The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Stephen Moore: why Trump's tariff plans will benefit Americans

Episode Date: December 18, 2024

Donald Trump's plan to impose high tariffs on all goods coming into the US, including a 25% tax on items imported from Mexico and Canada, has leaders on both sides of the border on edge as they try to make sense of how these tariffs could impact their businesses and their economy. Stephen Moore is one of President Trump's economic advisors and is rumoured to have a future role in his administration. He gives us a glimpse into what we can expect from Trump's tariff agenda, the future of free trade in North America, and how he is advising the President to grow the economy in his second term.   The host of this Munk Dialogue is Rudyard Griffiths Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Executive Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch  Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We are going to change a little bit the rules of the game in the sense we want to give a little bit of advantage to things that are made in the United States. We tried socialism all through the 20th century and it failed every time. We should restore dignity to the working class and stop saying you need a credential in order to achieve the most basic, modest version of the American dream. Netanyahu is the worst leader the Jewish people ever had. He should be impeached. genocide is the latest modern blood libel that anti-semites used to justify their anti-Zionism.

We should prioritize making sure that no more Ukrainians die, that this war is brought to an end. All parents want to help children with their feelings, but I argue that not every feeling is worth paying attention to. Why are these students covering their faces? I think it says something about their movement, about their ideology, and also simply the fact that they're also cowards. Hello, Monk listeners. Right here at Griffiths here, your host and moderator. Welcome to this. Our continuing conversations called the monk dialogues. These are in-depth questions and answers with some of the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers.

On each monk dialogue, we go deep into the big issues and ideas that are driving the public conversation. I'm a big believer in tariffs. I think tariffs are the most beautiful word. I think they're beautiful. It's going to make us rich. And all I want to do is I want to have a level, fast, but fair, playing field. Donald Trump's plan to impose high tariffs on all goods coming into the United States,

including a 25% tax on items imported for Mexico and Canada, has leaders of all types, political and financial, on both sides of the border on edge, as we try to make sense of how these tariffs could impact businesses and the economy. Stephen Moore is one of President Trump's key economic advisors, someone rumored to have a potential big role, in a future Trump administration. He gives us a glimpse in today's Monk Dialogue into what we could expect from Trump's tariff agenda,

the future of free trade in North America, and how he's advising the president to grow the U.S. economy in his second term. Stephen, welcome back to Monk Dialogues. Thanks for having me. You're so generous with your time. We've touched base with you over the years during the pandemic to get a kind of read on the U.S. economy.

we now find you, Stephen, in a different place. Donald Trump has won this unprecedented victory. He will now be headed back to the White House. You're someone that has counseled this president over the years on all things economic. So let's start with what's on the mind of many people, especially our 100,000-plus members here in Canada, and that is tariffs. Stephen, give us the case for tariffs, because I think people in the media reporting, maybe, sometimes are kind of losing a bit of the nuance here, a bit of the analysis around why tariffs in Trump's words could be one of the most beautiful words in the English language. Well, great to be with you. I love what you guys do at the Monk debates. And so I am a free trade

guy. I think that, and I believe that the North America's vision was that North America should be one large free trade zone. And I still believe that's good for. for the United States. I think it's good for Canada. I think it's really important for Mexico. Trump is going to raise tariffs. And I think that the approach that Trump will use is to increase tariffs on things that are coming, you know, by definition, things that are imported into the United States, but reduce taxes on things that are made in, say, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Michigan. And so it would not be an on balance of tax increase. It'll be just a shift in favor of domestic production. I think that's fine. As long as the tariff is not too large. I mean, let's say it's a 10 or 15%

tariff, that's not going to be too harmful. But, you know, if you start talking about 20, 25, 30% terrorists, I think that's going to injure the relationship between our three countries. And now, I have to say this, that we regard China as being in a special category because China, we believe, is an aggressive enemy of the United States in many ways. And, you know, free trade with a country that is adversarial and it's not playing by the rules, doesn't seem to work well. But I do think we can have an agreement with Canada and Mexico that will keep tariffs fairly reasonable. I do think Trump, by the way, is very serious about keeping fentanyl and drugs out of our country. And we are going to need more cooperation from Mexico in particular where a lot of the drugs flow through, but also

China's letting a lot of those drugs in. And even some of the drugs are coming. in a northern border. This is a poison that's killing our young people, and we need more cooperation from all three countries to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think Trump is serious that if we don't get more cooperation on that issue, he will impose a tariff. Let's talk a little bit about Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, these key battleground states that put Trump into the White House for the second time. As you mentioned, one of the potential benefits for the United States of tariffs would be the reshoring of jobs, not simply into North America from China or abroad, but the reshoring into the United States from Canada and Mexico.

