Skip to main content

tv   Consider This  Al Jazeera  November 9, 2013 9:00am-10:01am EST

9:00 am
9:01 am
>> are nuclear negotiations with iran take a public
9:02 am
hit. members of congress and are, also president obama comes out in favor of a minimum wage that will extra money mean some unemployment for others. can a soap opera help a nation heal? we will hear from two of the unusual show's stars. i'm antonio mora. welcome to consider this. high hopes for a break through for world leaders in geneva, the concern is does it give iran too much for too little? president obama is optimistic. >> we don't have to trust them. what we have to do is make sure that there is a good deal in place from the perspective of us verifying what they're doing, we can test it. >> for more i'm johnny damon by trita parsi, the president of the national iranian american
9:03 am
council and here in new york is nathan carlson, served with the george w. bush administration, of the group iran. john kerry's trip to geneva, and are sergesergey lavrov is joinie group. do we have a deal? >> we are 90% chance of a deal. particularly folks who got us into iraq complaining about obama doing something that could be problematic, i feel it difficult to believe to be completely frank with you. it's not about trust as the president said. what you have to do is create a deal in which the mechanism for verification is such that you can trust the verification system, so that you know that if
9:04 am
the other side is cheating you can catch them at a very early stage. if this deal in its second phase causes the iranian thes to implement the additional protocol then we have the best and most intrusive instrument at our disposal to make sure the iranians cannot cheat. >> a lot of people are upset. the president called benjamin netanyahu to calm him down. >> understand the iranians are walking around very satisfied in geneva as well they should be because they got everything and paid nothing. they wanted relief of sanctions after years of a grueling sanction he regime, they got that. they are not there pacing in any way their weapons capability. >> the saudis are not happy, members of congress are not
9:05 am
happy. they are giving away the house, can this deal go through and be accepted? >> powk and administration has a lot of power and authority here punishes president obama and administration have a lot of power and authority. the elephant in the room here is enrichment. the entire reason the world is opposed to iran's program is they are enriching uranium. it seems they will still be able to enrich 800 number. i'm. uranium. >> repeated binding demands of the ieaa, and the u.n. security
9:06 am
council for the full cessation of iran's nuclear activities. at least from what they've heard that they will continue to allow iran to enrich up to that 20% level that keeps it below nuclear weapons status. >> to the contrary. the -- first of all you cannot build nuclear weapons with uranium enriched at 20%. not considered high level. >> that's not what i metropolitan. at least the conversation is they are going to allow iran to enrich at that level and at that level you could enrich it to a higher level that would then allow you to have nuclear weapons. >> i don't think that's accurate. i think what's going to happen at the end of this deal and perhaps at its first phase is that the iranians are going to level. at the end of this the iranians are going to be able to enrich uranium below five%. many simply a pipe dream.
9:07 am
some of the reasons people are upset is they realize once there is a deal and once there is verification system that iran can't cheat, can you kiss good-bye the chance of having a war with iran. some of these elements are of concern they would prefer to have a military confrontation and they know in eliminates the risk of war. >> that is just not accurate. we don't want to have war with iran, we want iran not to have a nuclear weapon. 20% not low and very close to weapon, uranium enrichment is not linear. once you are at 20% you're close to 90%. once you're at 3.5% it's easy to get up at a high level. let's step back here. the u.n. security council has not even said that iran can enrich uranium at all.
