Money. This is real money. You are the most important part of the show. 2w50e9 me or hit me up at facebook. Com alivelshi. President obama is lobbying congress to support his International Coalition to defeat Islamic State insurgents who are wreaking havoc in iraq and syria. Thats the group that claimed it beheaded two american journalists working in syria last month. Tomorrow night, the president will try to explain and justify his strategy in a prime time speech. Now, we already know that the administration began reaching out to dozens of countries to help take on the insurgent group. As we have done on this show, we are going to continue to pay special attention to the flow of funds and to countries that are accused of financing militants. A hearing was held on capital hill focusing on hamas and the states that support it. In the coming weeks, i will take hard looks at those states. One is qatar. It finances al jazeera. So i will start there. A tiny state on the persian gulf. It has faced withering criticism. It denies lending support to Islamic State fighters. Its been singled out over qatars quote permissive te terrorist financing. They are unapologetic calling it representative of the palestinian resistance. Hamas, as you know, is designated a terrorist o by the United States and israel. In 2012, the qataris pledged aid though rebuild gaza after a prior conflict between israelis and palestinyangs. As i mentioned, i will be looking at other countries,tie, saudi arabia, iran and others accused of financing terror. Tonight, i begin with qatar. One of the experts who spoke before that Congressional Panel about hamas funding is stephen cook, a senior fellow for middle east teno on for an relations. He said qatar is consistent with a populist approach to the regionto whose goal is to establish independent from powerful neighbors, likely saudi arabia. This is interesting that its not just that states might support a group whose th they share but state support of militant groups may serve broader geopolitical needs like influence in the region. I think thats exactly right. There may be people within qatar who share hamass world view, but broadly speaking, it strikes me that the government of qatar, which has been, i think, somewhat less than circum expect in the way it used money around the region that includes helping militant groups but i think in this case in particular, the goal here has been for qataris to buy influence around the region and demonstrate policy index from their neighbors, notably saudi arabia. Both had different views. The qataris have sought to place themselves in a broader populist position in the region, and i think there is no denying the fact that there is support for hamas, at least support for resistance againstitioniss occupation and in regard to the gaza strip. When you take that thesis, does that same thesis apply to turkey or saudi arabia or iran in their support of militant groups . Is it also as much to do with regional influence as it is to do with a particular movement . Well, its different in all of these different cases. Iran is an easy case. I think iran is the one country in the region that is most deeply involved in funding militant groups. Turkey is also somewhat different it has become more deeply involved with hammats over the course of the last 10 years or so in an odd way, the ruling party in turkey, which it has not been violated but the ruling party sees itself in hamas, in the struggle against elites in turkey. They see the struggle against israel and other countries in the region. In saudi arabia, it is more about this big geo political game and struggle the way the saudis look at it in the way it views these conflicts as particularly a sectarian as sunni versus shiia. There are different motivations for each of these countries in the region in where the money flows. Not all of them have total control over the money given the fact that there are their sibtsz donate to chair at this and other groups who do funnel money to some of these groups. The United States and israel both have complex relationships with qatar. Qatar is home to a major u. S. Base from which actions in afghanistan and other parts of the middle east are based and will likely be based in the future. Until 2008, but they haveh had relationships nast. Qatar has had a role in the past as a mediator of sorts. They am negotiated the release after hostage. Where we see treasury condemning qatar for a perm missive environment, we have seen the president thanking qatar for its help on various matters. Tell me how you weigh that. There are areas where they are unhelp followupful and areas where they are incredibly helpful. The existence of the air pace from which the u. S. Has conducted both wars in iraq and afghanistan and increasing operations in iraq and perhaps in syria in the coming days and weeks and months is essential to the u. S. Military. As you point out, the qataris have beg at times rather progressive when it comes to israel. It was al jazeera that broke the taboo of having are in israelis on television in the arab world. There was an israeli trade delegation in qatar. The countryries are investing in the israelsi Soccer League particularly in jer uselum. There are different aspects. This is what makes it difficult for the u. S. To wash its hands of qatar. The idea of abandoning the air base f it would happen t would have to happen over a very long period of time. At the moment, given the current realities of the International Situation in the middle east, it seems unlikely that the United States would take such a drastic step. We are going to have to live with the qatari relationship with organizations like hamas. I think the trick is to our advantage. They helped to relief the pressure on hamas. The trick for american diplomats and officials is to use that relationship to apply pressure on hamas. This is specific to qatars relationship and turkeys relationship to hamas. When it comes to Islamic State, these