To what extent do you think that is driving some of the thinking around tariffs? Like if we were trying to come up with a cup and we said, this cup is half full, the tariff cup because of factor A, the other half or, or, quarter as factor B and factor C. Try to paint a picture for us about what the thinking is right now around tariffs and how they would contribute in second Trump administration's views to its broader economic policies, reshoring debts and deficits, financing the government. You know, we can talk about a lot of these different factors. I think it would be fascinating for our audience. Well, let me just answer that by first, you know, saying that free trade really is

important. And by definition, when two countries trade with each other in a voluntary way, by definition, that voluntary exchange benefits both parties. Just like if you and I just as citizens, if you make soup and I make potatoes and I make potatoes better than I do and I make potatoes better than you do, then we both benefit from that transaction. That goes back to Adam Smith. It's called the law of comparative advantage. Now, the United States is really, really good at some things. You know, we We dominate, for example, to technology sectors. And so we sell huge amounts of our technology resources and products to other countries. Other things, you know, we may not be as good at, you know, whether it's importing vegetables

from Mexico or whether it's importing, you know, furniture from Canada. And so we do want to make sure that we have open markets because it benefits everyone. And trade makes both parties better off. But we are going to change a little bit the rules of the game in the sense we want to give a little bit of advantage to things that are made in the United States. And you mentioned those Midwestern states. That's what they used to call the blue wall. And now we're calling it the red wall because Trump won those states.

But, you know, in those states, which are manufacturing industrial states, these policies that Trump was talking about were popular. These are the kind of blue-collar jobs that have been leaving the United States. Some of those jobs are never going to come back, you know, the jobs that existed 50, 60, 70 years ago. And probably we don't want them to come back. I mean, we want to be a high value-added country that, you know, makes the highest value-added stuff. And then, you know, things like toys we could import from, say, China. So I don't, look, the global trading system is not going to shut down here.

That would be a horrible thing. But I do think we're just going to, the relative prices of, for example, producing something in Canada or Mexico versus making it in the United States will shift a bit. And that's, I think, Trump's subjective. Right. Let's talk a bit about the American fiscal position that the Biden administration is leaving and in a sense that the Trump administration, the second Trump term will inherit. You've got deficits running 5 to 6 percent of GDP.

You're originating somewhere in the order of a trillion dollars of new debt. every 100 days. When Trump first took power in 2016, you had a debt to GDP ratio under 100%. It's now approaching 124% according to the latest numbers. Total debt from 2016 to 2024, ballooning from 20 trillion to 34 trillion. What's the thinking, Steve, in terms of how to manage that, how to manage the prolific spending, the weakened fiscal position that the U.S. is now in after four years of the Biden presidency? Well, we do believe that Biden, and I think in fact, show this, was a fairly financially reckless president, and we did run up the debt in post-COVID. In other words, we did borrow a lot during COVID, but that was because, you know, half of our economy was

shut down. But there was no reason we had to borrow $2 trillion a year after COVID was over. I mean, usually in the United States, we borrowed during a crisis, and then when the crisis is over, we try to pay back some of that debt. And by the way, I'm not blaming just Joe Biden, the Democrats. The Republicans are responsible for this, too. It's a bipartisan problem. Politicians love to play Santa Claus. They love to send out money, and they don't like having to cut budgets. I think that what you're going to see under Trump.

And by the way, you know, I'm a big admirer of what Donald Trump did in his first term in the United States economy and was proud to be one of his economic advisors. but even Trump spent too much money. I mean, you know, there just hasn't been a real concerted effort to bring, and a priority to bring these borrowing numbers down. Now, that being said, to me, what I've told President Trump is the single most important thing is to get this economy growing as quickly as possible. You know, we're growing at less than 2% right now. We need to be growing at, you know, 3% or more.

