tv Real Money With Ali Velshi Al Jazeera July 23, 2014 5:00am-6:01am EDT
>> every single one of these buildings shook violently. >> for continuing coverage of the israeli / palestinian conflict, stay with al jazeera america, your global news leader. >> four simple words have the future of obamacare hanging in the balance. i'll break down two complicated court rulings and what they mean for the millions of americans who signed up for coverage, and also, aljazeera journalists in gaza, and i'll give you my take and plus, boom towns on the bayou, how fracking is creating both opportunity and challenges. i'm ali velshi and this is "real money."
this is "real money, and you are the most important part of the show. so tell me what's on your mind by tweeting me at ali velshi or facebook.com/ali velshi. these four words, established by the state. the interpretation of those four simple words in the affordable care act has set up a complicated legal battle that threatens the future of obamacare and may send it back to the supreme court. this is all about the subsidies that help low and middle income people afford health surface on the exchanges by federal government or by states. today a three judge panel for the court of appeals for the dc circuit rule that the law, as written, with the four words in it, only allows subsidies for policies sold on exchanges, established by the state. that could potentially lead to -- or it could be a big blow
for oklahoma, making it confusing and after that, a virginia court of appeals panel said exactly the opposite. it ruled that the subsidies that come in a tax credit are allowed, no matter whether the exchange is state or federal. here's why the outcome could have a major impact. of the roughly 8 million people who have purchased obamacare so far, 5.4 million got coverage through the federal exchange. 87% of those people qualified for subsidies that reduced their premiums, the tax credits, and many of them pay less than $100 a month after the subsidies are factored in. and let me show you the math. it shows why the exchanges are doing so much of the heavy lifting for obamacare. and many run on the exchange completely or in part by the u.s. government of the only 14 states currently have their
own exchanges. states, the blue states, would be able to receive subsidies, and anyone receiving subsidies in the other three dozen states would face increases in insurance. since the dc case was decided by a three judge panel, the obamacare administration will ask the full 11 appeals court to hear the case. it has seven judges pointed by democratic presidents and four by president obama. today, the administration took pains to say that the dc ruling will have no impact on the billions of dollars of tax credits that are lowering prepare comes that people are saying. don't forget what i said at the top. all of the concern over healthcare is from the four words established by the state. it's really the four words, and why can't they be changed? turns out that nothing is easy when it comes to the affordable care act. today's twin rulings underlined not only the difference of
opinion, but the nature of the debate. that's from the school of public health, dillon, thank you for joining us, and first o first of all, why did some states elect to do this in partnership with the federal government or establish their own exchanges? >> part of it is politics, but part is capacity. if you're a small state with very few health insurers, you be able to run it from the ground up. but there's a different approach. let's let the feds run this. so you'll see federally run exchanges that are states led by democratic governorrers, and if this runs out, they will probably adopt the state exchange. >> let's talk about the worst case scenario, though that's not where the odds makers are putting this. there will probably be a resolution, but let's say that
the dc ruling stands, they get the court of appeals, and let it go, and the statement court rules in favor of the dc circuit court. if that were to happen, what would be factor be? >> the first thing, this probably wouldn't happen for another year. however, if it did happen in this worst case scenario, you would end up with the people residing in the federal marketplace states that are buying their spurns through healthcare.gov and that represents 5 to 6 million people a year from now. we have 85% of those in the federal exchanges using the tax credits to help them purchase insurance. so the those people will have unaffordable health assurance from their perspective, and the law states that if you spend more than 8% of your income for a typical bronze plan in your area, you can get an exception
to the mandate. so you don't have to pay a penalty. >> so you could rob from the healthcare foreman without penalty, which means that a large percentage of people may get out of the healthcare system. >> especially those in lower incomes. and those would be the people most likely to be able to hit that threshold and opt out completely and not pay the penalty and go uninsured, and unfortunately, those are a lot of younger people who might make the risk pool for insurance companies better. >> so that's the second knock-on effect. the idea that even if you're not on this, you're not subsidized, you pay full freight for your healthcare through an exchange, and it's possible that in those young invincibles or young people get out of the system, the cost gets over the smaller pool and premiums go up. >> absolutely. so in the past, when we saw this
