that it will be successful very difficult, time time to sit down and talk we're empowering ourselves to be more efficient or quicker with our transactions. we can make mobile payments from our stands. the truth is that every device is a potential entry point for security attack. i think you can but apparently with anything but oily, eventually there's malware on thousands, maybe sometimes millions each day. they use the cyber, they use the technology as an extension of traditional crime. artificial intelligence has not many main threat. this is due to the 3 laws of robotics. one of the things that's happening at the many cyber impacts right now, i'd be aware that really worried about it. most people would equally b, u, constant, a chip in my brain. so there has been

a lot of progress from the hacker side using ai and using other advanced technologies. there has been on the defensive site in the british and american governments have often been accused of destroying lives in their own interests. what you see in this, these techniques, is to stay devising message to essentially destroy the personality of an individual . by scientific means. this is how one doctors, theories were allegedly used in psychological warfare against prisoners deemed a danger to the state. that was the foundation for the method of psychological interrogation, psychological torture, disseminated within the us intelligence community, and worldwide among allies for the next 30 years. then down the victim say they still live with the consequences today.

ah, with this boom bus, the one business show you care to coordinate that branch a board. and i'm rachel bowman's in washington. coming up, the federal reserve said it's finally time to start pulling back on. is $120000000000.00 in bond purchases each month, but will trigger a taper tantrum in the market will discuss. but then that meltdown has taken another turn as they sit claimed it will sat down as facial recognition system will take a look at what that means to the company and what's going to happen to the data. it has gathered on more than 1000000000 users and with the appearance of some of the world's richest people at the cap, 26 summit in scotland. we want to ask the question, what is the role of the alter, rich in the future of our planet?

later on we discussed the dense topic in depth. we've got a lot to get to jump in. and we lead the program with the latest from the federal reserve as it announces plans to begin tapering, asset purchases. after months of speculation, the nation and the entire world for that matter have followed the case of how and when the fed would pull back on. it's $120000000000.00 in bond purchases each month . chairman jerome, pow confirm that the plan is to slow the feds $80000000000.00 in treasury purchases by $10000000000.00 a month. and it's $40000000000.00 and mortgage backed securities by $5000000000.00 a month in november and december with plans for similar reductions in the following months. today, the f o m c kept interest rates near 0. and in light of the progress the economy has made toward our goals, decided to begin reducing the pace of asset purchases. with these actions,

policy will continue to provide strong support to the economic recovery. given the unprecedented nature of the disruptions relating to the pandemic and the reopening of the economy, we remain attentive to risks and will ensure that our policy is well positioned to address the full range of plausible economic outcomes. but while powell has made a point to communicate with the public and more specifically the stock market at every turn, he has also been criticized for his repeated claim that inflation is transitory. while he continues to push back the timeline for which prices will continue to rise, he has also taken heat from officials within the central bank who say the fed should have started taking action months ago. so what does all of this mean and is power here to stay for another term? well, joining us now discusses daniel, the most, you know, booth former, but insider and ceo of quill intelligence. alright daniel, i know it seems like we've been asking you the same question for months now, but after hearing so much of the same from powell so far this year,

was there anything about today's statement that surprised you? i wouldn't say surprised. i think my biggest takeaway today is that he continues to differentiate between what a, what a taper is versus what a tightening is, which is actually raising interest rates. and he was very specific. he said, we would have to achieve maximum employment. right now we'd be, we've achieved what could potentially be called full employment, but he's saying we would have to reach maximum employment. that is defined as a 3.5 percent unemployment rate. that was, that was in the united states a 50 year low in february 2020. i don't think that by the time we get to june 30th of 2022, that we're going to have maximum on unemployment rate of 3.5 percent. because there are people who have structurally fallen out of the workforce. i think j. powell knows it. i think he wants to do the taper and stop and not be forced to raise

