tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera December 1, 2014 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
>> absolutely. ines, appreciate it. that's all of our time for this news hour. i'm tony harris in new york city. you would like the latest on any of these stories from this news hour, head on over to our website. "real money with ali velshi" is next on al jazeera america. well, i bet you are loving these lower oil prices at the gus pump and why not? but get this, low oil prices could hurt us all in the long run. also the new cold war between russia and the west. i'll tell you why we should have seen it coming as far back as six years ago. and a worldwide raise to the stars, i'll show you how private companies are cashing in on space, and how america can stay in the lead.
i'm ali velshi. and this is "real money." ♪ oil prices are now solidly below $70 a barrel and many analysts say they have more room to fall. that has americans celebrating as prices at the pump continue to fall, but not everyone is in a celebrating mood. i'll explain. but first, u.s. oil futures settled at $69 a bashl. prices seesawed between 63 and $74 a barrel. prices have fallen 36% since peaking in june, and since crude oil is the main component for gasoline, prices at the pump have come down 29% in roughly the same time. the big reason that oil prices appear to be in free fall is because of a decision by opec producers last week not to put
oil out put. normally when demand lags, the leading oil producers get together and try to agree on supply cuts. but these aren't normal times. america's energy boom is creating more supply right when economies in europe and asia are starting to pull back on their demand for oil. saudi arabia is viewed as the world's sing producer. it has the ability to flood or cut supply into the global market. but they instead to keep steady. meaning lower prices for now. generally americans depend on their cars to get around, and the cost o fuel can take up a big chunk of household budgets, so american corn assumers win when oil prices fall, and that should help retailers too. we'll talk more about how they did on the first big weekend of the holiday someone, but half of
us are invested in the stock market usually through our 401k's or ira's and most retirement accounts allocate some part of their investments in the energy sector. but around the world there are definite winners and losers. patricia sabga explains. >> reporter: from tehran to moscow, countries that count on high oil prices are bracing for tougher times. >> the whole atmosphere can change drastically when prices come down. >> reporter: the latest slide follows saudi arabia's dominated opec decision to keep pumping oil at its current pace. a tactic aimed at protecting cash rich market share at the expense of the poorer ones. none opec oil producers are also
in the cross hairs, including russia already reeling from economic sanctions, capitol flight and high inflation. moscow was counting on oil fetching $1,100 a barrel to fund its budget next year. price pressures are also building in north america, with u.s. benchmark crude trading below $70 a barrel. middle of the change where most u.s. oil frac-ers are believed to break even. they could also face lower tax revenues and fewer jobs if producers decide it's not profitable to drill more oils. falling prices should cut others some much-needed slack, however. such anz dea and other developing countries that depend heavily on agriculture, which consumes vastment amounts of oil through inputs like fertilizer
and pesticide production. in countries like the united states where people rely heavily on cars, consumers will benefit from lower prices at the pump. but the biggest winner of all could be the global economy. as falling fuel costs move money away from producers into consumers pockets. provided they spend the extra cash. patricia sabga, al jazeera. lower energy costs also mean that consumers will probably see fewer price increases for stuff they buy. that's because companies will pay lower manufacturing and transportation costs. so why would falling prices be bad news. it's called deflation. because companies wait to stop spending further. here is another possible problem, so far there has been very little evidence that consumers are using the money
they saved on gasoline to go on a huge spending free. consumer spending barely improved compared to september. it is likely to improve next year, when it could translate to $380 per saving per season. that's the view of kevin book. from a firm focussed on energy markets and analysis, and joins me from washington, d.c. this seems to be the most immediate of booms. the idea that you would get this big of break on your gasoline or heating bills, isn't that the same of a stimulus effect. >> it absolutely is. but we're only seeing low prices for the first time, really, in the last several months. year to date, you might have seen about $80. if you go all the way through to the end of the year, in net