And if we can do that, by the way, all these projections that you see all the time showing our debt, you know, going up and up and up and up and up to 200% of GDP. Those are very frightening, and we should be afraid of that, except the fact that they're based on a forecast that the economy is going to grow at 1.7% per year. And one of the objectives of Trump, and I'm, you know, working with him on this, is how do we get to make sure that that growth rate gets to above 3%. If that happens, then you start to bend this curve down. In other words, the most important priorities to make sure that the economy is growing

faster than the debt. Right now, that's not the case. We think we can bend that curved out. That's point number one. Point number two, we think there's a lot of things that can be cut without cutting, without, you know, reducing the vital services that Americans want from government. Americans want Medicare. They want Social Security. They want a strong defense. They want, you know, good education in schools. And I want that. We all want that. But there's also truly hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful spending in Washington. Every American knows that. In fact, if you ask the average American, how much of every dollar that you send in Washington do you think is wasted? The average answer is somewhere around 30 to 35 cents out of every dollar.

I think that's about right. So if we could even cut that waste level at half, which is a big lift, but I think we could do it. And that's why we have this, you've heard of this Doge Committee, the Department of Government Efficiency, run by Elon Musk. If we can get this thing in action and implement some of these changes, we think we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. again, without disrupting, you know, the vital services that Americans want from their government. So those two things together, more economic growth and reducing the waste. And there's one other feature of this. As you, I'm sure know, we're going to be doing more energy development in the United States.

We're going to do more oil, gas, coal, nuclear power. And with respect to the resources of this country, you know, like Canada, we are richly endowed with resources, just as Canada is. And so we could very easily, you know, for example, lease some of these lands. Because, you know, west of the Mississippi River, you know, almost half of the land is owned by government. And only a portion of that is, you know, environmentally sensitive lands like national parks. And we could raise money. We could create jobs. We can do lease payments to these developers.

And that would be something that would bring in more money to the government to help bring down our debt. If you're cutting the size of government by potentially hundreds of billions of dollars with the goal of reducing the deficit, I mean, it is a big deficit in the United States right now, six-odd percent of GDP. What does that do to the economy? I mean, if we want to be honest about the so-called strength of the American economy under the Biden administration, a lot of it had to do with, in a sense, fiscal pump priming, that they were. simply borrowing and spending an awful lot of money to stimulate economic growth. So how do you continue to, in a sense, walk and chew gum at the same time? How do you grow the economy yet cut the deficit and withdraw potentially multiple, you know, hundreds of basis of points of GDP stimulated government growth?

Well, look, we are rich in private sector GDP. not government GDP, and that this is one of the flaws of the whole measurement of GDP. You know, the government doesn't stimulate the economy. It just crowds out private spending. So the government spends a dollar, it can only spend a dollar by taking it from the private sector. And so you spend money on government because you need to. And so my advice would be to do the kinds of things that will make our private sector more efficient. You know, one of the problems we've had in the United States over the last year,

years under Biden, is, if you look like at our employment numbers, guess what? The biggest sector of growth in government and employment has been in government. Meanwhile, we're losing manufacturing jobs and hiring more government people. That's exactly the opposite we want to do. In other words, we've been growing the government in all the wrong, I mean, the economy in the wrong places. So the idea shrink the size of the government and then expand the size of the private sector by strategically cutting taxes. We want to have the lowest tax rates in the world, and we think we can do that. If we have the lowest tax rates in the world, guess what? We're just going to suck capital from the rest of the world into the United States as we become

for tax competitive. So we can pull this off. I mean, I saw it happen to Reagan. I'm a lot older than most people think. I'm 65, so I live through the Reagan era. We did the same thing. We grew the private sector and brought in a lot of capital of the United States. We have a booming stock market in this country. So asset values are rising at an incredible pace. So in fact, when you look at our deficit, you have to look at the deficit as a share of our wealth. And actually in that case, you know, the wealth is actually been growing faster than the deficit. So I'm not trying to be Pollyanna's here. I agree with you. This is a big, big, heavy task ahead. You know, we cannot continue to borrow a $2 trillion a year. I think every same person would agree with that. And in terms

of how quickly that happens, we'll see. But I have to tell you, just in the less, a little less than a month since, or about a month since Trump was elected, there's just a new bounce in the step of the economy. Stock market's spent on a boom. You're seeing consumer confidence rise. You're seeing business confidence rise. There's a sense that good things are coming. And, you know, confidence is a big part of the game, optimism. People are willing to spend. People are willing to invest. They don't think the government's going to beat them over the head. with a two by four if they grow and make a profit. So it's a kind of new attitude that's pro-business, pro-consumer, pro-America.