interest rates. and that's what i took today from his using the term as long as the prerequisite of maximum employment has been met. then we can start to talk about raising interest rates again. you know, i mean, i want you to put your, your, yourself in his shoes here. so why push so far out for that, why way and say like you said, that's really not on the horizon right now is to get to that maximum appointment. look, i mean, look, j powell has a very hard form of p d. s. d. after trying to taper in and and do quantitative easing to the after after 28 came in to in quantitative tightening and raising interest rates. at the same time, 2018 left, a deep scar on j. powell psyche. and i don't think he wants to tighten. i really don't, i think he wants to see if we can't truly come through what you said in the press conference that he fully anticipates that by the middle of 2022. that we will be able to say that the worst of the inflation scare has passed,

and that is why he continues to insist upon this transitory narrative. even if he's acknowledge that transitory longer than marian webster would have ever to find it. but he continues to insist on it because he wants for there to be no need to high grades in 6 months. and a lot of the coverage surrounding the fed taper timeline has referred to it as a balancing act. but given that in place is already at 30, your highs is you just mentioned, it would seem that the only thing the fed is balancing is trying to keep markets common, avoid that so called paper tantrum, isn't that right? that is why we had a 200 point swing in the doubt a day. and that stocks ended up as happy as they are because he mentioned, you know, financial stability not disturbing the financial. he's actually the point where he's saying that the feds policy is going to back stop the stock market. but the fact, but the other fact of the matter is that the inflation horse has left the barn. and we're not probably going to be seeing, especially given rental inflation at

a 20 your high, we will likely be seeing inflation behave in a more persistent fashion. that's what we're hearing from the ports that are not on clogging. so in this is even as the country of china's economy is slowing to a 30 year low and there are signs that global growth itself could be crimped by these skyrocketing energy prices. as because winter is coming, as they say, this is a huge balancing act. and you are correct. i think that the one thing that he wanted to accomplish today, and that was making sure that stocks closed up. he accomplished. well, i'm glad you bring up really the global aspect of this because it's so easy, especially for the fed to just talk about what's going on here in our country. and we almost hear the same thing from the vibe and ministration. we, because we've got some top members from the administration trying to claim that inflation is as high as it is right now, because the economy is just recovering too fast. and americans are doing to, well, i mean, given everything like you mentioned, from ongoing supply chain shortages to an energy crisis,

do you see the fed accurately factoring in the global conditions that have impacted prices here in the united states this year and will continue to do so no, i don't think that the fed is fully taking into account anything that's happening outside of the united states economy. it is being to inwardly looking, it is operating under that old assumption that the united states can decouple from the rest of the world. that's never worked, it's always sounded good in theory, it's never worked out in practice. and on top of that, you've got the lowest income earners in america planning to spend 22 percent less of holiday season. you've got the highest income earners planning to spend 15 percent more this holiday season. and we've seen the savings rate in the united states declined to its pre below its pre pandemic level. so this whole idea that there's a lot of money out there to be spent there is, there is among very wealthy americans who have been the beneficiaries of quantitative easing and the fact that the fed cannot get past its main role. and it's clear today that that is its main role is to keep the stock market levitated

and hopefully americans will be listening as we continue to promise once again that inflation will be out of here by the middle of 2022. that is a lot of pressure, but we will keep bringing you on to talk all about it. danielle dean martino booth . thank you so much for your time and insight today. thank you for yours. and it is a shocking turn of events for facebook as the company has now announced it will be shutting down its facial recognition system and it says it will delete the facial data of more than $1000000000.00 users spokesmen for facebook. new parent company meta says that the change will represent one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in technologies history. at the big statement, they're joining us our discuss his blue bus co host, an investigative journalists, ben swan. now ben, this is a seismic shift if you will, for facebook. the company, the official line is that they are wearing this decision against growing style concerns, especially as regulators have yet to provide clear rules. i mean,

what do you make of that move as i don't think the shift is that big? it's been here for quite a while. yeah, exactly. and the idea that facebook is doing this because they are weighted against societal rules. i don't think anybody really believes that, right, that's not facebook m o at all. but i do think a couple of things are at play here, but the 1st of which is this. what does facebook actually use? facial recognition technology for essentially for tagging and photos. and videos, that's primarily what they use it for. now they make a true statement where they say that facial recognition ai is best used on devices like for instance, when you open up your iphone, right? you use facial net recognition to do that, but it's not communicating with an external server. so they're correct in making that state. and i think that's, that's true. but the reality is, is look, facebook just earlier this year was hit with a massive lawsuit and a judge rule. they have to pay $650000000.00 for violating illinois biometric law because of the fact that people didn't know that their data was being captured. and