are different relationships. In fact, qatar, while its very transparent with its relationship with hamas is pretty straight up about the fact that they do not support Islamic State. Do you believe that . I think that evidence is thin, based upon one statement by a german intelligence back. Is not to say there arent qataris who support the Islamic State. But it doesnt strike me there is any support that the Government Supports the Islamic State. When it comes to turkey, i think there has been an effort of the turks to turn a blind eye to extremist groups using turkish territory to engage in warfare against the assad regime left without an american or western about intervention, the turks very early on in the conflict came to the conclusion that the best way to inflict pain on assad was to allow these groups to operate. I think they have come to learn three yea three years this was perhaps not the wisest policy in the world. You bring up an interesting point. The concept of wealthy donors supporting these militant groups versus government supporting the militant groups. The u. S. Treasury pointed out two people who have they have named two people who they say have been able to operate in this loose financial environment that allows the support of terrorists. They didnt say they acted to behalf of the qatari government. Is this an important distinction or not . I think it is an important distinction. I think its worth emphasizing and repeating that there is a distinction here there is that is often lost in the policy debates here in washington. I think that the is remedy is in live rajjing the economic power and might of the United Statess financial estimate system to pressure these individuals or groups from funneling money to these militant organizations, but it bears repeating up until now, there is no evidence these governments, themselves in the case of the Islamic State are funding or as a policy are funding this organization. Hamas is very different. Yes. As you pointed out, there was a 400 Million Investment flu 20012. There has been some discussion after 300 Million Investment in hamas as well. Policies. Stephen, i want to be clear. You are with the counciling sub sill on Foreign Relations which has not received money from any about. That is correct. Stephen cook, we will talk more because i want to talk as i mention today my viewers about the other countries in greater detail about turkey, saudi arabia and iran and you are a great source for us. Stephen cook is a senior fellow relations. Coming up, i will tell you why the u. S. Economy may never return to what we thought was normal before the Great Recession. Time it companies are keeping if oil offshore while they wait for the until cost of oil to rise. I will tell you if that makes any sense at all. Those stories and more as real money continues. Keep it here. A crisis on the border theyre vulnerable these are refugees. Migrant kids flooding into the us. Were gonna go and see whos has just been deported. Why are so many children fleeing . Your children will be part of my group. Fault lines, Al Jazeera Americas hard hitting. There blocking the door. Ground breaking. Truth seeking. We have to get out of here. Award winning investigative documentary series. No refuge children at the border only on Al Jazeera America why would you store oil in a vessel, a championship . The market is telling you to do that. We are in a situation now here at the end of the summer, the demand for gasoline gasoline is now greater going into the refinery maintenance season so demand for crude oil is low at this point. What we are seeing is weak prices in the stockmarket. Thats the lack of demand and the over supply is weighing on the front end of the curve. So a very profitable strategy now is to buy oil today at the spot price with these depressed prices, put it into storage and put it on a danger and go out on the futures curve on the ice and sell that offsite oil, contract a delivery in three, four, five months time at a higher price. As long as theprice you are buying today and the price you are locking in to sell it is greater than your storage cost, i. E. How much is it going to cost you to store it in a tank or pay for that ship every single day, its a nice trade to at this point. So the underlying theme here, ali, is you can only do this when you have very weak demand, very weak economy globally. The last time that is when we were in this situation is at the financial meltdown that began in 2008, 2009. This was a very profitable trade for oil traders back then and, hence, it should be depending on if we get that further inversion in the curve could be, again, another very good profitable trade for traders, but it also could be a telltale of that of future economic would hes might be around the corner es might be around the corner. Under normal circumstances, the price for oil on the spot market that you can buy today and stick on your ship if you have one is higher than what it will be typically in four or five months. In normal circumstances, this wouldnt be a good trade . And you couldnt do that trade because you do not have a cost to care. At commodity market should be in that form as you said, prices should be more expensitch today and cheaper as you go out into the Co Commodities are consumed in the spot market. When you have the spot market trading at a premium, thats a telltale there is a lot of demand out stripping supply. Now, the reverse of that with the stock price falling so far below the future price, whats that telling us . Its telling us that supply is outstripping demand at this point. Bottom line is he have too much oil. I will buy it, stick it on a tank, sell it down three or four months into the future and continue to do this until this arbitrage opportunity closes. Let me ask you this we traditionally have not been the big producer of oil in america that we are today. We are getting oil and more oil with the fracking boom. The refineries . Are used to a