violates is u u k trade agreements and why the international law. busy and a we had from e, e e. e, keeps former spokesperson for ship fisheries. mike, who can and mark della hay, who's the head of normand? is common committee on fisheries. and they offered that opposing. he's on the issue a legit sir president. let's say that's got an election coming up on the horizon and it is trying to be yeah, the bit of the statesman there and bit of a bully boy. i would can say that marin lot plan is doing very well. and along that no french cost and he's not going, he's desperate to get those bought back again. we have to be very, very strong, were never ever while down to a bullying we shouldn't, don't. now we shouldn't allow this month's polio on to the, the french to bowler this country. we need to get control of all war to which way with promise in the brakes. it were promised come, john, my waters. i don't believe we've got that yet on at all. so we've been waiting to get access to those waters for more than 11 months. now it's time to do something

about it now through were aware of what the other party is trying to project. everyone is trying to flex their muscles won't, but i don't think it will end in a naval battle between the french and british. this is not so much of an economic issue as a symbolic one. the way we resolve this problem will determine how breaks it is settled in other sectors of the economy. and that has been used this out, johnny, for going around 30 minutes coming up next. huntington, national, it's been past ah, if we keep a mixing fossil fuels in the way that we're currently doing it, by the end of this century, 2100 unethical carbon dioxide didn't happen to be a 1000 parts per 1000000. we wouldn't have seen that level of carbon dioxide to $55.00. and in years when that last happened, there was no washing up on it. and as you said, and talked to,

can have plum trees living on it. so the consequences will be a sea level glue body of about 60 maces higher than it is today. with this is boom, bought the one, be the show you care at the board to miss on brand new board. and i'm rachel lemons in washington coming up. economic growth in the us close to with the lowest rate hand amick began spending decrease while inflation skyrocketed. we'll take a look at the latest data and what it means for the ongoing recovery. while president biden's infrastructure package bases an uncertain future. so does the

proposed tax on the pro wealthy will take on the question of whether american billionaire should be passed on money they haven't even earned yet. and crypto currency regulations remain in flux as the butting factor is based on scrutiny for its role in criminal activity. once again, the future of ben tech is drastic on regulation. we'll discuss back to today, look that right in and we lead the program with a flow down in growth for the world's largest economy. the u. s. economic recovery is happening at a slower pace than most analysts had expected. in fact, the u. s. economy grew at a 2 percent rate in the 3rd quarter. it's the lowest gain of the pandemic era recovery. now it's the slowest g d p gains and see more than 31 percent plunge. in the 2nd quarter of 2020, which encompass a period during which coven 19 morphed into a global pandemic, resulting and a severe economic shut down the 10s of millions to the unemployment lines and for

the choke hold on activity across the country. meanwhile, inflation is also hitting the european economy in a serious way. so to go further in depth on this was done swan and octavio mer and the ceo of openness. i'll see, octavia, let's start with you. now. many economists had expected at least 2.8 percent g d p growth. is there anyone factor holding back growth, or are there multiple factors at play here? well, i think you who basically attributed to 3 different factors. one is the ongoing supply chain problems that the u. s. is facing with things cramped up in the portrait, los angeles and goods from the rest of the world, simply not coming through particular chinese goods. those tend to come through the west coast. so that's a big break on growth. the other thing is, course in that time frame in q 3 resort resurgence corona cases throughout the us. so that was sort of, todd's a trend by the deaths remain to luckily quite low in comparison. but at the number of criminal cases went up again during that time and i was coming back down

a bit again. and i guess also you have sort of the positive impact. so stimulus checks and basically government initiatives being wound down. and that gets counterpart g d p as well. so i think those 3 factors that we've, the ones are held back, growth is quarter. and now, but we've heard from the, by an administration that supply chain issues are the result of so many people buying goods in this economy. really kind of saying the economies just to good. but these numbers contradict that. they, they really do contradict that. it's actually completely untrue, but just to give you kind of breakdown here about 10 percent of the goods being purchased. we're, that's how much we decline by during this time, which means it's not an issue of so many people are buying goods. there isn't room enough for all of them to get delivered. the problem actually is that there's less spending on short term goods, but also long term goods buying things like appliances and automobiles that was down about 25 percent. so these are significant drops. now services were up about 7