pre-2014 in the individual market, we saw many insurers in the individual market say, we only have people in the pool. so the premiums will go up 25%, so you could see the increase of all of the people exempted from the nca's individual mandate and those who don't value insurance to pay full price, drop out and leave the older people behind in the pool to continue purchasing insurance. >> where do you fall on this? do you think that it's likely to continue status quo or will this ruling make a difference and hurt obamacare? >> i think that the status quo will be maintained and i think that the district court will probably end up overruling this three-judge panel decision, and there are three cases being heard now, and we may end up with the supreme court weighing in, but i think that jus scalia made the decision this month, and he says you can't take one line out of the law and put it into effect without looking at
the context of looking at the entire statute. and this is one of those cases, though it was a mistake or a different intend -- exactly. so the law will end up standing, and i think that the people in the federal exchanges and the state exchanges will continue to get their tax credits, but this creates uncertainty for health plans and individuals, and they may not know what's going on with the aca and that's compounded with the other glitches in rollout and the decisions on medicaid expansion where people are generally confused about the law because of the political and judicial wrangling. >> thank you for putting clarity to this. a professor of health management in ucla. europe is tightening the screws on vladimir putin's rush, and plus, encouraging news about america's housing be market. i'll tell you what that means if you're looking to buy or sell. when you run a business, you can't settle for slow. that's why i always choose the fastest intern.
the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. with the top speedou compare of comcast the top speed of business dsl from the internet... phone company well, there's really no comparison. why pay more for less? call today for a low price on speeds up to 150mbps. and find out more about our two-year price guarantee. comcast business. built for business.
>> the federal saveiation administration called it hazardous, and americans are prohibited from flying to tel aviv until at least tomorrow afternoon. flight had 2 the 0 people onboard and was diverted to paris. meantime, john kerry with a proposed ceasefire that was rejected by hamas. so far the fighting has claimed more than 600 lives. airline passengers are growing anxious after last week when the malaysian airlines jet
was shot down over the ukraine, killing all 298 people board. ukraine today, pro russian separatists agreed to hand over the black boxes to the authorities and the home to the netherlands. and international monitors said that the bodies still lay on the crash site and rebels have been tampering with the evidence at the site. meanwhile, vladimir putin made his first public comments since the crash. and he said russia would use its influence with the separatists but he called on the west not to meddle with russia fairs, and afterwards, the european un expanded it's sanctions to more, and warned that it would act swiftly if russia didn't reign in the rebels. you've been discussing this and what does it come to? >>
well, let's talk a little bit about what they came up with in the announcement today. they did condemn the downing of the airliner, but much of the declaration had to do with the browder issue of russia support for them in the it eastern part of the country. they said they would be drawing up a list of people close to vladimir putin within the four structure in russia who may have will a hand in the destableidation in ukraine or crimea. and they're going to start to look at sectors of industry, and they say capital markets, defense, dual use goods and sensitive technologies, including the energy seconder, and they want to have that drawn up by thursday. they haven't said they're going to do sector-wide sanctions yet. but they will have to have the option on the table by thursday. >> is it your sense that there's forward movement here,
particularly those arguing in the ukraine or poland that europe should be going further? >> ? people are not going to be happy with what came out of brussels today. poland, the baltic states, many of the countries within the european union who won't be hit as hard in their financial sectors, and germany, who have been more proactive, and washington is unlikely to be happy. but having said that, the shear fact that the europe union is proposing a list of sectors that they might sanction, that's going to at least put the specter out there. but the problem is, ali, we have talked about it time and time again, there's this division in the european union, those hard hit and those who aren't, and until they figure it out, it's going to be tough to get anything out of brussels. >> thank you, and the continued
unrest in ukraine and gaza haven't been enough to make the marquettes blink. the dow and nasdaq moved higher today. and the stimulus being pumped into the economy is masking political risk, and ininvestors are focusing on the best case sescenario. tina joins us and thank you for being with us. this is a tricky situation, last thursday when all of this happened. the plane had gone down, and israel began its incursion into gaza, you saw a little bit in the markets. because as you argued all of the stimulus is in padding, and you don't even see big reactions when there are anticipations to things. >> that's right. but when you take these developments in aggregate, you see a series of taking political risks so the obvious application is that when kiwi is taken away, all of the risks are exposed again.