different kind of i am. They are not used to the oil we are fracking does that play into this at all . Its a wonderful situation at this point. Right now over the past 10, 15 years, the u. S. Refinery industry has invested billions of dollars to upgrade refineries to process a medium or heavy sour crude oil, much less expensive than the lighter crude oil produced in north dakotdako we have a situation in the United States where we are gear today maximized a lowerpriced, lower quality crude oil but with the frac and boom in back bakken, its easy to refine that is weve got too much of that. Dont have enough of that cheaper oil, the heavier sour crude oil. We are in a situation now where if we were and we should be allowed to export crude oil. Here would be exporting crude oil of higher quality, higher cost and buying back in reverse a lower quality, lowerpriced crude oil. We would be exporting caviar, buying back tuna fish. Thats a win for the industry and the consumer. Welete like eating tuna fish. Stephen, thank you for joining us Stephen Schork is the editor of the schork report. Next year, the 6th year an vis reof the Lehman Brothers, seen as a catlist of bringing the world to economic collapse. We have talked about whether the weak recovery from the Great Recession represents something called a new normal when Economic Growth stagnates and puts further strain on middle class americans. James galbraith says the concept of normal no longer has meaning. Tonight its an ideas we have heard before. He wants to challenge a set of economic principles he argues failed to help us predict the financial crisis. Galbraith is the son of the famous harv vard professor of economics who served in the ad minstrations of four american president s and wrote four dozen books. But today, we are talking about a book by james galbraith, the end of normal, the great crisis and the future of growth. James is also a professor of government at the university of texas at austin and he joins me now from campus. Congratulations on the publication of the book, james and an important book it is. We asked this question all the time about the normal. You are saying you challenge that assumption but i want to start with this. You challenge the idea that our economic principles and the way we study economics is correct. You are saying that the way we think about it is what prevented us from understanding that we were going to have this Great Recession in the first place 6r789s i would argue our concept of normal was framed by the postwar period, the bulk of the statistical history and basis of models. Its reasonable that we have moved past that period. We have to think about at a time face. You have got in your book the four horsemen of the end of growth. The new normal is not going to be about the growth that we had befores you talk about a choke chain, the kind of thing you would use to hold back a leashed dog to get ahead. Explain this to me. Driving up prices. Thats, in part, what happened in 2008, 2009. For the u. S. In particular, thats been mitigated somewhat in the last five years by the enormous rise of natural gas through fracking. And that definitely had a stabilizing effect on the u. S. Economy. What we dont know is how long it will last and, of course, it doesnt really cut at the question of oil, which is another different story and still a very major fuel. You have joined us today on the announcement of the release of the iphone 6 and a new watch that is coming out from apple and we are so excited about technology. In fact, if you look at the best performing stocks of the last few years, they are far and away technology stocks. Many of them, the most common names up in the hundreds of and yet when we talk to the grateful thinkers in this country about technology, some really resupposed minds, they warn us of one thing. This is up ending labor as we know it. You think of it adds an engine of growth. It makes people rich but does not employ more people. I think thats correct. There are two things going on. One is the technologies lower the could nst of capitol so it less money it and resources to do a certain amount of investment and they save massively on labor. In the wake of the crisis, what happened is the businesses who had laid off workers because they had to in the great fall of demand basically examined their Business Models and asked themselves, can we do this in a less expensive way . They find Technological Solutions and dont hire the workers back. , i think, is what we are observing. We have had a very big fall in the ratio of employment to population in the United States. Thats partly aging of the labor force, but its also partly excuse me its also partly this neck logical effect. Thats just a fact that this technological revolution is different from the ones that we experienced in the 20th century which actually did create a lot of employment. In a few moments, i am speaking to sheila bear, the former head of the regulator that managed the banks in this country. I think she happened to have done a very, very good job during the financial crisis. But you mentioned your fourth horstman is the fallout of financial fraud. Explain that to me. I am a great admirer of sheila behr, in fact. I cant overall the regulation, the supervision of the Banking Sector from the 1990s through the 2000s was unquestionably a great disaster. Has left us with, we saved the banking instittushingsz but they are fundamentally shells of what they once were. They are not in the business of creating new businesses we dont have the financial structure that we would need to deal with forward. James galbraith, i have done a disservice to you distilling your book into four bullet points which is why our viewers need to read the book. Thank you so much for being with us. James galbraith. I think you did a good job. Thank you, sir. Americans are borrowing more money and getting credit a lot easier these days. Does that spell trouble dpount trees . Disney . I am ta