percent, but that's still down from the 2nd quarter. and this idea, this spin that's out there, that hey, the reason that this is all happening is because everyone's doing so well. the economy is recovering to well, it's not even as i don't think you're going to spend, it's just an untruth. it's a lie. and i think most people see it through that because it's the reality of their lives. they know that in their life, things are not better than they were. i mean, i guess, i guess if you want to call it, it's been, i could see how they're basically saying, yes, people are trying to buy things that they couldn't buy. and so essentially they didn't buy them, but you know, like you said, i mean, that's a spitting the fact when we have a major supply chain issue going on right now here in the country. i want to kind of take a transition here because the european central bank president christine the guard on thursday tried to play down the chances of a rate hike for 2022, hinting that market players might be getting ahead of themselves with their prediction is the e c b under playing the realities of inflation right now. well i must say every

time i listen to christine, la, god, i come away very, very confused. i have to admit, i don't intend to feel intelligent enough to follow her. and the things that she says in back in september when inflation hit about 3.4 percent in europe used to be came out and said, we're going to curtail up on purchases. now we're not going to, we're going to slow that down. now she made it clear to the world that was not a tapering, but that was a re calibration. and so we should take heat that she wasn't saying we're, we're not stay in the course at now. she's come out and said that the models of the c b really strongly suggest that you can face is going to come down well below the 2 percent target. so we shouldn't worry. so i think the c b is a bit behind the fed. the fed had said few months ago, the inflation was transitory. now they change the tune saying it's going to go into next year in the middle of next year. sometime the e. c. b is a few months behind that they're still saying this is transit. we don't worry about, we'll say inflation going to come way down. i expect by the end of the year, the c b to, to be admitting that inflation to stay around for quite some time to come. and so i

think, yes, that definitely play inflation at the stage a, b, c, b, but quite deliberately. so they're trying to talk it down. well, i wouldn't say i tabio, i know we've had you on talking about inflation pretty much throughout the world over the last several months. maybe even 2 a year. and i, it feels like it's the same kind of sentiment every time we hear this from a lot of different analysts, do any of the central banks really know how transitory this inflation is at this point? well, they all the central banks have supposedly these great models and full cost of capabilities, but i do wish they'd share these models with us if we could have a close look at them and sort of kick the ties of it and understand what a desert modeling forecasting for some reason they don't want to do that. they won't necessarily see under the hood and see exactly what's going on. so i think they're basically more political than anything else. they know that created an animal. now that's going to take off. there's gonna be difficult control because they pumped so much money as the economy. so i think that just in the, in the person now trying to talk it down. i, i don't really believe their forecasts all. they've been pretty much wrong for some

time to come. right. and i know that now they've continued to say, hey, inflation is transitory, both in europe and here in the united states. but the average american is watching prices go up all around. and so it's kind of that continued charade of americans going on. wait a 2nd, you're saying is transitory. but what exactly does that mean? because we're not saying not. and then on that point in its latest business sentiment survey, the munich based ipo institutes, and on monday that every, every 2nd industrial firm in germany is already planning to high prices due to persistence, apply problems. how bad is this for the german economy? and is this what we're likely to see more of with a number of companies kind of putting those increased gains off on the consumer? yeah, i think we will see more of it. and i think, you know, to the point that i was making, i think it's an important point, right? and this goes back to the spin issue that, that folks who are in positions of authority, whether it's at the e, c, b, or the federal reserve. they're making statements right, to try to quell the fears of people to say, well, we're going to talk it down

a little bit. we'll make you feel better. but the problem is, is that they are also disenfranchising people who listen to them today and are told one thing and those things turn out to be wrong prediction. so in the case of what's happening in europe right now, i mean that these, these german companies are saying they're going to continue to raise prices are for consumers, because we're looking at an inflation rate about 4.6 percent. but it was $4.00 just a month ago was actually accelerating. and i think that in the, the thing that's important about this, by the way, is it's the highest, it's been since 1997. so these are extremely high numbers in terms of, of what's happening with inflation. but it's also disenfranchising to people who listen to someone who's in a position of authority, who says, don't worry, there's nothing to worry about because it's not as bad as you think. it is, then it turns out it's actually worse than you thought it was. and then they come back again to say ok, but trust us this time. at some point you lose the confidence in the trust of the people you're supposed to represent. when you continually tell them that something is not happening, that is clearly happening, right. and when you lose that confidence and it can lead to massive ramifications

that many of those that officials likely don't even realize them. thus, benson and octavia mirandi of open this, i'll see. thank you both for your time minutes. i and in an effort to fund president biden's to trillion dollar spending package, senate democrats proposed to change to the way the assets of the nation's billionaires, our tax, the chairman of the senate finance committee, senator ron wyden, introduce legislation on wednesday, were $1000000.00 an annual income for 3 state street years, pay taxes on capital gains which have not yet been cashed out for background. here investors generally pay taxes on capital gains only when the assets in question are sold. capital gains, taxes can generally be deferred, allowing the owner to earn returns on the on tax fund. it also allows them to borrow against those assets to bolster their business or whatever they might need to do before too many americans get to concerned about this new plan. these so called billionaires tax would only affect around $700.00 people in the country.