9:08 am
individuals few countries in the world enrich uranium. it's something they don't need and the world has been trying to stop it and it's very concerning that they would get the sanctions relief that they badly need, which is something the u.n. security council -- >> hold on let's get facts straight here. the u.n. security council requires the iranians to suspend uranium enrich the many at some point. >> will they do that? >> in order to for this to be a final conclusion of this. what is happening at geneva is an interim first step. the security council dogs not require iran to enrich uranium at all, only suspend it until confidence has been restored. those are very, very different things. what we are talking about in geneva is a first step. at the end of the day, getting
9:09 am
something in place here which they don't enrich uranium above 5% is the best possible deal can be -- that can be achieved. it certainly is much bernt e-better than anything that the bush administration were even close to achieving. this is a major milestone if there is a deal tomorrow. >> does very a point nathan? the hard liners don't want any limitations on enrichment. >> they've asserted a right to enrichment, something they have asserted, not something that's recognized by the world. as i said there's major european countries that aren't enriching uranium themselves. i think everyone would be happy r that but a wise person would be quite skeptical that that is what is about to happen. >> it needs some serious verification. now trita says this is a good
9:10 am
deal for them that they've seen what happened in syria. their ally assad has stayed in power and continued to be able to kill his people even though he doesn't have access to the chemical weapons, he's got access to traditional weapons. l al maliki being an ally to iran, not only the israelis but the saudis. >> i think both the iranians and the united states are going to win something from this deal and essential. in order for any deal to be durable it requires that both sides feel they get something. otherwise, the incentive to cheat, this can last, both sides need to feel that they're going
9:11 am
to win, the united states is certainly going to think they will win. having the right verification process in place. president obama mass essentially prevented an iranian nuclear bomb. first understand one thing. vallejo ma majority of the world would like to be in support of this, the only ones that are having a public tan trim is saudi arabia and israel. that is not 20% of the world. i don't think the united states will agree to a deal that has the iranians continue to enrich uranium above the 5% stage. >> you keep saying how the sanctions in iran, people becoming involuntary vegetarians because they can't get meat. today a report in the daily
9:12 am
baste has said, people help iran evade sphwrcial elections since the exr assassination of are housani in june. your response to that? >> well, these are separate issues. the treasury department is primarily going after -- >> people who are doing deals with iran? >> it's not as focused on the iranian people at a grass roots level. >> doesn't it express, before we knew anything about president ar are rouh parvetionni and --
9:13 am
>> he wanted to are extend a an olive branch, it didn't happen under ahmadinejad. >> and your reaction to that report and the sanction he and their effectiveness? >> i think what the obama administration has done, throughout this period implement new sanctions and constantly adding new listings and they're are trying to send the iranians a signal and congress a signal about they're serious about this sanctions tract. for rouhani, if there is an opportunity, what you don't want to could is to kill an opportunity by never giving it a chance by continuing with the sanctions wide fir testing the proposition of diplomas. and i hope that happens right now.
9:14 am
ask. >> let's as treta said earlier -- >> that is the only way of leading to that. the only way of making sure there is no flurk bom nuclear bomb in iran. >> thank you. our social producer hermella aregawi is track our social media. >> what exactly is a burke slayer? i'll explain. and what do you think? join the conversation on twitter @aj consider this.
9:15 am
and to contact the centers and th
9:16 am
>> does raising the federal minimum wage boost some earnings while preventing others from finding a job?
9:17 am
president obama has signed on to a bill from senator harkin. he explained why he thought that was essential. >> despite all they do to keep america running, minimum wage workers earn just $7.50. that is not enough. >> the har har kin-miller bill. i'm joined by anthony randazzo, the director of economic research for the reason foundation, a nonpartisan public policy think tank. and soli jarimon, credit thank you both for being with us today. the october employment report came out on friday, it showed
9:18 am
that the economy grew 204,000 jobs. unemployment ticked up a 10th of a percent though. are furloughed workers were listed as having lost their jobs. anthony, with the job market picking up, would this be a good time to seriously think about raising the minimum wage? >> i don't think it would be a good time to raise it. the fact of the matter is, the numbers that came out in the report, 932,000 people dropped out of the labor force. the number of people in the labor force today is the lowest number sings 1978. that is not good for the economy, if we raise the mix wage there is no doubt it's going to be great for workers that get minimum wage but not good for people who get hired as part time labor or don't get hired at all. >> historic low levels, not the lowest they've been, but way
9:19 am
below the average of during the existence of minimum wage don't we have to at least look out for the workers that are making so little money? >> if you raise the minimum wage it's going to be great for workers that -- no doubt, undeniable. but if you raise the minimum wage, there are certainly going to be companies that don't hire other workers. if you look at the cost that small businesses have taken on, have increased some costless for small businesses, not everybody, that's one of the reasons why over the past several years part time labor has given addition to the labor rolls not full time. >> let's see what conservatives say. as anthony said, it will hurt employment. a cato institute study put out reasons why hiking the federal
9:20 am
minimum wage will make it more expensive to hire minimum wage workers, it encourages cuts in worker training and benefits, increases job turnover, promotes automation which also would make for fewer jobs, it pushes firms oraise prices so that hurts consumers and often then spurs the hiring of undocumented workers. saru, what do you say to that long laundry list of negatives for the minimum wage hike? >> well, festival i have to say that there have been dozens of studies on whether the minimum wage impacts job loss or not, does it cause job loss or not. and there have been actually metastudies, that on the whole, there has been no net impact from raising the minimum wage. the seminal study was done by david karg and krueger, at u.s.