savings as a result of lower gasoline prices. 80 bucks isn't that much. >> generally speaking with lower gas prices at some point it will change people's behavior, but at what point do you think it kicks in, that wow, we really have lower gas prices, so i can afford to spend on something else? >> part of it has to do with the income recovery in the areas where spending has been diminished as a result of economic hardship. if you look at where people have been driving the longest distances, those also coarse fond some of the areas where they have the lowest elements. take the gasoline savings, we're talking about big beneficiaries in places like oklahoma, indiana, vermont, wyoming. and those aren't the biggest urban sterns in the country. >> we have been doing a series on the new cold war, and there
are a number of people who have come in here and said if oil has a six in front of it, maybe even a seven, this is really going to hurt russia. what does this do to oil producing countries like russia? >> for russia there's two problems. the one is the one you mentioned, ali. the second is that russia is facing a long term decline in its conventional fields. without access to the arctic, which is now blocked because of sanctions, russia is looking at less money now and later. >> every time i talk about this topic, i get tweets from people who say, i'm just looking for excuses. it's unmitigated good news when oil falls, but big drops in the price of oil have caused a lot of economic dislocation around the world, and at some point it will cause that in the
united states. >> yeah, we're still a net importer of petroleum, so as a result we're generally benefiting on a brood basis. but it is impossible to ignore the growing impact of oil and gas production. so question now is a little different than the one we asked ten years ago, now we ask at what oil price, in terms of what low oil price, does production stop? and we're probably starting to see some of those effects right now in the next month. >> help me explain this to viewers. a guy just say boo-hoo poor oil companies. to hell with them. why could it be dangerous if we get to pint that our more expensive methods of extracting oil from the ground, that companies start to pull out of that? >> well, one is the income multiplier effect of these well-paid oil jobs spreading out into the communities.
many hard hit rural areas. take away those oil jobs, you take away brood-based economic recovery. second manufacturing inputs to oil production aren't just dollars, also scement and steel. >> kevin good to talk to you. thank you so much for being with us. russia is locked in a new cold war. coming up, i'm going to talk to the former president of the country that fought a real war with russia and paid for it dearly. plus where are all of the holiday shoppers? i'll explain. tell me what is on your mind by tweeting me or hit me up on facebook. keep it right here. ♪
the new cold war tins, and we continue to cover it right here on "real money." russia med the latest move against the west. russian president vladimir putin announced his country is strapping a natural gas pipeline projected to send gas to southern europe. instead russia will boost gas subpoena -- supplies to turkey. putin said moscow was left with no other options. russia's relation with the west is at the lowest point in years because of the crisis in ukraine, at the same time russia is doing what it can to regain influence in europe. >> reporter: when notre dame said it didn't have enough money to install the tree, moscow stepped up. it's a message of peace said the
russian ambassador, it's also another example of putin's campaign to garner influence across europe. early earlier they lent a cash strapped party $11 million. and all of this goodwill coming just days after france refused to deliver two warships to russia because of moscow' involvement in ukraine. the kremlin quickly pulled back from a threat of serious consequences if france reneged on the deal. but it's more than just christmas trees and cash. at the g-20, the german chancellor angela merkel has finally run out of patience, and putin is now playing court to the countries on the margins of europe looking to shore up old alliances. russia forces are on maneuverers
are the serbian army. it's an indication of russia's determination to extend its sphere of influence across the countries on its borders. and russia's financial economic investments across europe are extensive. italy, russia is the country's main energy supplier. hungary, and austria. >> it's essentially for -- for kremlin to have countries inside europe, european union, he would try to block sanctions. but the main [ inaudible ] putin is better for madame merkel.