and for now, investors are treating them as localized bit of regional trouble. but when something happens like the tragedy with the plane crash, they become internationals and they really move beyond a regional scope. >> but then somehow they fall into the background with the markets. you're in london and some of the hesitation in england about sanctions on russia has to do with the amount of money that comes into landon, wid . >> there's a bigger economic, market. and that's to the extent of keeping energy prices stable is much more for the european recovery. it's more fragile than the u.s., and half a point of growth puts a lot of people book into the recession. pushing back hard on the
sanctions and now the dynamics have really changed. >> have they changed enough? at what point did these go from regionlized global issues to being frightening? we have had the conversation on the show many times, that one doesn't want to draw direct parallels, but one goes back to world war ii, and hopefully we'll do something serious, but everyone is resistent to making an actual move. >> i think that you have to look at the developments in the wilder context. in the cases of russia and china, these are regional powers that take advantage with opportunity for a change in the security environment with president obama and wider u.s. public opinion, being strongly opposed to military intervention after the situations in iraq and afghanistan. and again, that economic imperative, but i think that the risk is that failure to act, and
the u.s. acting together could potentially mean there's more space for these elements to create a situation that can't be resolved with drone strikes or the no boots on the ground measures that have been favored for so long. >> so the best case for a lot of investors is the best case scenario. you're an expert at this, and yours is never a best case scenarios, and professionals don't do it that way. >> you're right. and the plane crash doesn't change the trajectory, but it accelerates it. and the day before, i wrote we should expect level three sanctions by the end of this year, and now i say by the end of september, but does that change the calculus for russia, that feels that it has been wrongly accused and blames the ukraine an government. and in washington, it's quite clear. what they hope to do is impose costs, and not to change the
behavior, but also, to your point of appeasement and the tools in the policy toolbox, sanctions are a pretty blunt instrument. and we haven't tried them on a country as integrated in the world economy, as russia, and hence the hesitation. >> it's not vietnam, and it's not north korea. these are countries that are fully integrated. tina is an analyst at city group. next, the housing market is coming back to life. and much of the credit for the recovery is with institutional buyers, and now the buyers are pulling back. we'll examine if the market can survive without them.
>> the housing market, the market has heat under as they dip and grow. analysts say that the gains are healthy but despite the gains, the recovery has a way to go. june sales were still 2% behind last year's level. president obama said that institutional investors put a floor under the housing market and in the last year, investors have spent hundreds of billions of dollars of buying up distressed homes and turning
them into rental. but now that the housing market is stabilized, institutional investors have slowed their buying. but after double-digit home appreciation in the last year, is that a bad thing? mary snow has the story. [ auctioning ] >> this was the scene last summer when dozens of institutional investors convened on the neighborhood to buy hundreds of single-family homes in a single afternoon. >> sold! >> since 2011, institutional investors have spent upwards of 50 billion dollars and bought 386,000 single-family homes across the country, but now the feeding frenzy is slowing, and the percentage of home sales to investors has slowly declined over the last year. blackstone, for example, the
largest of the institutional investors, tells "real money" that it's investments are down 75% over last year. >> particularly in the hottest market where they started out, they're pulling back as those markets are somewhat tapped out and there's not as much opportunity for them to purchase there. >> but there could be a downside to investors pulling back on foreclosed home purchases. when investors bought properties in markets like columbus, home values rose, and when investors stop buying, prices fall. >> we have seen the appreciation slow down dramatically, and the question is that going to continue to be a soft landing? >> nationally, home values have been steadily appreciating since 2009, but in markets like phoenix, which were hit hard by