this facial recognition was being stored so violated privacy in the state of illinois. that's pretty significant. $650000000.00 is a lot of money. but i think the bigger issue here is that facebook doesn't necessarily have a need for this moving forward. and again, as i keep saying, i believe that meta, the new parent company, a facebook is going to continue to minimize facebook as a property, as an entity, they're going to use it much less and they're going to be much more focused on their other properties. deleting user data on a 1000000000 people, at least facial recognition makes it look like, look, we're, we're turning the cheek and we're becoming a better company, a more socially responsible company. but the truth is, i think they're minimizing and kind of putting, putting baby in a corner, if you will. they're trying to make it look like they're this company that cares about the public and what they think and all that. and you know, it's interesting because i feel like anybody who's followed facebook followed all of these scandals, we don't trust what they say at face value whatsoever. so how will people actually

know if their facial data has been removed from facebook systems? is there any way to check that? yeah, so again, how do we that they were telling the truth? well, we don't, because for one thing faithful has not explain how they'll let you know. in fact, what they have said is that they will keep some users biometric information, some facial recognition, and they'll do that for security purposes and certain entities the hold onto it. they haven't said exactly why they would hold onto it for some and who those users are and whether or not those users ever even opted in. remember, one of the big controversies here is that about one is 3. facebook users has actually opted into the system to utilize facial recognition, which means 2 out of 3 have not, we don't know how many of those 2 out of 3 facebook took that facial recognition without their knowledge. and of those that they're keeping around, are those people who opted in or didn't, we don't actually know the answers to any of that. so for the new kinder, gentler, socially responsible facebook, they're still back to the same old tactic. it's

a need to know basis and you don't need to. well, and been, you know, it's interesting because you point out obviously that it seems like they move towards the meta verse. it's kind of a move away from their core product, which is facebook, which their core business has actually been on selling data. so what does this mean for a company that is almost entirely built on the collection of data. and i have about 32nd plug, but the reality is brent doesn't mean anything because it doesn't change data collection. the idea that they're going to delete, see, this is how they are phrasing it. they're going to delete data on a 1000000000 customers. know they're not, they're going to delete facial recognition on about a 1000000000 customers, but they're not getting deleting data. they're going to continue to monitor and track you. remember, one of the big controversies about facebook is if you have a facebook app on your phone, even if you're not using it, it is tracking other apps on your phone and it's tracking activity data that it's collecting on you and data that facebook will continue to cell phone by spend swan . thank you so much for covering the story today. thank you. and the strike

continues for more than 10000 john deere employees, who have been on the picket lines for nearly 3 weeks now. they turned out an offer from the company that would have given them a 10 percent pay increase, along with an $8500.00 ratification bonus, and benefits and included earlier access to insurance. while the support for last month's offer of a 5 percent pay increase was voted down by 90 percent of the union workers. the latest offer was only declined by 55 percent of the workers who say they are still holding out for a better offer. and the workers have pointed to the fact that john, deers, profits have stored this year, earning a record high of around $5800000000.00, putting the company up 27 percent in the last year alone for the workers who are on strike right now. they are earning around $275.00 per week from the united auto workers union, but that's more than $500.00 less than they would typically earn through their current wages from john deere. now i know that when it comes to a strike like this,

i mean you're getting into week 3 and you do have people that are saying, is this worth it? are we going to keep holding out? what exactly are we going for here? especially when they're taking home $275.00 a week. but then at the same time, it makes you wonder, is john deere really going to give in when you're talking about 10000 workers? well, absolutely, i mean, eventually they will, but that's where it becomes this game of chests where each side has to hold out as long as they can. and the workers are hoping that john deere and their labor before they decide that the workers can no longer live on that $275.00. and i've worked in covering labor for a long time. and the fact that every time you hear about this is it gets harder and harder every single week as you move forward. and as they would say, did you think it was going to be easy for these workers? they know that it's not time now for a quick break, but when we come back is billionaires have a mass, huge amounts of wealth during the pandemic? what is their responsibility to humanity will dig into the topic with threats of richard wolf as we go to break here the is a close loos

