and we've been talking about the fed but in one thousand thirteen yeah they created this income tax it was a one percent tax that applied to one percent i know that yeah when jennings bryan when i was a tax on the rich yes it was and it was an attempt to conjure displays the tariff at the time and that's why a lot of people favorite favorite is first in the south in the west because it's supposed to replace the tariff and then it's taxes northern industrial guys and we get that washington off our back but eventually look what i mean this is you know it's losing us every day not just the income tax or the payroll tax which for a lot of people is a much larger portion of the tax burden than the income tax itself so in your opposed to the income tax you know i really you know and there's a philosophical reason because there's a presumption behind the income tax that the government owns your income they can take whatever it wants and whatever they leave you is just sort of a favor they give you with this is runs contrary to everything that classical liberalism ever taught i mean thomas jefferson in his inaugural address in one thousand nine hundred when he when he became great and i want to be president that the workers deserve the fruit of his labor and should never be touched by

government and i hear you but then how do you pay for basic services that we can all agree should be around for people i mean we do have a social contract we don't live in the jungle i don't believe that there shouldn't be basic a basic safety net of some kind how do we pay for that without an income tax well the presumption in the mountain century was that the tariff is going to cover us you know and if you drive the and drive people crazy so if you have high tariffs then there's political pressure to lower them and we can keep them as low as possible frankly government is going to cut back so you think just get rid of the income tax and cut back ever and you have to just get rid of the whole thing and look at what a wonderful thing it would be if you make money you keep the money that's the kind of system we need that well i hear you but at the same time you know i want to make my money and keep my money but if i suddenly got unemployed and there was literally nowhere for me to turn and i was cast out and i had nothing to do i would want some kind of unemployment insurance benefits that you know everybody agreed were a good thing well for talking about insurance you know insurance is a private industry that could probably provide a privately. probably plenty of programs that would emerge lotions government does

things and they displace the private sector if the government sub doing it to the private sector rush in and take care of whatever whatever we need what proof is there of that give me some of it all of human history. really i mean once you start looking i mean the really great depression that people you know that you're on about these these these are going to be full of died and starved for good lines out of our bread in the first place great depression was caused by the government and prolonged by the government so the taxes the all the nonsense all the crazy unemployment programs over the made everything worse and they're doing the same thing to look at those unemployment numbers among these this is catastrophic i mean or this is what wait let's talk about why because some of the biggest things to come out of that report today people are glowing about it but that lot that youth unemployment sixteen to nineteen year olds twenty three percent are stuck there we're almost out of time why is that so significant well it's significant because we're in a whole generation and they're not learning to work and learning how to enter the marketplace and into the commercial world and this is this is terrible for the

habits of mind for their training and everything else and it's caused directly in this case by a series of government regulations really i think the child labor laws are posterous they are now listening to talk about children talking about young teenagers you know we've got your people thirteen fourteen fifteen who want to work and they can't move because of this ridiculous regulations and look at the minimum wage has been increasing more dramatically over the last decade and appeared in the previous fifty years and this is this is a limb it's a violation of human rights and says he will not about were more than one of us get rid of child labor laws and what you have five year olds being forced to work and we have we have thirteen rules we're going to grocery stores that's a great start ok well you know that's a whole other conversation will have to leave it at that we didn't get to hear your song but as long as good your song is good lucky for us we are going to see your debate tonight we do baker and we will film your song and it gives everybody something to look forward to because you will hear it jeffrey tucker about the the fed.

all right it's friday and it's been a while since i've been able to respond to you though i do on twitter quite regularly but i want to do a more formal response we received one long email of criticism i can't read the whole e-mail but i did want to respond to a few pieces and emailed and said alona has repeatedly had anthony randolph go on her show as an economic expert it drives me nuts he views things the same as warren lister through the same lens as a wall street broker it makes me crazy because every time i see him i hear him complain about the government keeping the interest low lauren lyster has made this same argument now i can't speak for anthony randolph but maybe you know we'll get a chance to hear from him but as for me first if this person thinks i see things