the foreclosure crisis, investor purchasing was down 14% from last year when buying was at its peak. 30% last year to 6% in may. >> 6% home price appreciation is still good, but the question is, how far is that going to fall as the players fall out more. >> but analysts say that there are other factors to take into account with the slowing of home appreciation. >> institutional interest is likely one of many contributing factors to the browder housing market slowdown, which includes higher mortgage rates and less attractive housing affordability. >> mary snow, aljazeera. >> decreasing home value is not necessarily a bad thing. it means that more homes are affordable for more people. but the question remains whether a pullback by institutional investors will hurt the housing market. he says that there is indeed a
correlation between the two. >> i think they're related. investor demand has weakened considerably over the last 18 months, and because they're not buying as much as they were in the recovery, it has taken steam out of the recovery, and that's why housing growth has slowed noticeably since the beginning of the year. >> if you didn't understand the importance of the new home market, it became clear to you after the recession when people saw some 1 million jobs lost because of no new hims being built. is new homes still the economic driver it was? is it still something that we should strive to get back to. >> absolutely. 6 just to give you numbers, ali. we're producing 1 million housing units, single-family homes, and rental units and manufactured homes.
in a typical economy, not even a good one, just a typical one, we should be producing 1.7 million homes per anum and that's a lot of jobs. every single home that we put up creates four to five jobs over the period of a year. and a couple of million jobs could be created if we just produce housing like we would in a typical economy. >> last year, we were at 925,000. and next year, a little better than a million. 1.1. over the last 50 years or so, we averaged less than 1 and a half million. and you talked about 1.75 million homes a good number to get to. and is it realistic to think that we'll get there? we'll get there, because what's going to happen, the housing market is git get tighter and tighter and we're going to have a housing shortage. going back to the housing bubble, we had a surplus of
home, and now we've been working, and a year down the road, given the current lines, we'll have a shortage of housing. that's going to induce builders to get into the marketplace and build more, so it may not be next year or the year after, but we're heading to higher construction. >> you could save four or five jobs through the course of the year, obviously a major growth area for jobs, and quality jobs, and on the other side of the equation, the larger piece of the pie are existing homes, 930% are existing homes, and they create a wealth effect. we have seen 2/3 of americans, 60% own homes, and they're feeling good because the price of their homes have gone up. and which is bigger or better for the economy? do we want existing homes to be though climbing at a faster rate or a homes.
>> i think both. because new construction is the key. it's not only construction jobs, but it's manufacturing, because think of all of the manufactured stuff this goes into a home, it's transportation distribution, and it's financial services and retailing and landscaping and cable hook up. the construction market runs deep into the job market and in my mind, that's important. but as you point out, 65 perfection of the market is homes, and to go out and spend more. but at the end of the day, i would take that construction, and i think that's the most important thing. >> so we're talking broadly and economically. break it down to someone who is a potential buyer or seller of a home right now. should they be worried about the bigger trends, the macro trends, and should it have an impact on their decision to buy or sell a home right now? >>
mortgage rates are very low. you can get a 30-year fixed rate at 4%, and that's about as good as it gets, and the job market is improving. the key for many first time buyers is can i get a mortgage? but that's improving, so in my mind, that's a pretty good time, close to the best of times to go out and buy a home. for sellers, the prices haven't gotten quite back to where we want to see them, below the lowest peak, so it's a better buyer's market than a seller's market, but we're in generally a very good housing market down the road. in the next several years, the housing should be good for everyone. buyer and seller. >> the combination of price and good mortgage makes for a good mix. mark, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, ali. >> coming up, how cities in america could solve some of the big problems that washington and the rest of the world can't figure out.
