the scc and in your opinion, should they be regulating the different aspects of this business? well, just to jump a little bit on what kristi just said, because it is a very thorough answer that addresses that. essentially it does bring into the question, what is the security and what's unprecedented the ballot? this is that the fcc wants to control every aspect of the chris, both chris, the space, which they don't do in other places in terms of the banking regulation and the overall stock market. guess they deal with the securities but not everything that goes into the different companies. and that's an essence what they're trying to do . so what does that really have as an impact? well, 1st of all, it would be a long way coming. if that really does happen, but it turns the whole crypto space into not only something that's way more

political, which the whole idea of crypto current used to be a political. it's put on regulations to the point that will choke innovation, definitely disrupt the free market for traders. and it basically becomes a barrier to entry to the smaller companies that might want to try to get into the space. so in essence, his wild west comment really will change the whole nature of the business, because the whole idea is why west may be a wonderful little hyperbolic metaphor. but the truth of the matter is there for a reason. and it definitely definitely means that terms of the whole block chain technology, this innovation that we're seeing would get faithful. i hope that this doesn't actually come to pass. yeah, you definitely have some crypto users going, wait a 2nd. you're saying while the us like it's a bad thing because i mentioned, i know we've talked a lot about all salvatore and about the price swings amid the countries 1st day of

the coin adoption. so what exactly happened to create all of that price movement, and are we close to stabilizing full thing? it wasn't really even linked to our salvador. sure. it was a little bit of by the room or sell the news kind of thing with all photos adopting the point of making a legal for the 1st time. but in essence, it's really one thing about them in the 1st place. it was just another leverage to blow out a call on tuesday. they point crashed about $9000.00 due to this massive unwinding leverage trader who bought in on the news that was going to be officially launch bitcoin. and basically in a conflict domino effect positions unwound to create this cascade of liquidation and positive feedback loop, which severely impacted pricing. so even though open interest was just crazy, high spot margin borrowing was also peaking, which then also led up to the crash. so strong buying then been suggesting that

cold feet among the real big point homeless they were not involved in this event, according to a will map which is a program that tracks large, clicked a wallet, large volume investors, who are also new commercial markets. so these are investors freshly into the crypto said they were actually the vast majority of the high pressure. so also worth noting the job when sighted with a very sharp spike in the us dollars in next the x, y on tuesday as well. the x y benefit from the rising us treasury meals. i have the government debt sale this week, which includes about $15000000000.00 a 3 year. nope, 38000000000 and 10 year notes and $24000000000.30 here, bob. and now michelle, with all of the swing that did happen, and of course this news regarding the fcc and coin base. how are crypto and block chain related stocks reacting to this? or what so interesting is that you can really divide the space into stocks that

deal with the space like the mining stocks that have no actual coin exposure. and then of course, the companies like micro strategy that have direct cohen exposure. and what's interesting is that the mining companies, everything has come down, but they're actually holding up pretty well as a result of, in fact, actually probably offering a new buy opportunity because they were getting a little rich in terms of the companies like square and micro strategy they actually peaked in late in early august. i have come down since, so if you look at something like micro strategy is down $30.00 from the high $20.00 over the last couple of days. but it's coming into majors support here. so i would actually think that if we look in just as big coin as a sort of grandaddy coin, if we can stabilize around this $46000.00 level, some of these other coin based companies like a micro strategy and a square marathon is quite a few actually present a new and cheaper buy opportunity and if you look at coin itself, c l i n,

even with all the new that also has come down, but it's reaching a very critical support area around $250.00. so we have our eyes on it. we think this could be by africa, entity, boom bus, christy i. michel snyder of market gauge dot com. thank you both for breaking this all down for today. yes, thank you. the debate over who should be held liable for the comments posted on social media has taken unprecedented turn over in australia after the countries high court ruled it's the media companies themselves who are responsible for the comments from members of the public left on social media posts after they post a story or a report, now the move full force media companies to drastically increase the policing of comments made on their pages. but it also raises the question, could companies or even individual social media managers be sued for comments they didn't know existed? well, joining us now to discuss it and investigative journalist spends on now been,