through the same lens as a wall street broker then i don't know how much she's seen of the show because i don't think you hear wall street complaining too much about low interest rates you see them benefiting from them and all we do on this show is analyze what's wrong with wall street so to go on let's get more specific as lister has done they lament the fact that they are not making money from interest being low for god's sake we're in the middle of a housing crisis there are probably millions of us who are making our mortgage payments on time who will foreclose when rates go up if we are not able to stabilize these loans when interest rates are kept artificially low okies need to sustain these laws so our argument this is something we talk about all the time ok this savers when interest rates are artificially low it directly punishes savers borrowers on the other hand and less there are large financial institutions do not necessarily benefit from. in these low rates we haven't really seen that banks

still have to be willing to lend you money and what we've seen is that banks are more concerned about padding their balance sheets then they are in extending credit to mom and pop in other words the fed can lower the federal funds rate all it wants it can keep it is zero as it's done and will do but this does not mean that you're going to get an affordable rate on your mortgage in fact as we've seen mortgage rates are still out of reach for many people despite the easy money policies of the fed to go on she says a number of people have been talking publicly about reducing principal and canceling debt it really does make sense of course the banks are not going to want to do it but we should be as bold as a country and force them into a new paradigm we agree this is something we talk about all the time debt forgiveness or default there is a point at which debt levels become so large that they begin to economic growth as opposed to promoting it this is where we are today so we hear you on that now she

also said a few things about how i make a lot of money and probably have no problem paying my mortgage which if you know anything about journalism is kind of laughable i don't have a mortgage don't know when i will but i know plenty of people personally who are struggling very much during these times so i don't want you to take my position as unsympathetic towards yours i believe. but i do want to address your e-mail on the criticism because we'll continue to talk about this issue of savers and interest rates sticking to interest rates let's go to twitter because i got into a bit of a back and forth that i really didn't have time to respond to is during davos things are busy chasing people mark dow tweeted that the data tells us unambiguous lee the fed is debasing the dollar assertion is wrong to which i replied well it sure did basing my savings account he tweeted back and said how do you measure if we can advance that how do you measure the extent to which government is debasing your savings. i didn't get a chance to respond i measure it by the fact the market interest rates are lower

than the cost of living so i'm losing money if it's sitting in savings financial repression now this spark more responses on twitter the conversation me and mark had from other people mark said it's hard to argue about debasement if the u.s. dollar is slightly stronger since printing started hedge fund invest said that's more a testament to other currencies just doing worse as a reflection of the economies and what he's getting at is that the dollar's traded relative to other currencies here's mohamed el area and c.e.o. of pimco explaining to me the dollar's relative strength. extremes. very different because they are relative to the dollar versus the euro dollar versus the year. when you look at exchange rates you have to ask the relative question what does it look like on a standalone basis but what does it look like on the exchange which. cleanest dirty shirt to use their analogy what matters is not how many zimbabwe dollars i can buy

with my u.s. dollars what matters is how much of the stuff i need to sustain my living standards that's how you measure debasement moving on i want to thank everyone for the positive responses to my davos coverage which i have which i responded to on twitter and i just want to reassess reassert that also earlier this week we got into a debate over savers versus speculators and one of our guests brought up a recent bank earnings as a sign that fed policy zero interest rates don't benefit banks whenever you choose your said this news flash the bankers might not be living the high life like ten years ago but none of them are getting foreclosed on they still make millions and billions and we're going to say hey it's ok at least they are hurting too well funny how lifelong investors like jim rogers and mark father don't buy into this and make money honestly investing i just want to make sure that you got a chance to catch my jim rogers interview where i asked him about this earlier this week you can catch it on line because that is all we have time for thank you so much for watching the show don't forget to follow me on twitter at lauren lyster to

give us feedback at youtube dot com slash capital account have a great weekend and from everyone here at capital account have a good there. quite

. russia and china vetoed the u.n. security council resolution on syria at a vote in new york moscow wanted all references to regime change taken out of the drop. more than two hundred thousand braved the bitter cold across russia to ensure their views on national politics are heard of one group demanding sterile i can smoke through the streets others rallies in support of the current leadership. europeans demand a free internet as people flood the streets in protest against an anti-piracy acne sign across the continent. alone or shows up next stay with us.