>> israel's invasion of gaza continues tonight. >> we have been hearing a lot of tank shelling coming from where we are, here. >> every single one of these buildings shook violently. >> for continuing coverage of the israeli / palestinian conflict, stay with al jazeera america, your global news leader. >> yesterday was the signing of the dodd frank protection act. and instead of being the grand fix for a broken financial system, many critics say that dodd frank let left us more vulnerable for another meltdown. not the law itself, but ut enforcement of the law. whether the system is still broken four years later, sharron, a professor of political economy at columbia university. and what's your sense of it when you look at dodd frank? are we better off or worse off? i find it hard to believe.
>> there were some things that it did that were very g first of all, it increased the capital buffer, that allowed banks to be more. >> i would say that's a particularly good one. >> that's a positive one, and it also provided for a means of resolution outside of bankruptcy, and it gave you a plan to do that. if we look at lehman, what happened, it was in bankruptcy and a free-for-all. >> left to the regulators to figure it out. and let's be more organized and what would happen if your institution got in trouble. >> careful unwinding, it keeps the value of the assets, which is very important in these cases, and also, it let the regulations to cover more entities. more hedge funds. so again, that's important, because you're exposing these large institutions that have a
lot of different regulations that they have not been before. and fourth, they can find and expand the coverage of different products,. >> in the global economy, there wasn't regulation of them. >> that's right, because the banks couldn't hold them off of the books, but it still exposed them. >> those are the good things. >> so you ask, what are the bad things? why do people say we're worse off? first of all, it was an increasingly politicized process. it moved a lot of authorities from the fcc and the federal reserve to the more politically appointed one, like the secretary of treasury that heads up the council of financial stability so they can veto different regulations. and secondly, it created a lot of overlapping jurisdiction, so you have all of the agencies commenting on the same rule.
>> which was already a bit of an alphabet soup. >> they made morale if a bets into the soup, so if you like noodles, we're doing well. and third, they allowed for political vetoes. one agency can veto the rules of another agency, and that makes it almost impossible to get things done. so what we moved from was a very rog podgy, patchwork system, so an increasingly hodgepodgey, patchwork system, which has led to enormous amounts of procedural gridlock. they have the capacity to get the job done, but they can't. >> in the last election, mitt romney said that if he came into office, he would get rid of the whole thing, and that's appealing to a lot of people. we didn't need more regulation, but needed better enforcement of some things on the books.
that was not entirely true, but things that we needed to cover. >> reporter: 80 perfection of what we have now could have been done under the previous laws. that is true. they could have been extreme lined and cleared out. but the things that i gave at the beginning, we didn't need to add that to strengthen the financial system so. there are good things to think about, and there are goods to be proud of and that's them, right? but what do you do to fix it now? how do you streamline it and make it smart regulation as opposed to more regulations and that means clear out the line of authority in the regulatory structure, and make sure that each first time has a primary regulator to whom they have to answer. and do the same thing with the products, a mortgage is a mortgage. and it should be clear standards that people understand. >> . >> it's ate tall order.