9:21 am
u.c. berkeley, there is no net impact on job loss. there is tremendous impact on families ability not just to survive, to pay rent, to put food on the table, but frankly also to be less dependent on government assistance. you have to take into account the decrease in government spending and taxpayer spending on public assistance. another study done by u.c. berkeley economists just a few weeks ago showed that fast food companies as a result of the incredibly low wages, restaurant industries is the largest employer of minimum wage workers in the united states, as a result of that taxpayers are paying about $30 billion in public subsidies to these companies in the form of you know food stamps, other forms of public assistance because these workers cannot afford to survive even when they're work multiple jobs. the evidence that's most striking is the fact that many states have raised their preliminary wage and you look at all of them, all the straits and localities that have raised
9:22 am
their minimum wage have not experienced job loss. i'm in the bay area, san francisco has the highest minimum wage in the united states, one of the primary opponents of raising the minimum wage is the restaurant association. they would like to say the the restaurant industry would suffer. the restaurant industry in california is the -- >> let anthony -- you're making so many points, let's try to address a couple of them at a time. because if not, we'll -- >> you gave me laundry list. i just want to say one more thing. >> you brought one back so let's anthony talk about -- >> she mentioned the study out of u.c. berkeley and also the fact that many states have a higher minimum wage and it doesn't seem the have hurt them that badly. >> let's look at the way economists look at minimum wage first. it's one of the most contentious
9:23 am
issues, since the 1970s there has anyone never been consensus amongst economists on whether or not the minimum wage is a good idea or bad idea. there are a lot of studies that suggest that it doesn't cause employers to fire people, there are studies that show it does actually harm people. a lot of it has to do with the moralityity of the economists that are studying it themselves, how one way or the other, so it's not like the data is unequivocal. i would disagree with that point. i think there are a lot on both sides. in terms though, if you look at a state that actually does say that we raise the minimum wage higher than frerl, the problem is if you raise the minimum wage, it's not like people are going to get fired, but you're not going ocreate more jobs. in new jersey where alan krueger's study is focused on,
9:24 am
said it hasn't hurt job links. but there are companies that aren't hiring people as a result, because unemployment is not lower than it could have been. what's questionable is even if it gets raised people will barely be at the poverty line work full time and president obama suggested that hiking the minimum wage would be good for the economy. and he said it would also of course speak to the growing inequality in our country. >> for businesses across did country it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. and a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. >> sara, i assume you agree with president obama? >> completely. i have to point out that definitely it is a contentious issue. economists have said lots of different things. i think it's important to listen to small business owners. we've got restaurants that range
9:25 am
from five employees to over 800. they actually have you know worked with us to prove that raising wages providing livable wages has allowed them to grow. how? because they have reduced turnover, reduced glow theft, they have great loyalty among their employees, greater productivity. and most of these employers who have procedured living wage across the country, have been growing for a long time. detroit is a severely depresd city, russell street opened in the height of the economic cries in the next couple of years. decided to provide a living wage from the tremendous beginning and did. they've been growing tremendously and actually opened up a nationwide catering business all because their deep investment workers have allowed them to have the best retention rate that you see in any
9:26 am
restaurant. >> this could be a big stimulus in the economy because every dollar that gets paid, thee people that money will go back to the economy. >> the strongest argument for minimum wage, paying into the economy, the more money they have. i think what underlice that and underlies a lot of what we are hearing, if consumption drive the economy, the minimum wage might not be the worst thing in the world. if however, if investment in the economy is better and consumption just focuses often the economy short term and on the long term what the economy needs is more investment then we actually have the problem of the minimum wage, because they have to pay more in salaries than they would otherwise be able to invest -- >> but you have 30 million
9:27 am
workers better to save. this particular bill would impact 30 million workers and their ability to save counts, as well. there's another part of this bill that president obama mentioned today which was historic, which was that he proposes, the bill proposes not only rising overall minimum wage but also the minimum wage for tipped workers which last been stocked at $2.32 an hour for the last 22 years and it -- >> how many workers was going to be affected, it was far lower than $30 30 million. >> i think we would probably want to look in and see what actually comes out of congress. the one thing we do know for sure is whatever workers it this does help, it doesn't help the workers that are not going to get full time jobs, not going oget full time jobs or not going to get hired at all. there are workers right now that are getting paid a minimum wage
9:28 am
that will probably get those jobs, some of them might get shifted to part time jobs. this is what we have seen since 28. the simple logic of the fact, they're not going to take this lying down, they are going oshift to part time work or not hire anybody else. >> we'll have to leave that there. we lost s rvetiontu, and social network are producer letterman la. >> from jonathan betz. it looks like monopoly money but it's a letting form of pavement. the berkshires adopted their own money called berkshares.