can you break down this ruling for us? where did this case originate? yes, i did. as you mentioned, it originated in australia, a guy named dylan fowler, who apparently was a subject of several different news reports about youth detention. and so he had these different news reports that were run about him. and then commenters were commenting underneath the story as they do on social media, essentially saying things about him, which apparently were unflattering or unkind, which he believes were defaming him. and so he suit. but what's fascinating about this is essentially the court has looked at it and said yes, that the companies, the media companies like the, you know, the sydney morning herald, are able to be held liable for comments that users make on those particular facebook pages. even though that company doesn't own facebook, right. rupert murdoch doesn't on facebook, yields the sydney morning herald. and yet he is responsible,

according to the court, for whatever people write on facebook. facebook is not responsible, but the media companies who created the page are well, and it's very interesting this entire story because when you look at the landscape of social media and how it relates to traditional media, where they're trying to get more content out there, they rely on those comments because the comments push the algorithm that push it out to further more further, more people. so this could become a huge problem because a lot of companies, especially in the media have transition to be so social media heavy. now, why does the court believe that media companies are responsible for comments left on these stories? what they're saying is that essentially the companies themselves have become publishers, which is a fascinating kind of take on it. because if you think about there's this, that's been ahead in the united states or whether or not social media platforms themselves are publishers or are they platforms, right? that's the argument that's here. well, and i'll show you what they're saying is that the publisher becomes anyone who creates a page. you're making an interesting point here. brent,

which is that if it's a media company that puts up a facebook page and you allow comments on that page and you're right. it drives the algorithm because the more engagement, the more likes, the more common, the more shares you get on a social media post, the better it does. so you want that kind of interaction. if you're now legally responsible for that, that's a huge problem. how do you move forward as a company? but it also raises another question. am i as an individual, when i create a facebook page, now, a publisher of that page and now liable for anything that anyone else says on that page? yeah, it seems like there's really so much gray area there when you take into account what comments are being made? of course, what's allowed, what's not allowed. like in that case, you said the guy was just, he didn't like the comments that were being made about him. so to be clear here, under this ruling, the media companies are the publishers of the comments left by facebook users. so how will that impact media companies posting on social media overall?

well, once that will do is it will roll be move into a phase where you're not allowed to comment on storage. and that's already happening by the way, that when this original case came forward, facebook did not yet have the ability for you to disable comments that has changed . and since then, so these companies are already doing that. they're going to turn off all of their comments. you won't be able to comment on their, on their pages, but it does leave again, a bigger question. if, if facebook is not the publisher, and yet these entities are publishers. here's a question for you. you have facebook employing fact checkers all over their, their platform are those fact checkers when they say something about a piece of content or a person, are they now guilty of defamation if they've done that, and if they, whether rightfully or wrongfully done. so that raises another question as well. it really is going to come down to whether or not the platforms themselves are protected or is everyone who uses the platform now available to be sued for defamation. because if it is, i can see

a lot of people stepping away from facebook altogether and, but i only have a short, quick time here for this answer. but the question, i have a new all of this that you're raising here, especially when we talk about rupert murdoch company through the divisive figure politically. what if people just don't like the content of the city morning harold, and they want to go and write defaming comments on their if they're not held responsible and then they might hold the, the publisher responsible? yeah, absolutely. i mean, why wouldn't you do that? is that sounds like a great strategy if you don't like a company, you would go out there and do this because again, you as the user, this was incredible. the person who posted the comment has not being sued. that the platform that hosted the comment is not being sued. the publisher who wrote a story and put it on a page and other people commented on it. and even if you didn't even know the comment was there, you're still liable for it. so yeah, it creates a really messy area. i'm not sure how i'll show your plans to move forward with this. but i guess the bigger question here guys is, does this get adopted in other countries as well to be interesting to see about app?