and sharron, thank you for joining us, glad to get a good view of what exactly dodd/frank has done four years later. >> anyone going to the gas station to fill up a car knows that gas prices have been rising this summer, and that's attributed to a slight rise last month, everything from haircuts to electricity, rose 3/10 of a percent in june as opposed to may, and gasoline accounted for most of that gain. the grocery bill has been going up as the drought out west pushes prices higher, and inflation is very low, but for most people's lives, you can't take away gas and food. though you're paying slightly higher prices for gas and food, your incomes are not keeping up and that's an issue we talked about extensively on the show. flat in may and june, and
average incomes were flat from the 1970s to before the recession started in 1970, and in 2012, the top 10 perfection of earners took half of all of america's income. the wage gap is getting wider across the globe. but the best solutions are not on a global scale, their good. local. it's the cities best equipped to solve the problems. it's in the book, if mayors ruled the world, dysfunctional cities. i saw you talk about it at the world economic forum. some think that it's not the way to get things done to convince national leaders, but in fact go to local leaders, and how do you harness the energy of local leaders around the world? they're closer to the ground and closer to their own people. and they have a faster rate of
turn over and ideas to achieve. >> that's right, ali. in 19453, before the united nations had been founded in europe, they said nation states are too big for participation in democracy, and too small for powerplay. how do we deal with problems with local input in and what i found, cities, municipalities and metro regions are doing it. that's where problems are solved. we closed washington, and you can't close atlanta, and can't close qatar. that's where the rubber hits the road and where the action is, and from every field from climate change to equality cities are where it is. >> we're not as dug? in cities, and not as partisan in the way that we elect our local officials, and they're used to crossing the aisle, if you will, and dealing with people from the other parties. >> that's exactly right, i was
in kansas last fall, and people warned me, that's a very republican state. and of the people that i met, only half of them had a party preference. the mayor of new york said there's no democratic or republican way to pick up the "divergent", and east side, we had, you're in trouble. >> so the issue here is what is the breadth of topics that cities can actually cover? because we generally think of them as garbage and safety and things like that, but you're saying that it can go much that, bigger issues, including terrorism and things like that. >> it has to because the nation states are so functional today. the issues are supposed to deal with climate change, immigration, national security. and they're simply not doing it, and mayors have the responsibilities, and councilors have the responsibilities to make their cities work. so for example with climate change, for almost 20 years,
despite the progress, no progress has been made. and cities, with icla, and mike bloomberg set up the climate cities, and they're working together to reduce emissions, and turns out that 80 perfection of carbon emissions come from cities. and they're in the place to do that. >> the world is urbanizing, and so this is a trend that's obvious. we had somebody on the show last week with the idea that cities can create on ramps into the middle class, and cities can help alleviate that skills gap. >> they can, and despite the contradiction, the paradox is that cities have to deal with wealth they create. they don't control capitalism and they don't control the distribution of jobs, but they
have the inequality and the get owes, and the unemployed folks and the so called illegal immigrants and the workers looking for jobs. and they have to be able to figure out how to do with without addressing the underlying forces and they do a hell of a job, and they do that by taking into account the informal economy, which are not listed by giving people a living. the squat housing that's not being used illegally, but mayors don't look the other way, they help it happen. and street developing. a way that people can get a start. poverty in the cities is as bad as anywhere else, then why do the poor go to the cities. >> they're better at dealing with homelessness, and one of the issues that you bring up in your book, you think there should be an organization to allowed cities to share their best practices and gain more economic clout.
you suggested a parliament of mayors. >> i have, and the reality is they already do this. the title of this book, why mayors rule the world, and how they already do. because there are so many intercity associations that most have never heard of, and they're out there, but i'm proposing a global parliament of mayors, where mayors can share best practices and pass common regulation, on the n. and say here's what we're doing, and do it, and we have in september, a major meeting of over 40 mayors, and next year, the convening of a parliament. and the idea is let mayors not just one-by-one do this, but share best practices, and that's my idea, to my astonishment has been a theory in the back, and a practice of mayors all over the world. >> we hope to see you more often. the democratic theorist, and author of the book.
it's a revival on the bayou, cheap natural gas is bringing new jobs to old industry towns. >> now that energy costs have dropped so drastically in the united states, it has opened up a world of opportunities that couldn't have existed otherwise. >> but with that world of opportunities, there are challenges, and i'll tell you about both, coming up.
mornings on al jazeera america >> hydraulic fracturing has created plenty of controversy, but it has also helped to create an abundance of natural gas in the u.s. that glut has caused the natural gas prices to plummet. today, oil trades at 22 times as much as natural gas, and that has caught the eye of the industry. global energy companies in nebraska and california are hoping to cash in on cheep energy prices. that means new jobs and development, but to give you an idea of how big the boom has become, you have to head to places like louisiana where technology by nazi scientists will soon be used in a chemical complex that's massively changing the region.