while the proposal says it would raise hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. the massive spending bill along with the associated taxes, has already faith blow back from some moderate democrats, although there is news that it is moving forward. joining if that disgust is warmer, us representative alan grayson and jeffery tucker, president of the brownstone. it's too great to have both of you all today. congress are great that i want to start with you and i want to start with the billionaires tax. it sounds like a good idea when you consider something like 11 months besides net worth grow by more than 30000000000 dollars in just one day earlier this week. but when much of these assets of billionaires are tied up to the stock market, which is based on speculation, are you really taxing folks money that they haven't truly earned yet? what's your thought? oh it's, it's silly to think of it that way. listen, investors are the only ones who get the side when they pay their taxes. think about it that way. if you're some porch, mo, actually work in every day, trying to make

a living. you pay your taxes the minute you have to pay your tax, you're liable for your taxes. the minute that they hit your bank account. if you're self employed, you have to pay them every 3 months. investors never have to pay them. in fact, many investors die without ever having to pay them and then they are a group, their children, their grandchildren, other members, their family, get that wealth without any taxation of stepped up basis. so the system is broken. and the real question is, why did we ever allow this, either the money that these billionaires have is for all practical purposes, their money? yes, it's possible to start back and go down. but those billionaires are making sure that doesn't happen by a trillion dollars each year in stock buybacks. a trillion dollars is removed from the u. s. economy every year to buy rectangular piece of paper called stocks in lieu of actually demand any goods and services that might employ people. so the system is, is rigged in favor of the stock market going up. and it's about time that we tax it

like we tax you and me, donald trump paid less and taxes that famous sooner $50.00 than anybody in the u. s . who makes $15000.00 a year. the system is badly broken and we have to fix it. well, especially when you're talking about those 700 selected millionaires, i mean they're in that club for a reason because they have figured out what the average american wasn't able to figure out. now. and jeffrey, of course, who will surely hear a big push back from the sort of anti tax crowd. but why vote of that bridge is $700.00 hyper rich americans was the logic there. it's, it's months pencil. i mean, is it, as far as i can tell, and i did some research on this today, this, this proposals without precedent. we're really talking about attacks on, on valuation of the assets that are being held there. they're not even income being earned, but rather just the market valuation of existing property, which is banana republic, style, taxation. and once you, once you do that,

that could be just about billionaires. the good about about everybody, everybody. but it shouldn't even be about billionaires. i mean, and in these portfolios the, the value goes up and it goes down, it goes up and it goes down to the iris coin to compensate, give back the money that, that they pay in taxes. if the stock goes down, we know that these talks can be, can be wild. i mean that you can have, you earned a tremendous mouth at the in december and have it all fall apart in january. and you're talking about imposing this tax liabilities and people on money that haven't even taken. it's just just just a pure valuation. so like, like i say, this is not really the way we've ever done taxation in this country. basically ever . and some people are speculating that wouldn't even survive a constitutional test. i like it's not even consistent with the 16th amendment. so i don't, i don't understand where this comes from. what i do not understand where it's coming from, where you've got a gang of lawmakers right now just desperately looking for money wherever they can find it, to devour it,

to fund their preposterous increases. and that's to say they fueled over the last year. so we've, we really do have a kind of predatory state on the loose right now, and it's going to cause a capital flight and confuse ceos and, and make a mass of, of market valuations. very dangerous proposal. and actually i don't, i think we've done a lot of crazy things or the last 20 months. i don't sit risk and say it's, i don't think, i don't think it's gonna pass for congressman grace. and i want to give you a chance to respond to that. i mean, for someone like you on mass where his value just skyrockets on a certain day, it may fall significantly 2 months later. so how does that work out for those unit is billionaires whose valuations do change as they go along? look, let's look at reality. let's not look at banana republic type arguments. hypothesizing . what might or might not happen? the reality is that there's these 7 are people have 2 and a half trillion dollars of wealth and income because they can spend that any time