you know especially after meeting in brisbane, she is now just furious about putin. >> reporter: the german chancellor delivered this speech following the g-20 last week. she said this is about ma about -- moldova and others. president putin is busy bullying and prescribing his way into influence and power in the e.u., and the kremlin's perception of this so-called crisis, it is convinced that e.u.'s remorseless move represents a threat to russian security. where the e.u. goes, they'll tell you, nato will follow. well the new colder war brewing between russia and the west had a dry run six years ago
in another former soviet republic, georgia. and many of the issues that played out there is the same as what we're seeing in ukraine. go back to 2003, that's when georgians elected their president during the so-called rose revolution. a young reformer, he promised to reign in corruption and bring separatists regions back into georgia's fold. two regions had allied themselves with russia. in 2006, the south went a step further. they voted for independence in a referendum that the president denounced as illegal, but that the russians accepted. two years later, george w. bush started lobbying his nato althrice admit georgia and ukraine into the western military alouance. that angered moscow. so when the president unleashed
his military in a bid to retake the area, russian troops invaded. russian tanks cut off the highway. russian jets bombed the cities, and russian troops advanced to the outskirts of the capitol. they only stopped when french mediation ended the conflict. in just five days of fighting a thousand people died and 130,000 were displayed from their homes. sure the united states and nato denounced russia's aggression, but they didn't do much else. in a prequill to ukraine, russian troops are now permanently stationed in two areas, and there's even talk of russia one day annexing one or both regions. the president left office in 2013 after losing an election for a third term as president of georgia. since then he has been spending
his time in the united states, where he accepted a lecturer position. he also spendings a lot of time here in new york city. as for georgia he now faces corruption charges back home and could face jail time if he returns. last week i talked to the former georgian president. the conversation got off to a lively start. i suggested his decision tiggered a war with russia that cost georgia dearly. this is how he responded. >> i didn't order any attack. we were envieded by hundred thousand plus russian army. and i just order my troops to defend my country. >> and but for that difference the situations have a lot in common. >> yes, and i think the reality is russia is a [ inaudible ] power, and right now is an opportunity for it. because the west is focused on isis, isil. so for west priorities, rush
[ inaudible ] putin said recently, he told western journalists, you know, i'm a tiger. this is my forrest. here i can do whatever. so that's a gentle law introduced in our part of the world, and actually he is implements it. the problem is that there can be no deal made, because what putin says, you care about isil, i care about all of the countries around me. give me this, and i'll help you with other issues, the only problem is when he goes after his neighbors, he also is going after the west. that's how the deal cannot be made, so there is this major discrepancy out there. >> when he sees it as the west, the interesting irony, is that ukraine, like georgia is not a member of the e.u. or a member of nato, so they only get so much support from the west. it's a careful ploy. >> it is a complicated
situation, because west has lots of leverage. what can be done to stop putin? lots of things. sanctions will start to work, but reality oil prices. the west can implement lower -- or keep the oil price at the level is it or even lower. if it goes to 60, putin is dead. if they go after putin money, putin is about his corrupt income. there are billions of his personal money in western bank. that is second important thing, and they should arm ukraine and other countries. ukraine is large country and has big population. it can defend itself, but it needs to be armed. chuck hagel wrote a report back in 2008 after russia georgia wars, where he was one of the early advocates of the reset policy. you had secretary of defense in first place who didn't believe
in it. now there are changes also in washington sew that might help. >> so what about the understanding that the west wouldn't press too close to russia? that -- the sense that the pressure has been put on russia because troops are showing up, many of its former republics are now nato members and russia is feeling cornered in. >> i think it's not a correct way of thinking. russia doesn't care what the west does. it has its interests. it's not somebody we force putin -- there are lot of useful idiots in the west who say that. same way they said that about hitler. incidentally the things that putin are saying is similar to what he was doing before second world war. so the reality is that putin would have gone aggressive and rock no matter what.