welcome to the loner show where we get the real headlines with none of the mercy or live out of washington d.c. now tonight we're going to take another look at the situation that's heating up between the u.s. and iran and israel and that is says that israel may strike iran within months but why would they want to make those kinds of statements what would be the u.s. position and is it is any of what we're hearing about iran's nuclear program even true prince he only is going to join us to hash it all out the jobs numbers came out for the month of january and the news was pretty good official unemployment went down to eight point three percent real unemployment down to fifteen point one percent so do we see any trends of forming here richard s. going to help us break down all those figures and florida's republicans are looking to privatizing prisons in the state so we can speak to is fair enough the young turks about why this is a no good horrible idea we're not all that morphy tonight including a dose of happy hour but first take a look what the mainstream media has decided to me it's.

all right so once again we hear this horrible drumming sound is getting louder and louder especially after reports reported statement by secretary of defense leon panetta that he believes there is a very strong likelihood that israel is going to strike iran in a matter of months israel is preparing to attack iraq and to carry out that attack within months strong warning from secretary of defense leon panetta israeli leaders are considering attacking a ronny a nuclear sites he is openly talking about israel's ambitions secretary defense leon panetta who believes there's a strong likelihood writes that israel will strike iran in april may or june israel might carry out a unilateral strike on iran's nuclear sites sometime in the spring this is a strategy to warn iran to back down or face consequences. now this is the kind of news that should make us all ask

a lot of questions and it should make all of us feel very uneasy the last thing that this world needs. is another war any kind of military conflict for that matter and it becomes all the more confusing when you think of how all over the place the statements are right when i release their report on iran's nuclear program late last year there was no sign that they're currently working on developing new nuclear weapons they said that the bulk of the work that could be weapons related was all halted in two thousand and three and they have some information that modeling design work was being done until two thousand and nine but that's it that we heard from leon panetta just last weekend when he was on sixty minutes that he believes iran could build and set off a nuclear weapon within two to three years if they decided to and the thing is when it james clapper the director of national intelligence testified before congress this week and released a report from this country sixteen intelligence agencies assessing threats to the u.s. he's pacifically said that they have no evidence that iran's leadership has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon so if there's no evidence that they've decided to do it should we

be reminding people of that should reporters be cautioning that hey maybe this is an important element to be brought into the debate now unfortunately what chuck todd over as n.b.c. did today was exactly the opposite he brought up a completely different part of this intelligence report that we heard this week and decided to see if there are any ties between the two. richard how did you interpret the intelligence report earlier this week and this is why where you sit here and you do you try to put sometimes one plus one together and see if if you are coming up with to when the intelligence report by the u.s. intelligence community to capitol hill to congress indicated that the iranians are planning a way to strike at the united states to strike at the united states militarily you put that out what are you trying to say. i think you're trying to warn the public and the u.s. intelligence community has been burned so many times i think they are going out of their way to tell the american people and tell members of congress what the potential risks are. arts and this is where the probably

a. but instead of questioning whether this report that said that iran is now the number one terror threat to the us is a little over the top or whether it makes any sense richard just basically says that they're doing this just in case so they can have all their bases covered and he doesn't even blink when he says it like it's totally normal fearmonger way just if you think that it might save your ass at some point in the future how this should bother journalists not be completely legitimate and unquestionable explanation and b. why do i get the distinct feeling that if anything does happen between israel and iran and the chorus for the u.s. to join in support israel of course which of course will be there either way is there currently but that course will become all the louder because people start pointing to this report and says the run is the number one terror threat to the united states and the mainstream media is going to ask what exactly it is that we're getting ourselves into war over again is this a criminal act against the possibility of a small scale terror attack or is this preemptive act against iran developing

a nuclear weapon which they haven't done yet another one makes much sense and yet i get the feeling what we saw today will only continue and will become fused together until all logic leaves this discussion and all the fear stoking all around much like we saw with the buildup to iraq and i hope that i'm wrong but if today is an example hell of the last couple of months are an example of how the mainstream media is approaching the issue breaking down the real facts in the logic figuring out what it is exactly would justify a war well sounds like all of that they're going to miss. all right so now let's try to see if we can piece any of this together break it down the washington post and others a report that leon panetta believes that there is a strong likelihood that israel will strike iran in april may or june the wall street journal is reporting that u.s. officials believe iran recently gave new freedoms and material aid to five top al qaeda operatives who had been under house arrest in the country u.s.