they want. they can borrow against at any moment that they want. they have this wealth, they have this income and it has not been taxed a penny. how could we possibly justify that? if you wash dishes in a restaurant, you get tax the income, the moment it hits your bank account or the moment you're issued a check. but if you're e on must, you may never get taxed on that income. how was that morally justifiable? it's a ridiculous system. i, jeffrey, i'll give you a chance to respond. i thought income it's, it's, it's, it's a valuation at which is very strange. it, it implies that somehow we're, we're merely renting the valuations of the things better than that for which we bear to some responsibility and we're renting them from the government and they can change the rents at any time. this is very dangerous for the whole idea of, of, of, of entrepreneurship and an investment. and like i say, it's a, it really is without precedent, this is not

a tax on income. mm hm. take it as income it gets taxed. this is a tax on valuation of assets, of which he bear some responsibility that you not actually calling to to become liquid assets. so like i said, this is, this is, this is, i'm sorry to say it, but it's, it's just, it's inconsistent with anything we've ever thought about in terms of property ownership and, and, and, and entrepreneurship and, and freedom in enterprise. it's a radical proposal. and congress are great, i will give you the final word. i have 30 seconds left, but i want you to push back at that last thing because i know you got a stock ready to go answer on the this will stop in. listen, the fundamental purpose of taxation is to tax people can afford to pay the will on bus, can pay nothing. he doesn't have to pay anything. where's the goober driver has to pay $10152030000.00 a year to the government. it doesn't make any sense. it's morally wrong. barber representative alan grayson and jeffrey tucker. thank you so much. we really appreciate you and we knew we would have

a good discussion on this. thank you so much. take care and time now for a quick break, only come back a global money wandering regulator is making a new push for crypto regulations worldwide. so what kind of mean for the future of decentralized finance? we'll discuss and as we get a break here, the numbers at the club with mm. we're empowering ourselves to be more efficient or quicker with our transactions. we can make mobile payments from our sons. the truth is that every device is a potential entry point for security attack mitigation. i think a lot of them change because of the deal,

but only eventually there's malware that thousands, maybe sometimes millions each day. they use the cyber, they use the technology, it's an extension of traditional artificial intelligence has not many main threat. this is due to the 3 laws of robotics. one of the things that is happening at the many cyber implants right now, i'd be where you're really worried about it. most people would equally b, you calling for a chip in my brain. so there has been a lot of progress from the hacker site using ai and using other advanced technology . there has been on the defensive side. mm. the welcome back. and the global regulator formed by the g 7 to target money laundering has a new set of guidelines for the crypto industry. the financial action task force

renewed calls for more regulations on crypto firms that would force them to identify customers and report suspicious activity. even though it would be up to the individual countries to adapt to suggested policies, the group has more than a 3 dozen members, which includes the us, china, and the european commission. now in addition to calling for strict regulations on stable coins and platforms that allow peer to peer transaction, the s a t s new guidelines specifically target de centralized finance. they are pushing for the platforms which allow crypto lending and training to be classified as virtual asset service providers and to be subject to additional regulations as a result. however, crypto advocates argue that even though this version of regulations is slightly better than the last go around, it is still incredibly vague and leaves plenty of room for corruption. joining us now to discuss the host, christy i now christy, there are some saying that the latest guidelines are a little bit better because they aren't quite as broad as the version that was

released 6 months ago. so what all has changed and more importantly, would have stayed the same. i mean, it's slightly marginally better, but not much at all. really, the only difference is that early in the year to find also crypto miners validators and even software developers as brokers. and also require them to report information to the iras about these anonymous block chain participants. that they would have absolutely no way of obtaining information about so it's literally the equivalent of the iris going. here's your assignment. it's going to be completely and, well, i don't know how you would go about doing this, but you have to use your own capital to enforce it and make your customers comply one way or another. otherwise, you'll be the one at fault and getting punished. kind of similar to the rhetoric we're hearing now about businesses being forced to do a math mandate. but that's a different story. but now they're actually defining the term so that it doesn't really include minors. and it seems like the main target is, defy,

or decentralized platforms that provide services such as exchange lending or stake it. and this is where it gets really complicated because the entire point of defy and the centralization is that there is no central entity to go after to make them shut down the site to sue. so that the f a t f is now gaining an interest in d 5 project after the world has grown 5 times this year to about a $100000000000.00 in locked up projects. so the f a t as proposes have been repeatedly delayed as authority, struggle to find ways to gain oversight where instead of boards and c o, there are instead pre programmed algorithms that run these defy organization. so christie, here in the united states crypto exchanges are already required to verify the identity of their users and to report suspicious transactions. if these new guidelines are adopted, could it change us policy? and what would it mean for the countries that are at risk of being classified as