because from the beginning he proclaimed this was his goal to reassert soviet [ inaudible ] influence. and squeeze out the west from there. so the west can either appease him. well, he proved all [ inaudible ] the west basically appeased after georgia then crimea happened. >> you say if oil goes to $60 a barrel this will crush him, but it will crush a lot of other things in the world too. it will put companies out of business that produce oil. and then we have an oil-supply problem. >> i think what really is happening on -- there are two sides of it. in case of russia, it will be a problem. but it will also force russia to be a normal economy. and be just like normal country. >> what is normal? diversified? >> diversified, modernized. give people more say, but the
whole thing is this also is the result of shale gas. and the united states has lots of [ inaudible ] but then going back to the situation, one that today putin is on the offensive. this pro-russian government in georgia didn't make much fuss about it. they made this deal to annex -- strategically very important area. there's sea ports, oil there, amazing place, very takt place for georgia, but also very important for europe. just said putin with not much adu about it, quietly signed so-called bill with [ inaudible ] to annex it. why does he dare to do this -- >> they didn't call it annexation -- >> look, they moved their troops in to the depth of georgia territory. they diluted the border. there is no longer a border
between the two, and basically between the [ inaudible ] region of georgia and vu vush -- russia. theys also united their government systems, not only the army, but whoever is left [ inaudible ] 20% of the population has no say. they have been sidelined and this putin now. he did some kind of coup before that to put in the security guide, and basically took over. with the [ inaudible ] of course europeans didn't want to have extra headache -- >> that seems to be the way a lot of people are thinking about it -- >> but, again, he thinks it's a window of opportunity now. he thinks there will be a lame duck administration in the west. no majority in congress, isil is diverting all of the resources, and europeans are kind of
hesitating. we should be aware of next serious escalation. and i think he will be content eventually, it's better done sooner than later, because europe will always have to pay price but it will be too late and too much. i think they should have learned from their history, but there are no new churches now in europe. but let's see what merkel and the others do. coming up next from blake friday to cyber monday, retailers are ready for holiday sales. just one problem, where are the holiday shoppers? should you keep waiting before you make your purchases? answers in just two minutes. ♪
then at 9, it's america tonight in depth reporting from coast to coast >> would it be dangerous for you go about three blocks that way? >> i wouldn't go by myself... >> at at 10, consider this >> it's the latest push for reform... >> antonio mora brings you unique perspectives on the news of the day >> tonight starting at 8, only on al jazeera america chances are you have recently been inundated with ads and emails from stores boasting unbeatable holiday bargains. but the retail federation painted a very ugly picture. overall sales through black friday weekend dropped 11% this year compared to last year. the national retail federation predicted a gain for november and december. now member this is just a weekend. but it's good news for american
consumers according to joel bynes from alex partners. joel works with the firm's retail and wholesale clients. i assume you mean this is good because if everybody didn't show up, retailers are going to have to cut prices more between now and christmas. >> that's precisely right. it is always a waiting game, this year is brand new. all of the promotionals that stayed on friday are now moving earlier, that is diffusing demand throughout the week and month. and this is a new ball game for retailers. they are going to read these signals and then adjust their plans accordingly. >> when i see this 11% preliminary number it doesn't concern me as much as it would be in a normal year, because this disfusion, for a retailer, it normally starts on black friday and goes right until -- right before christmas.
here it was a little weird. it is not that same urgency that it used to be. >> that's exactly right. it's earlier promotions, trying to level out the promotional cadence prior to the day, and the increase in the online psyche and mentality. >> right. so the number that we're talking about does include online sales, but you are saying that the -- just the whole behavior is different. now that i know i can do it online, i just don't have to worry that much. >> absolutely. and the national retail federations numbers, while it's a very valid source, those are self reported numbers by consumers, and they tend to overestimate how much they will spend, and underestimate how much they just spent. so they tend to underestimate a little bit, so it wouldn't
surprise me in that is justed up a bit. >> my colleague always looks at this and say this is deflation. they think those prices are going down, so they wait. i think it's just a new behavior pattern for consumers. the urgency isn't there. they can buy pretty much until christmas. >> the retailers have trained the consumer to understand that this period where it used to be rush to the stores on friday, you don't have to do that anymore. and it's taken a few years for the consumer at large to accept that reality, but the reality has definitely sunk in, and we have seen that in spades this year, and the retailer continues to train the consumer that you don't have to show up on friday and buy right now, because if you don't, it will only motivate me to maintain that cadence until the end of the holiday season and beyond in some cases. >> however, they are talking
about this seeing 4.5% growth more than last year. except there is nothing else in society that can growing at 4.5%? >> yeah, the consumer is such an important part of the overall economy, and coming up with these estimates for what we think holiday sales will be relative to the prior year, it's more art than science, even though we all talk about it as though it's science. think retail consumer economy has the opportunity to grow at that sort of a pace, but it's not a forgone conclusion. it's not as if we have set everything in motion and we are going to get 4.5% growth. we see it more like 3.2 to 3.9%.