ah, in russia this class of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even lost a more the more so in the world, a sort of can you sell it unless you're dealing with just important factors? it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model. skip. so we'll go over a couple of my food oceans mission offering from pollution for

almost with where the pretty much it was the deal with commercial join me every thursday on the alex simon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess on the world politics sport business. i'm show business, i'll see you then a korea professional sport is much tougher on some than others with my by everybody here. why would somebody believe me? i was just a little girl to price upgrade to to, to achieve really was was fall, change a read on the paper this morning, usa swimming coach, arrested, allegedly had sex with a 12 year old girl. this happens almost every week. we get calls at the office. i

get informed about one of my greatest fears is someone's gonna start linking all this together. and it's going to be a 60 minute documentary about youth coaches in sports like gymnastics swimming, is that documentary? see it on r t a welcome. 1 back, this is start at the global cove in 19 pandemic. we have heard story after story about billionaires here in the united states, seeing their wealth to grow as millions of americans lost their jobs or energy prices rise and supply chains remain disrupt it. in fact, president joe biden spoke about the issue during his 1st address to a joint session of congress. back in april of this year. the pandemic is only made things worse. 20000000 americans lost her job in the pandemic. working middle class

americans. at the same time, roughly, $650.00 billionaires in america saw their net birth increased by more than one trillion dollars was same exact period. michelle, again, $650.00 people increase their wealth by more than one trillion dollars during the send them. but as forbes pointed out, at the time of the stock market, close on the 28th total american billionaire, west wealth at $4.00 trillion dollars. that's up from $3.00 trillion dollars at the beginning of the pandemic. and this raises the question, as these hundreds of americans and billionaires throughout the world have a mass, huge amount of well, what is their responsibility to society? in recent weeks, we have talked quite a bit on this show about a few instances of calls for more action. of course, there was the so called billionaires tax in the us, which would tax assets held by the wealthiest americans in an effort to pay for

biden's to trillion dollars spending package. that, of course, got take it out of the legislation. there was also the call from the head of the u . n. world food program for billionaires to do more in the fight with a challenge to test was c, e o. u last month. and as comp 26, it's taking place this week in glasgow, scotland. we've seen the likes of amazon founder jeff bezos pledging billions to fight deforestation. so going to take a deeper look into this is professor richard will host of economic update and author of the thickness is the system when capitalism fails to save us from pandemic or itself. now professor, well, i know there's a lot there and the broad question could be of course, asked, what is their responsibility? but we'll kind of go at sector by sector here. let's start with climate change. that top of mind this week is a $2000000000.00 plan from someone like bay those going to move the needle at all when amazon blue origin for that matter are often criticized for their carbon footprint. no, it's not going to make

a significant difference. this is really and i hate to say it, but it is the truth. this is p r, this is political theater. let's take a look at jeffrey bees. i was, i don't mean to pick on him, but then again, why not? he show deserves it. he has $200000000000.00. that's what his estimate is from forbes and other sources he pledged to 1000000000. now what did he pledge for to help with the environment? president biden, and every other lay leader of the world has been telling us at the called 26 meetings and so on, that this is an essential moment for the survival of humanity and the survival of our planet. and mister bes, owes by offering $2000000000.00 is offering exactly one per cent of his accumulated wealth. now if you're facing the extinction of your planet and your humanity, that's the best you can do. one percent of your wealth. are you kidding?

are you expecting us all to be children who can understand that you're simply not interested in? and later in the same week, he tells us he's building a space station. so what maybe his idea is, earth is over, the climate is done and all that's left for billionaires like him is to make sure that a few of them can get on that famous rocket ship and then go. and my question is where, right? right, exactly. you would think that they would have a little bit more of a vision than not, especially if we're facing such a dire situation here on earth. but you know, it was interesting to see people like jeff bezos, like block rocks. theo larry think at this very important climate summit with all of these world leaders there. and you know, you look at those world leaders. these are people who in most cases were elected to these positions. if you've got these billionaires there, no one voted for that. they just kind of bought their way in is their concern as