yeah, definitely be interesting to see where this one goes and if the united states picks up a note or 2 from their new really boom bus 11. thank you for your insight on this one . think that i'm not for a quick break, but when we come back, the unrest in guinea continued to rattle aluminum market, the china against the other options to fuel consumption. we break it all down on the other side. that's a good break here. the number, the quote me ah, me, the news

the way the u. s. government funded is through the issue of treasury bond and they pay the interest on those bonds by collecting taxes. who owns most of those bonds? virtually all those bonds, the top 110th of one percent. so the government simply becomes a pastor mechanism for people to pay money from their pockets through something called taxes that are just a thickly that hides the transgression mechanism of your money through the government into those who own these bond. september the 11th 2001 day that reshape the modern world. i remember watching the world trade center burn on a tv at the cia and i was standing there like this just looking at it. and

a colleague of mine was standing next to me and he said, my god, do they have any idea what they've done? we're going to kill everybody. now. everybody, the, the live apocalyptic tv image is provoked the us into declaring its war on terror. they've begun to bomb up can villages and holmes and get people hurt and, and killed the main goal of destroying terrorism and then was it achieved? yes and no. okay. to essentially no longer exists good for us. but there are certainly other terrorist groups that are worse than i'll join me every 1st day on the alex summon, show and i'll be speaking to guests in the world, the politic sport business and show business. i'll see you then

me the welcome back. military leaders in the west african nation of guinea are calling for mining companies to keep operating following a qu, that's and aluminum prices skyrocketing the immediate closure of all borders sparked beers that it could have a massive impact on the countries wealth of natural resources at a time when the world is already facing a supply shortage. but leaders of the newly formed national committee for re orientation and development are sharing the public that it has plans to create a unity government, placing civilians in power with guinea as one of the world's top box site producers . the military is assuring it will remain open for export and that a curfew in mining areas has been lifted to ensure that production will continue.

so joining us now to discuss later, professor richard wal posted economic update and author of the sickness is the system professor. it's great to have you back on the show today, and it appears that the market was reacting to the threat of aluminum production being impacted before it was seriously impacted. does this kind of disruption show what could happen if local tensions have an effect on global supply? absolutely, this is a warning. you know, we are living through a time of enormous economic stress. food prices, for example, have risen over 20 percent in many parts of africa. these are societies that cannot cope with that kind of a rise in the price of basic foods. the tensions of a shift here in our own country, but also around the world. so that these are happening, this is not the 1st one this year in africa,

and i doubt it will be the last it disrupt supply chains. it sends terror in the minds and hearts of the people who depend on, in this case, the box idea aluminum producers around the world. you never know in each case how serious it is, how long it will last, how deep the civil war might become around this. but let's assume it can be managed the way the new leaders want to. it is still a warning. it is still a situation where there will be disruptions, even if it's only for a few days. there will be price effects. there will be decisions taken in china and elsewhere to adjust to all of this. and if you multiply it by the $75.00 to $100.00 countries that are more or less in this situation than you are being introduced to a level of economic turmoil in the world economy. that is going to be settling in

and be with us for quite a while. and professor wolf, it's estimated that china has invested over a $100000000000.00 in africa and recent years with guinea actually receiving a significant significant amount in exchange for box like concessions. does that recent qu illustrate the dangers associated with those types of investments from a country like china? absolutely, you can be sure that in de j, as we are speaking, they are out alternative sources. they are trying to figure out how long they disruptions here may last. they are. they are learning the lesson that i'm urging everyone to, to take from this. we live in a very d stabilize economic system. one part of that that used to run the world, the united states is and i have to say this in decline. another, the name of another giant china is rising. all of this is shifting loyalties,

political and economic. and you're going to see this kind of turmoil explode like the, the weakest link in the global chain of the world economy. now speaking and looking for those alternative sources, we know that it has plenty of its own resources, but china still relies on guinea for nearly half of its box supply, which is used for aluminum. and there's talk that if supply is disrupted, it could force china to been turned australia and we know that there are also some political disputes and tension between those 2 countries. so is australia likely to agree in order to fill in really about global gap? i think you're going to see that they may not be public about it because you have a fairly right wing government in australia that has carved out a very strong anti chinese position. and they probably don't want to be seen going back on it. but they have to, because they need china more than china needs them. and here is an opportunity.