but all of the retailers are still struggling with the question of how do they drive growth? >> it is a buyers' market. >> absolutely. >> joel good to see you have. thank you so much. >> good to see you too, ali. coming up president obama wants police to wear body cameras, but will it be enough to stop deadly confrontation with civilance. plus a court case has a supreme court justice rapping on the bench. ♪
officers to record actions. our science and technology reporter, jacob ward is with us. jake let's talk about the technology. does this exist? >> yeah, it's been around for a long time, ali. today on cyber monday, you can get a camera called the narrative that will do pretty much the same thing. it will take a photograph every five seconds and send it to the cloud. i don't know why you would want that, but in theory that's something that people want. it's a very, very straightforward peace of technology. >> all right. what is -- has anybody studied what effect it has on the behavior of police officers, law enforcement to have these cameras? this >> yeah, the sort of pilot program, the study that everybody refers to is the study of a city in rialto here in
california, a city of 100,000 people. and the police force were randomly assigned cameras. as part of a controlled study, and the results were incredibly dramatic. the number of complaints about police dropped in one 12-month period from 24 complaints to 3. a drop of 88%. and that was when only half of the police officers were wearing cameras. and the use of force was almost entirely restricted to people who were not wearing the body cameras. you were half as likely to use force if you were an officer wearing one. so really a tremendous effect in the one controlled study we have seen. it's up to the officers to activate the cameras, and that's really where you can get into so much trouble here. >> what about the argument, is anybody being prevented from doing their job properly because of the fear that there is camera
on? >> i think the argument that privacy advocates have made is there a almost am of surveillance out there for the police to watch you, but not you to watch police. and the argument is that you should have a legally bounded and well-rooted system for the police to be recording on a standardized device. you know, that's the sort of thing that really makes good legal press den as opposed to a hodgepodge of personal cameras. so certainly there's two sides to this argument, but wearing a standardized device seems the most logical. >> are there any police who like this idea? >> i think police would say in a darkened ally with nobody else to dispute an account, it's good to have an impartial record of things, and on the same side advocates for defendants would say it's also just as good to have something that is really n
incontroversial year. you are watching the footage of police chasing someone down in arizona. but the real problem here is you are talking about police forces having total control over this footage. there are no real standards for who gets to release it. and there are court battles being fought in ohio, washington, colorado right now, trying to find out when should the police be releasing this? all of that has not been determined, and that's where we get into sticky territory. >> jake you thank you so much for joining us. free speech and social media collided in the supreme court today. the justices are trying to figure out if someone who posts threatening rants like on facebook can be charged with acrime. the case was brought for a man
posting violent statements against his estranged wife and law enforcement. whatever the supreme court decides will determine what we can and cannot say on the internet. >> historically the court has given wide latitude to free speech. so some believe given that, that the justices are more likely to find this facebook speech was free speech and not threatening speech. but some of the justices were clearly concerned about that, sorried that this could open up the flood gates to more threatening speech online. the case involves a pennsylvania man who took to facebook to post what he claimed were rap lyrics. killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class. he says:
alarmed his wife got a court protective order. but that didn't stop him: at that time he said he was just representing; that his writings were therapeutic, a form of free speech. here is his attorney. >> after the protective order was put into place, the tone of his posts changed, and one thing he said repeatedly was, these aren't threats. and one thing he said repeatedly was these are not threats. >> but his wife disagreed and so did a jury. where is the line between speech protected by the first amendment and criminal speech, threatening speech? does the person have to intend to do harm? or is it enough that a