intelligence agencies have now decided that iran is the number one terror threat. that the u.s. faces so does all of this seem rather familiar the buildup to iraq and how far do we think that this might really go here to discuss it with me is joseph cirincione president of the ploughshares fund a global security foundation just thanks so much for being here and i had a pleasure so i mean continuing on rangers heard me totally rants about this for a while but is this all just a preemptive move right i mean from everything that we're hearing there is no evidence that iran at the moment as a nuclear weapon or is necessarily working on one right this second to be ready any time soon there is nothing imminent nor inevitable about an iranian nuclear weapon and that is the considered opinion of the u.s. intelligence agencies unanimous all sixteen intelligence agencies say iran has not yet decided to build a bomb and if they did decide to do it it would take them at least a year to make the material and perhaps two or three more to fashion a device so we would and we would see them doing it they would have to take the existing facilities convert them over to weapons production and then we'd have

plenty of time to take whatever actions diplomatic economic or military we wanted there is no need for this rush to war so why do you think let's examine the rights of the statements made by the defense secretary first he said that in two to three years if they wanted to they could build and use a nuclear weapon and then also saying this about israel and putting this countdown clock type of scenario on it why would he make that kind of statement publicly it's pretty explosive i take the secretary's words very seriously and i've talked to a lot of people new administration and they take the threat of an israeli attack very seriously most could be clear about this poll show the majority of israelis do not want to go to war with iran even though they also think iran is going to get a nuclear weapon there's a split in the military and intelligence community in israel many former intelligence officials heads of mossad for example my you're gonna have said this would be disastrous he called it the stupidest thing he ever heard would set back

israel's interest ten years but there is a faction in the world could party held lead by. prime minister netanyahu that seems to believe that this is the time to strike iran you saying that one of two reasons one he really means it or to really try to pressure the united states and the west europe to take more economic sanctions more pressure on iran to try to crack the regime to try to force the regime apart the u.s. assessment is that there is a least a fifty fifty chance that in netanyahu means it and he will try to strike iran sometime in april may or june what's your take on sanctions do you think that sanctions are something that can crack iran as you said or quite the opposite is this something that only pushes the button even harder and makes them want to pursue a nuclear weapons program even more if the rest of the world is turning against them and since sanctions have never worst a country into giving a nuclear weapon program or nuclear weapons but they are former pressure and they are very effective former pressure on iran you can feel it and the sanctions are

getting deeper they're getting broader and the results are being felt by the man on the street in iran right now families are suffering because of the sanctions the key isn't the sanctions the key is how do you use that pressure and this is where the u.s. doesn't seem to have a clear strategy the pressure is building military threats from israel sanctions pressure from the from the whole world what's your plan now that you put iran in a corner where is the door that gives them a face saving way out i don't see a diplomatic strategy emerging from this administration let's talk about the idea of you know if iran does indeed get a nuclear weapon we've heard certain people rick santorum presidential candidate in the debate say that the world would change overnight that this would be completely disastrous the same time we've heard people like ron paul say well you know if you look at the example around the world anything that iran should look to it's that when you acquire a nuclear weapon you suddenly get a whole lot more respect don't you i completely understand the view that it's a catastrophe on the nonproliferation expert i've always felt that if one country gets a nuclear weapon the chances of their neighbors getting it increase saudi arabia.

turkey so you could end up with the middle east of not just one nuclear power israel but two three or four nuclear powers with the underlying tension still unresolved that's a recipe for a nuclear war but there's nothing automatic about that look at north career they exploded a nuclear weapon in two thousand and six their neighbors have not followed suit there are ways to contain iran the same way we contain north korea in fact we could be should be communicating to iran that if you cross that line if you detonate a nuclear weapon if you acquire a nuclear weapon the pain is going to get worse your isolation is going to get worse that is not your salvation that's a ticket to permanent. status and we were just talking about this before the show you said that you just returned from iraq and the attitudes the perceptions of what exactly it is that's going on are quite different than absolutely so why are you in washington and there's this sense of inevitability about a military conflict nor you all people talk about is iran and the rest of the world particularly the middle east the nuclear issue is all about israel that's what they