split at a pipe fetter's yard in western louisiana, matt is learning a new trade. baton rouge native sees an opportunity in the remote perish where it's underway. he's enrolled in a technical school for pipe fitters. >> i came down to get a job, and now i have a career path that i'm on, and i came to school to get certified and make more money. >> cheap natural gas, brought on by the fracking boom, is reshaping towns in louisiana, and the opportunities here are about to get a lot bigger. a few miles down the road, a south african 39th ro chemical company is making one of the largest investments in u.s. history. in these empty louisiana grass fields, they are building a
massive new complex, which is expected to bring 7,000 construction and 1200 industry jobs over the next five years. >> for each of the 1200 jobs that will be created perfect our projects in louisiana, we estimate that six or seven other jobs will be created in the community, simply to support those, whether it's healthcare workers or restaurant workers. >> and that's starting to reshape the region. >> there are not enough to handle it, so what's happening in lake charles is exactly the same thing that's happening in north dakota in the oil shale plate. temporary crew camps. >> dozens of these camps are cropping up to handle the sasol project that is so big, it will make 66 public roads, and cut into the unemployment raiment, which already is 5 perfection. >> it has open under just a world of opportunities that
couldn't have existed otherwise. >> sasol's first plant will use a technology developed a nazi scientists that powered their tanks in the world war ii. and planks and paint. >> so together, you have about $21 billion in spending, which is by far the largest capital investment in our state, and it all takes place in one of the largest single capital investments in the country. >> over the next five years, 30 companies are being expected to pour $90 billion into metro kem projects in the united states. keep in mind, the entire gdp is only $350 billion. >> if we had $3 billion, we would have thought it was a
great your year, but we have $90 billion in projects in the entire state >> so why louisiana? >> this is where there's a lot of natural gas. we already have pipelines in place, and we have enough to circle the globe four times. >> they have only sweetened the deal. louisiana is offering sasol a ten-year exception on property taxes. the new complex will be built on more than 3,000 acres of land, cutting directly through the town of mossville. >> so i'm walking through the front yard of a mossville resident, who has sold to sasol. but sasol is not the only game in town. there are other plants underway, so when you look at it, you can't help but wonder if this will be a more familiar scene as america's energy renaissance takes hold?
>> rufus, a retired pipe fitter who lives in mossville, is one of those leaving. his home is directly in the middle of the project. sasol is paying him $13,000 to move out of. >> i just will take what i can get. they're telling you, it's a good deal, man. yeah, right. >> today, 13 refineries surround mossville. and they have already felt the affects. in 2001, they showed elevated levels of dioxin. a highly toxic pollutant which is naturally occurring but also a by-product of industrial waste. but sasol has vowed to be a good neighbor.
>> we do a tremendous amount of work, to model all of the emissions of what comes out of our plant, and through that modeling, we have determined that there should be no significant health impacts of anything close to our plant. >> while old pipe fitters like rufus are doubtful, but young ones like matt are thankful for the work. >> it makes me feel good to know that i'm going somewhere in my life. >> in the meantime, those like sasol and others are pouring into louisiana, will keep going, as long as america keeps fracking and natural gas price its stay low. mossville, louisiana. >> in the end, a big draw for foreign energy companies investing in louisiana and others in the united states boils down to the map and the favorable economics of doing business here. russell gold, an energy reporter in the wid
wall street journal, how fracking changed the world. and russell, this is a perfect example of it changing the world. you were going into economically depressed areas, and really boosting to the point that housing is hard to get, wages are easy to come by and there are good jobs. >> absolutely, there's no question that cheep natural gas in particular, and as much natural gas really as you can shake a stick at. i mean decades worth existed louisiana, and that was the missing ingredient for the industrialization. ten, 15 years ago, these plants were being dismantled and moved to places like trinidad. and now you have the labor and the encouraging local and state government. and you have the pipeline infrastructure. what you didn't have was cheap
