threaten the world s security and prosperity, in an exclusive interview with the bbc. we start in the us where, as you ve been hearing, president biden has been giving his first televised address since taking office. before that though, he signed a record breaking $1.9 trillion economic rescue package for the us into law, after it passed its final vote in congress on wednesday. the first direct payments of $1,400, which will benefit most americans, are expected to start arriving over the weekend. there s also bailout money for state and local governments and an increase in child and unemployment benefit, as welll as more funding for vaccination. the plan was unanimously opposed by house republicans, critics say it goes way beyond what s needed to tackle the pandemic fallout, and risks stoking inflation. so what are the long term implications? ed stringham is economics professor at trinity college in hartford, connecticut, and president of american institute for economic resea
proceed. i have control. you have control. this is the $94 million astria project from bae, one of several industries developing planes to be flown remotely. you hear discussion with the traffic that s exactly the same conversation that the pilots would be having if in charge of the steering of the aircraft. military success with drones has driven much of the interest and some efforts are focused on airplanes in hazardous conditions such as hurricane research and fighting wildfires. analysts say pilotless planes could be a $400 billion a year global business so why not passenger flights? first, the airline industry has a remarkable safety record despite high profile disasters. many believe on board pilots remain the most reliable way to handle problems and retrofitting planes would cost billions of
hazardous conditions. pilot planes could be a $400 billion a year global business. why not passenger flights? first, the airline industry has remarkable safety record despite high profile disasters. many believe on board pilots remain the most reliable way to handle problems and retrofitting planes would cost billions of dollars. second passengers may not be ready. there are questions about reliability, questions about what happens if plane like this gets loose from its electronic teether and what is terrorists take over a ground station and take control of the plane. one would be having multiple ground stations controlling them. even then what if you have a hacker that takes control. all of these questions have to been answered even as the planes grow more automated.
can be flown remotely. what you can hear at the moment is the discussion with air traffic that s exactly the same as the pilots would be having if they were in charge of the steering of the aircraft. reporter: military success with drones has driven much of the interest and some efforts are focused on airplanes in hazardous conditions such as hurricane research and fighting wildfires. analysts say pilotless planes could be a $400 billion a year global business. so why not passenger flights? first, the airline industry has a remarkable safety record despite high profile disasters. many believe on-board pilots remain the most reliable way to handle problems and retrofitting planes would cost billions of dollars. second passengers may not be ready. robert goyer is with flying magazine. i start by asking how would i feel getting into an airliner that didn t have airline pilots up front. i wouldn t do it. reporter: one of the reasons is that there are still
new energy sector off the ground, don t you need federal dollars behind it at least at first? there are a lot more official ways of doing it than giving money to your friends and having those companies go bankrupt. the reason why it s such a sore point with the administration is they ve had a lot of very high profile disasters, solyndra, fisker, and the rest. i think the president, rather than saying yes, we have to subsidize my friends, would do better to say that i think his line is that he is in favor of an all of the above sort of energy policy. but it s really not the case that we re doing better. we had a higher growth rate in 2010. the reason why that rate is going down is because people are giving up and dropping out of the jobs the job market. so i think that the essential argument from the romney campaign is dead-on. and we re not better. we re still down net jobs. we still have more unemployed people on a per capita basis on a specific basis than we did