reasonable person would be fearful based on the threatening words? one justice worried arresting someone for posting violent words might go too far, saying: but the government arguments his postings were a through threat to harm another person, which the court has historically found is not protected speech. and one justice was concerned about permitting violent content if the writer claims it is just rap. it's entertainment, saying: that's how domestic violence groups feel, worried that if he wins, it will open the flood gates on victims. >> all of those abusers out there who really -- who didn't want to let go, who wanted to be able to hold on, who wanted to
be able to continue to exert their power and control over their victim's lives will now have been provided an additional method of doing that by the court. >> reporter: it's now in the hands of the court, a decision expected this spring. it's not often that you hear a chief justice quote a .rare, but that happened today. john roberts talking about lyrics that talked about killing his ex-wife. could he be arrested said the chief justice? well the government argues it was all about context, and in that context, eminem was singing in public. it was clear it was not a true threat. coming up next, we're headed to space. american businesses see dollar signs.
billionaires, venture capital t capitalists, even nasa itself are contributing to that growth. in the united states private businesses are going where no private business has gone before. to earth's orbit, to the moon, and beyond. ♪ >> it's a question too tempting for some tech billionaires and venture cappalists to ignore. what is the return of investment on a whole new world? >> rockets and space ships, satellites and asteroid miners, moon hand -- landers and space ports. >> space is about exploration and then how you exploit it and profit off of it. >> in the last four years, the space industry has experienced a major bloom. global government spending is decreasing as the commercial
sector grows. of the $314 billion global space industry, the united states spends $74 billion on space, around $17 billion of that goes to nasa. $122 billion is made up of commercial space products like gps and telecom indications, and 117 goes to space infrastructure, building space pads, launches, rockets. the american space industry got a boost in 2010. >> we will work with a growing array of private companies working to make getting to space easier and more accessible. he offered to seed private space flight companies. >> that opened up a lot of opportunity for clever, ambitious, business people who thought they could do things
cheaper or faster. >> nasa spent about $2.5 billion by the end of 2014. >> almost every private space company that you look at now is in some way benefits from nasa. >> nasa has pumped an additional $7 billion into contracts with two companies, space xand boeing. so build spacecrafts that will take american astronauts to space by 2017. >> it's still many decades out, but we're starting to understand the model by which we can expand our economy into space. >> nasa has also spent billions on contracts with space x and orbital sciences. >> they are really engaging the private sector. >> but it doesn't always work,
space x's competitor, orbital sciences had massive sethback in september. the rocket exploded seconds after liftoff, with 5,000 pounds of cargo set for the space station. and we were there that night, cameras rolling. the explosion rang out like a sonic boom that ricochetted throughout the island in virginia. the week brought a one-two punches to the space industry, when both the rocket exploded and virgin galactic suffered the ultimate fail, the death of a test pilot and the crash of its space rocket. >> i believe the first trillion
airs created in space, sure, the impetus is money. >> i am 100% certain that everybody will have the chance to go to space. it seems far off and expensive. but the same thing happened with aviation. >> just as aviation was expensive and unreliable in its infancy so do is space. the falcon 9 rocket costs about $60 million per launch, half of the cost of its competitors. >> we still use essentially the same technology that sputnik was launched on. >> but they are working on a reusable rocket.