9:29 am
>> when you have berkshares you might not go to a mcdonald's but a local restaurant. >> you walk into the five banks in the coined give them, say, $19, and get 20 berkshares. now to your reaction on facebook pamela says i'm proud to be a berkshares user, buying local and keeping the cash local. marco says it looks like currently. you can read more at the website, are ldges.com. >> bills of dollars on her ball intlements every year, but an
9:30 am
alarming study says you may not be getting what you are paying for. could a soap opera about soccer calm tensions in kenya?
9:31 am
9:32 am
>> you might not be getting what you paid for and in some cases what you are getting might be outright dangerous. in a recent study published in the open access medical joirnl, a staggering amount of herbal supplements on the market may be miss labeled, contaminated or missing their main ingredients. does the study show results more dire? john dial and from awfnts austi, texas, mark blumenthal. the editor in chief of herbal gram and herb clip. shocking acclimation.
9:33 am
they use dna testing on 44 products from 12 supplement companies. 60% of the samples they found contained plants not on the ingredient list, and a third of the ones that had the main ingredient had contaminants and fillers not on the label. are these are indicative of the entire industry? >> this is the state-of-the-art study done at the university of gwelph, canada. these are the top scientists in the world on this. i know mark is going to dispute this but he is on scientific very thin ice to do so. what's so strike going this study is that it merely reaffirms what a dozen odor studies have said. the fda says 70% of the herbal
9:34 am
companies are not in compliance with good manufacturing process. they are not as rampant as this but that's argue how bad is acceptable. the problems are deep. consumers who are buying these products are not getting what they think they're getting but there's a big piern irony here. not only are they not getting what they think they're getting, they are getting fillers, potentially harmful fillers, but if they did get what they wanted, the science is overwhelming that the herbal supplements range from harmless to potentially dangerous. many customers should be grateful that all they're getting the worthless fillers. this is a cold industry, i hate to be blunt about it this early in the interview but supplements have found to be not helpful but
9:35 am
the harm they can produce is overwhelming. this confirmation what scientists already know. >> mark, john's point, that 70% of firms are not in compliance and this study showed that three of the 12 companies in the tests, didn't have any that could be authenticated, and only one sixth of the companies that were tested actually were trustworthy. >> yes, thank you for having me on. that assumes of course that you understand the way these people did their study. now, i'm not in any way negating the quality of dna bar coding. i published two wrnl articles in
9:36 am
my newsletter, we are on the record supporting dna testing in general. the point here is that there's a number of inconsistencies am errors and mythological flaws in the study we are talking about. let's talk about that a little bit to talk about the credibility that john thinks so highly of. the fact is that this own study even mentioned that they got the wrong canadian government group that regulates the supplements in canada. they missed the regulatory information. they are probably unclear, it is ambiguous whether they are studying extracts or not. herbal extracts do not contain dna, no dna testing will find dna to authenticate the herbal supplement at all. another author said there was dna extracts tested. it is unclear that they did or
9:37 am
didn't test dna extracts. >> here is the thing they didn't do any controls on their study, they didn't authenticate by using mike ros my crow microscopy, they made the astonishing statements, no quality control programs available to authenticate herbs which is not true. there are government sponsored pharmacopeia, used by industry all the time to authenticate various dna products. dna is probably the be all and end all of this authenticated program. if there are
9:38 am
extracts,. >> somewhere let me let john respond to that. again i go back to it's not just the study it's the fda that says 70% of of the firms are in noncompliance. >> smashing owell meaning guy. i think he's scientifically naive, i would say meece scientifically ignorant on the issue of supplements but his charge is akin to saying, that the mayoo clinic is not good at science or the cleveland isn't a good heart center. we're talking about the university of guelph. that pioneered this research. i have talked to numerous organizations that have no skin in this game, all of them said this was a state of california study, as to the american bow italian cal council, let me be clear.