they can get the chinese to reopen, for example, their market for australian wine. if the australians make available the box i, they may need to replace what came from, from dna and on the basis of those kinds of deals, which will be made quietly, just like the united states is currently making all kinds of quiet deals with china as well. i think that's what you're going to see. and then at some later point, it will be revealed what has been going on. and i want to go back to what we were just talking about there, with the destabilization in the region. and you know, we know that, like, as we just discussed, that china has made a heavy investment in the region that multi nationals are running a lot of the mines that, that are in guinea. the question becomes, what the region be as the stabilize, if it wasn't all of these outside influences, taking those those resources out. you know, it's a wonderful question,

but it's one of those great questions for which i had no idea how to give you an answer for that. it's one of these counterfactual. so good question to ask because it sends you in the direction of realizing that these are very distorted economies in getting a for example, as in most african countries, 2 or 3 products are everything for the economy. something goes wrong at any one of them. and the whole economy is plunged into a disaster. it's a kind of truism or the nomics that you don't want to put all your b cannot make eggs in one basket. you want to have diversity. you want to have something to offset a downturn here with an up turn there. these countries do not have that luxury. and part of the reason is the power of the wealth that those big corporations can take out and then distribute enough money among the local politicians to keep their

franchise going. and that, of course, is a recipe for the kind of periodic explosion that has shown us in the last few days . and we know it's certainly one of those cases where we've got the united states, the us, china, and russia all actually agreeing on something for once. so hopefully they can get everything together and it won't affect the global supply too much. professor richard will thank you so much for your time and insight. thank you. and finally, a bank. the painting that was destroyed, i guess you could say, as it was auctioned off 3 years ago with back up for sale. you remembered the now viral moment from 2018 when the mysterious artist girl with a balloon was sold for $1400000.00 and immediately shredded its freight. the piece now actually titled with the change love is in the been, will hit the block again at the b london on the 14th of october. and get this. the work is now expected to fetch as much as 6 times what it went for back in 2018,

with expectations of selling for between $5.00 and $8000000.00. the original sale of $1400000.00 was a record price for a bank. the at the time, but demand has risen quite a bit since then a bank, the honoring the british health care service set a new record of $20000000.00 earlier this year. okay, so the question now becomes you pay a $1000000.00 for this picture. do you then shred the rest of it, or do you have to hope that maybe it'll go off again and maybe it'll shred the rest of it? i never even thought of that, rachel, it could possibly happen. i'm just waiting to find out what's happening with frank . see, i mean, we're still waiting for that up there to fit for the boom, but on demand on the portable tv app available on smartphones and tablets, the legal play and the apple app store by searching portable tv where double tv can also be downloaded on samsung smart tv and roku devices or simply check it out at portable doc tv. we'll see you next time me

it's an open secret that private military companies have been playing a role in om complex worldwide. u. s. government doesn't track the number of contractors that uses in places iraq or afghanistan united states army and the military in general is so reliance on a private sector. i would call the dependency, but we don't know who's the on the ground presence of these companies overseas. we just don't know the western private military companies can in their turn, use so called sub contractors from countries with trouble past the kansas quite good. that had also been soldiers. i was i drove professional drug is working

with linda and maloney ship terrain to be merciless killing machine. now they fight and die in other people's was people carol, lot one or a dead soldier or dead marine shows up in this country and we started asking ourselves, why did they die? why do? what were they fighting for? nobody bothers down to about the contractors. the in the war on drugs started as a way to come back, a great problem. what's the one 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 tragic, told us that andrew was competing insurance 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 that something else had to be happening. the headline story today ahead of the 911 anniversary rti commemorates the ensuring impact of the us led war on terror. today we'll be hearing from a british army veteran, devastating tool of the 20 year gun company. we talked to many people for a situation which we just gave up. also i had the taliban unveils as new government for afghan us them including at her risk on the f. b i most wanted but washington's left with no option but to cooperate with the thing coming leadership.