they continue to do that and become even more powerful. yes, i think what they're doing now is that they have power, whatever they decide to do with it. they are presiding over a hundreds of billions of dollars. let me be clear. there are many countries in the world who cannot dispose at will of that amount of money. and they're choosing to, to go on rocket ship trips for 11 minutes in low orbit. they are making space stations and look, i don't want to be mean, but if you look at the stock portfolios of law moscow, jeff bezos, or any of the other billionaires, they are heavily invested in a whole range of industries that are systematically polluting the amazon in brazil, or oil and gas exploration across the world, what they're doing with wealth is mostly supporting the system that got us to this

dilemma. and so proposing to give to 1000000000 to go the other way. when everything you've been doing for your adult life is pushed in the direction that makes us have a crisis. this isn't serious. this is posturing that has no content, right? it may have gotten us to that dilemma, but it also has gotten them to this point of being billionaires and getting to have so much money. now i want to turn to world hunger here because we heard from you on must he shot back when called out calling on the w. f. p to show the accounting to make his $6000000000.00. it would solve world hunger as they claim. and he said that he would cash and on tesla dock as a result. now it's interesting when we're kind of have people calling on these billionaires to throw money at the problem so to speak. but where, where is that line cross? there are, you know, especially when they're calling on them to sort of make the fix. is that supposed to be on their end? well, i think there's a kind of arrogance here that frankly blows my mind. i mean, we have human beings,

expert scientists, institutions around the world, people who have spent their lives trying to figure out how to deal with world hunger. he's got the money and he says to them, this is a man who maybe knows something about electric cars. and that's very nice. but he doesn't know anything about global hunger or how to fight it. but he's saying to them, you'll show me what you're going to do with my money, and then i'll let you know whether or not i'll give it to you to. this is what happens. you get a lot of money and you suddenly think there's something special about you that you don't have the same frailties. everybody else has, which is why we shouldn't give one person that much money. it shouldn't be a man who makes electric cars deciding what to do or not about global hunger. that's no way to run a society and we're suffering because of it. and i want to move right off that

point exactly to the kind of the billionaires tax that was kind of in the news last week, which essentially went nowhere. but is there a better way? actually, i want to put this even different way. you know, we talked about taxing their assets at that point, but the real problem is, you just described it is allowing them to amass this huge amounts of well and how do you start stop that when they're making so much money, especially on the stock market, which is based purely on speculation. i mean, is it a corporate tax rate? is that where it should go? what do you see there were about a minute left? well i think you've hit the real big important problem, brent. we're, we come too late to their situation. we want to correct things after the money has been distributed in extraordinarily unequal ways. we're coming in afterwards and say, okay, ah, let's, we do it. it's a little bit like taking your children to the park and there's an ice cream vendor

and you've got 2 kids and you buy 2 ice cream cones and you give it to one kid. of course, the other one starts screaming and then you say, oh my goodness and you go to the one who has to and you want to take it away to give it to the other one. any child rearing expert would tell you that's a crazy way to do this. you shouldn't have given it so on equally in the 1st place . why do we have corporations that give some people, lots of them $15.00 an hour and other people billions of dollars. once you do that, you're in the soup, a professor, richard wolf, host of economic up there. we could talk forever, but we're out of time in the show. thank you. and that's for the thought being gets boom bus da, da man on portable t be available on smartphones. the tablet through google play in the apple app store by searching portable tv, portable tv. you can also download it on samsung, smart tv and roku devices or simply check it out portable dot tv will see you next

time. ah, in russia this close of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even though stayed with us for about a move sort of can you sell it to proposal a better deal with just important practice? it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model. skip sister will show the excellent tools. can you deal with my food oceans? ms. law school? well, we should hear from michael de luca crockett. the customer with a nurse or a

ah, the investigation found no violation of law including the law of war. a u. s. investigation concludes that an august drones try can cobble that kill 10 afghan civilians was not caused by misconduct, nor negligence. ano relaunch is a decade old, proven to the motor of a young woman, allegedly at the hands of a british soldier in the program. we hear from her family about claims of a high level cover up we only recently learned that the british army were involved because there has been lot of cover up to my wish that the culprit faces the lot. i feel so sad that it's those her in position to help us that took so long also in the program on our.