9:39 am
there have been about a dozen studies that shows exactly what this study shows, not quite the expertise of this show. within five minutes of every one of these studies being released, exactly the sam same press release as this. >> let's john respond here. >> one more point, that's key. again there's a huge irony here, if the industry is correct, and we have supplements that are correct led for formulated, if they lose. this is a crank industry -- >> john, you've brought up a whole bunch of issues. let's let mark respond. go ahead mark.
9:40 am
>> i don't think this is going to get this conversation anywhere, if you call me ignorant of preparations. i run a leading scientific organization on herbal policings. i have published articles reviewing complinl studies on the various benefits attributed to these products and for the last three years i've been the senior manager and director of an international consortium of laboratories universities and responsible members of the industry that are trying to clean up this whole problem of adult ration by actually publishing articles that bring light about this issue and actually talk about this issue. and this the thing about my having five minutes of the study being published and 12 members on my website that simply is not true. with all due respect, instead of you attacking me, this is not about me, let's talk about
9:41 am
what's going open. >> in the study the products contained things that could be dangerous, because they weren't labeled. some samples contained samples one was a powerful plasm stiff. powerful laxative. you have to grant that. >> no, i can't grant that sir. dna is not quantified. you find one particular molecule of that particular item, you will find that dna in there. it is not a quantitative -- because of how many laxative -- >> that is not true. >> that is true sir the fact of the matter is -- >> let's put the story aside, how about the fda, saying that 70% of the companies are not in compliance. >> from daniel fabricand, before
9:42 am
he went to the food and drug administration and what he's saying is that based on their inspections of facilities that manufacture herebial and other dietary supplement products, they have found errors or dweashts, deficiencies, lied bulb being out in a particular microscope, cawhich is one of the things thy wrote up at the -- >> there was a new york times articles just a couple of days ago, shelleyburg said i quote, unfortunately we're seeing a very high percentage approximately 70% of firmings not being why compliant. let me make a point, this is an unregulated industry. i could go on monday morning go
9:43 am
onto the ali baba website, they many are provide supplies for a number of products. i could on monday sod 10,000 from bottles of a particular where product, by tuesday be sending out untested supplies to anybody in america or around the world that wants to buy them prospect it is afternoon un. >> regulated industry. the there. >> with all due rm gentlemen, we published a why article 50 -- >> but they aren't -- >> please allow me to finish. >> let me just explain myself. when we talk about regulation, the point i was trying to make mark is we're talking about the fact that they're not regulated in the same way that drugs are. >> because congress says they are not drugs. they are a division of foods. these circulate not be regulated like drugs.
9:44 am
it is a highly regulated industry, if you look at the regulations -- allow me to finish -- >> gentlemen, unfortunately -- i'm going to have to leave it there, guys, [simultaneous speech] >> piex going to have to leave it there. clearly, a very contentious issue. whether up next what does your with music have to do with your >> start with one issue education... gun control... the gap between rich and poor... job creation... climate change... tax cuts... the economy... iran... healthcare... it goes on and on... ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions and you'll get... the inside story theses are strait forward conversations, no agenda, just hard hitting debate on the issues that matter to you ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5 eastern only on al jazeera america
9:45 am
9:46 am
9:47 am
9:48 am
al jazeera america... >>introduces... "america tonight". >>a fresh take on the stories that connect to you. >>grounded. >>real. >>unconventional. >>an escape from the expected. i'm phill torez. coming up this week on techknow.
9:49 am
9:50 am
9:51 am
9:52 am
9:53 am
9:54 am
9:55 am
9:56 am
9:57 am
9:58 am
9:59 am
10:00 am
>> hello welcome to the news hour, coming up in the next 50 minutes destruction on a massive scale in the philippines after typhoon haiyan. 1,000 reported killed. those who did survive has "v" no food or water. day three of talks on ira is nuclear

36 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on