energy, and now that's back. >> russell, one of the things that david said, all of the ingredients are here, except that the price of natural gas stays low, and if it stays too low, you'll see some of the money leaving, so what happens to the price of natural gas, should it been going higher and if it does, does that imperil projects like this. >> i've been hearing that for two years, we need the price of natural gas to go up or they will stop drilling and we have not stopped drilling, they're drilling for more natural gas. clearly, the price of natural gas would be the companies drilling and that's more profits for them. but they don't want to go back to the days of $10 natural gas because sasol will pull the plug on their projects. we have to find the happy medium
between what the industrials want and the producers want. >> you're looking at the fracking boom in north dakota, it's a little bit different. the infrastructure didn't exist, but since there was so much to frack, they built it. louisiana has the access to the gulf of mexico, and all of the pipelines, but is this boom the kind of thing that can take place anywhere that natural gas exists? or does so much energy infrastructure already exist? >> this has to happen in a place like louisiana. the second plant they're going to build is ethylenes, and it's what we make classic out. from mississippi all the way down to corpus christie, texas, you have one of the world's largest concentration of pet ro chemical plants and refineries, places that can use ethylene. and you have to build a plant like this somewhere on the gulf coast, because right next door,
your neighbor can use your product. shell has been talking about building a plant up in pittsburgh, because once you make it in pittsburgh, you have to end up shipping it down to the gulf coast anyway. >> there's an argument with all of the things that happen with natural gas, and fracking in general. some say that it causes earthquakes, and mossville is one of the most polluted places around and when you go into places where the benefit is out weighed by the noise, but there are other places more populated where people have more of a voice, and are we worried that they are going to speak up and say, this is great for energy and bad for our health? >> we're already seeing that. there are a lot of places armed the country that are saying, we love the low cost natural gas, and the fact that our electricity is lower, it's classic, and louisiana and
places like texas which are custom to the oil and gas industry and needed jobs from t. and much more expecting, we don't know what the impact of this gas plant or the other 60 facilities that are being discussed. louisiana has a poor track record with the emissions and environment things coming in. >> this would be where the entire gdp is $350 million. >> it's hard to say no to that. >> russell, thank you for joining us, a wide receiver energy reporter, how fracking ignited the energy revolution and changed the world. >> gaza's aljazeera reporting is bias and wants to pull the plug on the next work.
>> it's a chilling and draconian sentence... it simply cannot stand. >> its disgraceful... the only crime they really committed is journalism... >> they are truth seekers... >> all they really wanna do is find out what's happening, so they can tell people... >> governments around the world all united to condemn this... >> as you can see, it's still a very much volatile situation... >> the government is prepared to carry out mass array... >> if you want free press in the new democracy, let the journalists live.
>> we have covered the israeli-palestinian conflict at length on aljazeera america. and the invasion of gaza in detail on this show. and in doing so, like in any conflict, aljazeera journalists put themselves in the line of fire to bear witness and what you need to know. today we became part of the story when someone, we do not know who, fired two shots at aljazeera's offices in gaza. israel said that it's trying to determine who fired the shot. but the assault follows yesterday's threat by israel's foreign minister to shut aljazeera's office down in israel. he said that it has abandoned
the semblance, and broadcasts antisemitic lies and encouragement to terrorists." aljazeera and other stations, owned by our parent company, the aljazeera media network are available for all to see, we don't operate in the shadows, and every word we broadcast is available to be broadcast and criticked by viewers around the world. and the foreign minister's comments and the sentiment behind them are at odds with israel's proud history with when it comes to freedom of the press, and it make them may have caused someone to make an act of violence against aljazeera. aljazeera is a beacon for openness, where every sides wishes to see only it's own narrative broadcast. that's not the way it works. silencing journalists is never the answer. that's our show today.
hello, you're watching al jazeera live from doha. john kerry arrives in israel as top documents struggle to find a common ground to end the fighting in gaza. a diplomatic scramble as israel continues a bombing campaign in the strip killing more than 600 palestinians. and the bodies of some of the victims of the malaysia airlines clash in ukraine to begin the journey