it could revolutionize the commercial space industry. >> i don't see the way that this so-called commercial space sector is developing is necessarily going to provide a decent return on investment. to be blunt it's a crap shoot. >> she cites ronald reagan's state of the union address when he announced the vision to build the international space station. >> we could manufacture in 30 days life-saving medicines that would take 30 years to make on earth. >> a number of possibilities people were promising would be wildly successful, and hugely profitable and they have not come to pass. >> but americans got to the moon with less technology that is in a typical iphone. >> we almost wear more computers than we had then. >> and now that the race is in the hands of private companies,
the sky, so to speak, is no longer the limit. nasa has already invested almost $2.5 billion of the government seed money. but don't think that nasa is getting out of space exploration. phil mcallister is the guy who decides how all of those billions of nasa dollars will be invested in commercial space companies. phil good to see you. thank you so much for being with us. you are taking a bit of exception with the say i set this up, i know you don't think this is a new space economy. you think it is a space economy that has been developing for sometime. >> i think we are seeing expansion of commercial activity in space recently. primarily because the cost has come down. so there has been definitely more activity in commercial
space primarily through wealthy individuals getting into the space business and trying new and innovative business plans. we have seen this all along throughout the space industry. people trying to make a profit. but recently there definitely has been an expansion. >> and part of this is because we don't have a shuttle program. so all eyes seem to be on non-nasa stuff. >> yes, we're still very busy at nasa. i think when the shuttle retired, a lot of people saw that as a retreat. but it's just the things we're doing may not be as visible as they were before. and now that we have gotten to the point where low earth orbit rotations have become more routine, it is rel -- realistic to think of the private sector
taking that over. >> what changed? >> i think people always dreamed about economic activity in low earth orbit and even beyond from the beginning of the space age. but it became more realistic >> i think recently. innovation starts to emerge. entrepreneurs, enter the scene. i think it was really a confluence of events of many, many missions to low-earth orbit. so it has gotten to be where it's more realistic for the private sector to do more. >> is there any conflict between a mission-driven nasa, and the private sector in space as you are seeding companies, as you are funding them, do you run into inherent problems where you are dealing with the richest of
the rich, that don't do things the way a government organization did? this >> i don't see a conflict at all. i think every group brings something special to the table. and by partnering in this way we have seen a synergistic approach. nasa which is steeped in lesson learned, combining that with this innovation from the private sector, we are seeing we can do a lot more with a lot less. and in fact it's interdependent. nasa still has its sites on beyond low-earth orbit, and in order to do that, we have to make things more cost effective, and by turning over some of these more routine missions to the private sector, we can take those savings and poor them into our deep space exploration plan.
>> phil thank you for joining us. tomorrow in our week-long series, the business of space, a hard look at the risks of this new space age. what price is too high to pay for advancing the commercial space industry. and from elite education to the corner office, it's what most women expect, but in the corporate world those expectations usually become a reality only for men. why? the surprising answer from harvard, just two minutes away.
by some accounts, 2014 was the year of the woman in the world of business. janet yellen, general motors had a year to forget, but mary berra became the first woman to run major auto maker anywhere in the world. the pay gap is narrowing, driven primarily by -- millenals. the move towards gender equality has been lead by education, but
education alone is not proving to be the solution. women are better educated, but a new study from the top of the education ladder, harvard business school, found its alumni shared the same career and life goals regardless of gender, but expectations only met reality for the men. both men and women expected to be able to pursue their career goals while raising a family, but in the end the harvard women wound up taking a back seat compared with the harvard men. sadly this is hardly surprising. only one out of five fortune 500 board seats are held by women. the question is why? it's not access to education? nor a lack of role models. even the all male national babel player's association is now lead
by its first female union chief. but it's a comply indicated problem, so we will continue to search for a solution for the sake of all of our daughters. that is our show for today. i'm ali velshi. thank you for watching us. >> hi, everyone this is al jazeera america, i'm john siegenthaler in new york. ferguson fallout, ah new wave of protests around the nation as the white house unveils its plan in response to the crisis. isil alert, warning from the fbi, why american soldiers and veterans are being asked to keep a low profile on social media. under siege, twin attacks in nigeria after a week of extreme bloodshed. why the violence seems to be getting worse.