not protecting against money laundering and terrorism financing? simply because they don't actually have regulations on, on the books for crypto. i mean, there are a few risks every year. the basal institute of management publishes their anti money laundering index, which basically accesses the risk of money laundering and scores. countries in 5 key areas which includes the quality of their am, l and k y c programs, bribery, incorruption, financial transparency, public transparency and legal and political risk. so if you score too high on these categories, then the country might suffer sanctions as a response from the u. s. or another form of financial punishment. but then on the flip side, there will also be some consequence for the us to because this could lead to a massive talent exodus from the us. if they take too hard of a stand against the crypto industry. and that would just lead to a block chain brain drain. and i mean block chain is essentially internet 2.0. and

the only reason that the internet is what it is today is that the friendly regulatory climate that it was born in to back them. but today, greed and political agenda is a big banking, have made the entire landscape completely unfriendly for the future of us innovation and disruptive technology. right. and there was one's a time when people were for the internet as a scam saying when last it was just divided. it's interesting that kind of see that same writer use towards crypto. now i want to go back to a point that you made earlier, which is that one of the biggest targets here with these new guidelines was defy with the s a t s even saying it doesn't by the claim that these platforms are controlled by do centralized communities of users, and that there isn't at least one person with significant influence making decisions who should face regulations accordingly. what is your response to that? my response is that the people making these regulations have a gross misunderstanding of how crypto currencies and define particular work. it

also exposes the willingness of legislators to give into special interest script them big banking, because how will they determine who is respond all these services and exchanges? they're regulated by dows, the centralized atomic organization. how are you going to figure out who built it? and certainly right now, the names of all the builders and creators are known because they want to accept credit for all their hard work and they deserve it. but these down organizations will have absolutely no problems going dark and shielding your identities if needed . i mean, the name says that all of these organizations are thomas, when they say they want to crack down on these decision makers. good luck with that because it shows that they've completely missed the point of crypto, where decisions like forks and upgrades and enhancements are made via majority vote . and the vote is by all the token holders. so they are essentially saying that they're going to go after the hundreds of millions of token holders who voted and are essentially all decision makers are. it'll certainly be interesting to see if

the united states in countries around the world are up for that kind of a fight boom. most. christy, i thank you so much for your insight. thank you. and finally, we've told you about the rental car company hurts and this plan to purchase 100000 and tesla. but did you know that half of that order will go towards a new partnership with over? it's all part of overs. pledge to operate only electric vehicles by 2030, the new plan and to get drivers a chance to read a tough le when they don't always have the means to buy one themselves. but it will come with a price only the drivers who have a rating higher than $4.00 stars will be eligible, and they will have to pay $334.00 a week in order to drive a tesla that's significantly higher than the current deal with hertz, which left super drivers, right? a typical 4 door sedan for a $180.00 per week, which becomes free if the driver has more than 75. right. the new program is set to kick off in los angeles, san francisco, san diego, and right here in washington,

d. c. just this next week. let me interesting to see how that kicked off. and if your next right is that it seems like they're just trying to collect a lot of data for driving so they can help driving stuff off the road. and that's it. for this. you get boba's automatic, portable t, v, portable dot t b. we'll see you next time. ah, ah ah, if you want something done, right, do it yourself. the acronym d i y i do it yourself, has now become the name for a new genre of online videos. when you do, coupled with more than a year away, i need some acres. yup. so that he'll at no one you can have the was more or less did any more that up drug. so the book a deal it deep will use scrap materials and won't have is at hand to rig up all kinds of stuff from household items to pump action, squid guns,

richer company for my country longest, there must be a fellow much more pool will still be the best part is people want to watch. millions of viewers spend url is seeing how a person they've never met and who's half way around the world assembles of contraption. no one else needs to be taught trickery, arranged to filter in which could just more have my tea when you minute synergies like user g was looking at the club, lou future pushing 40 because he said he still couldn't join me every thursday on the alex simon sure, i'll be speaking to guess in the world politics sport. business. i'm show business . i'll see you then a

ah supporters of julianna, so she claim washington's for was so allow him to serve his sentence in his homeland australia should not be trusted. thank you. case, high court deliberates whether to hand him over to the americans today. high profile figures have spoken in support or with whistlebury. he would spend the rest of you to log in to the supermarket prison in the united states. what kind of life with a world of truth, a solution to the energy crisis and other big issues that have been discussed as an economic form. and they come in to tell their way where prominent figures shaping voices from europe and asia, i guessing to get them on face.