want to talk about and you really mediately see if you have any hope of convincing the region to support your efforts to stop an iranian program you've got to show that it's not specific to a muslim state that you're also talking about a middle east where no one has nuclear weapons including israel you're talking about a world where the countries with nuclear weapons like the united states are giving them up and we're all moving in the same path together otherwise you have no hope of getting the international cooperation you need to stop new countries from getting weapons all right so this is something that you and i have spoken about many times over in the past right in the plan of the obama administration to go shading the new start treaty with russia is also to move towards a world without nuclear weapons and yet what how do we really seeing that develop you just wrote about this yesterday and you said that in fact obama is coming up on a critical decision. in terms of in terms of whether we're actually going to scale it down and what congress wants to fund and what kind of scenarios where we have to

be prepared for i just wrote an article for. it's up on their website all this weekend obama got off to a fast start negotiated a new treaty with russia they both agreed to cut their deployed strategic forces by thirty percent he. started to put his policies into action in the administration but he ran into his stall his political opponents and a very resistant bureaucracy hasn't stopped the progress on the president's nuclear agenda now is his chance to restart it he's just been handed options from the pentagon a six month study done by the pentagon and the other agencies on how he could further cut the nuclear weapons if we do not need a cold war forced anymore we do not need russia doesn't need fifteen hundred weapons ready to go to a moment's notice obama is going to be able to make decisions in the next couple of months they could determine the course of the nuclear future of both countries russia and the united states going to give us a few more details he could decide that he no longer needs to hold thousands of

targets at risk right now of a nuclear war plan requires that the military keep a thousand weapons ready to fire and twenty minutes notice why what military mission possible requires that just by eliminating that requirement he could reduce the number of nuclear weapons we do so the cost of the program right now the united states is starting to build the next generation of nuclear weapons new submarines new bombers new missiles why are we going to keep this force going on indefinitely for the next several decades the president doesn't want to do that but he's got to change the policy guidance he's got to tell the military that we can safeguard our nation with many many many fewer nuclear weapons hundreds not thousands are you know though if he does it or is this a secret decision well that's a very interesting question usually these decisions remain secret these are the most classified documents in the u.s. but they do show up in budget submissions they show up in program decisions but if the president really wants to capitalize on this particularly given the situation

with iran he should announce this decision. in april or may this is the time to come forth with a new nuclear posture a new nuclear plant and in so doing build the international cooperation he needs for countries like iran and north korea you know the republicans are just going to love that one as fodder over coming up with the next election because are coming after him anyway you might as well do what you want you going to go to town of course they're going to talk and for everything really to talk to them still i just so just in regards to what we're hearing now from. what israel might be planning if you had to make a guess do you really think that we're going to see something happen in the next couple of months that israel might strike no and i'll tell you why israel doesn't actually have the military force to stop their program it would be a prick there would be a pinprick on them that would delay for a little while but with the end result would be an acceleration of the iranian program the u.s. military does not want another war the u.s. intelligence services do not want another war the u.s. goes in one on the war i think those fundamental forces will prevail and stop this madness before it gets out of hand you know it does seem like it's just

a small handful you know if you said there is a few hundred it's a few writers around here in washington d.c. that are beating these drums and hopefully we will let them have their way chose thanks so much for being here and my pleasure thanks for having me. i just ahead on tonight's show ice teams up with the n.f.l. to make sure that nobody gets their hands on counterfeit goods and we're going to have january's jobs numbers for you which seem to look like they're pretty good we're going to hash out what the latest data means with prichard ascalon for the. technology innovation all the developments around. the future of harvard.

well looks like ice is out of again scouring the internet roping in all the websites that they deem as engaging in illegal activity not only were sixteen domains taken for allegedly engaging in unauthorized live sports streaming but another two hundred and ninety one domains have also been shut down for selling fake professional sports merchandise and it's all part of operation in our sites a program that's been active since june of two thousand and ten which has been responsible for over six hundred fifty site seizures since the project began now if you remember back in october i says it's possible for taking down over one hundred and thirty sites and gauging infringing activity at that time they called the project cyber monday crackdown it was considered the biggest operation ever but in the spirit of super bowl sunday it looks like ice decided to go balls to the wall in their latest massive shutdown and they even set out a cute little press release explaining their.