If you're enjoying the Monk Debates podcast, come over to our website at triple-w monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debateswith-N-S.com and check out our free monk membership. As a complimentary monk member, you get all kinds of great perks and benefits, access to our weekly email, summarizing our best debates, advanced ticketing privileges at our main stage debates, special news information, and offers all courtesy of the monk debates. You can grab your complimentary monk membership again right now

at triplew monk debates.com. Simply look to the top navigation on the website and follow the links. Thanks in advance for joining our community. Just one more follow-up question in this regard, just for our audience to better understand the kind of economic policy that could unfold over the second term, one of the key promises on the campaign trail that President Trump made was to make permanent the 2017 tax cuts that were primarily for corporations, but there were benefits for individuals too. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, you know, the combined

cost of those tax cuts plus some of his other pledges on the campaign trail regarding tax relief could over the next 10 years add up to, you know, somewhere in the order of $8 trillion of tax expenditures. I know there's an argument here that by lowering taxes, you're going to increase government revenues because the economy, you're going to stimulate the economy, the economy's got larger, but you know as an experienced economist and someone who's been around for a little bit, that that doesn't seem to always happen. It doesn't always seem that we're on the right side of tax cuts when it ultimately comes to government, revenues, debts and deficits have increased relentlessly. So how confident are you that the tax cuts,

the big tax cuts will indeed be, you know, job one on day one? And to what extent are they going to be fully funded? And how could they be fully funded, given the size of the tax expenditure? Well, that's a great question. I'll start by saying a priority number one for me, and I think the president shares this, is to make those tax cuts permanent. I feel strongly. about it, I was one of the architects of the original plan, and it worked out amazingly well. We had strong growth. We started bringing in capital from the rest of the world. You know, before we did that tax cut, the United States had the highest business tax rate in the world. So a lot of businesses were leaving. There was a term called inversions, corporate inversions. And for those who don't know what that

term means, it means when an American company was basically leaving the United States and going to Ireland or going to the Bahamas or going to Switzerland to pay a lower tax. And that was hurting our country because the jobs in the capital were flowing out. Since we did that tax cut in 2017, there have been zero inversions. In fact, of anything, companies are moving yet. So we're big fans of what we did. The average family saved about $2,000 a year. We don't want a big mental class tax increase, which, by the way, that would automatically go into effect if we do nothing because these tax cuts are supposed to, are by law going to be repealed after this year. You mentioned the Congressional Budget Office. I would simply say that the Congressional Budget Office was this, this is the same

Congressional Budget Office that said, if we do this tax cut over 10 years, it would cost, you know, like $4 trillion. They said that, you know, back in 2017. And yet, if you look at the numbers, they're actually higher. The tax revenues are higher than the Congressional Budget Office said they would be if we didn't do the tax cut. So I'm not saying the tax cut. So I'm not saying that tax cuts pay for themselves. I'm just saying the most important thing is a strong, healthy economy. I don't think we're going to have a strong healthy economy if we allow that tax cut to go away. And one other quick point. This circles back to what you and I talked about at the beginning of this conversation, which is tariffs. So, yes, we're going to

make these tax cuts permanent, but we're also going to have tariff revenues coming in that could offset that. No, I hear you there. Any concerns, Stephen, about the state of the economy that the Trump administration will inherit on the 20th of January. You know, there are some signs out there that, you know, despite the strength of the stock market. And as you say, there's some rebounding consumer confidence. So who knows, maybe that rising tide lifts all boats. But there are also some signs out there of weakness in the U.S. economy.

Do you have concerns about where the Biden administration has left the economy and maybe the extent to which there could be change? No, known or unknown, that will emerge after the 20th of January? If so, where do you think those could be? Well, I do have concerns. You're right to mention that. And one of the concerns, by the way, this circles back to what you just asked me about in terms of the Biden strategy was to try to pump prime the economy with all this government spending.

You're right. And we had massive trillions of dollars of spending bills. And that kind of artificially raised the economy. but you all know what happened as a result of those trillions of dollars of spending. We had inflation. And the two most important issues to the American voters and the reason that you had several million Americans who had voted for Biden in 2020, but voted for Trump in 2024, and the exit polling is very clear on this.

There were two issues that made Americans very angry. One of them was illegal immigration, and obviously that's going to be got very, very high He's just a secure border. By the way, I'm very much in favor of immigration. I think immigration is one of our greatest assets, but the American people all agree that it has to be done through a legal way, not by just letting millions of people pour over the border. But the other issue was inflation,

and people were very angry about how high prices were for food and eggs and brown beef and insurance costs and mortgage payments and gas prices. And that really negatively affected the middle. class in a big way. It really pinched there and put a squeeze on their budgets and made Americans feel worse off. And so we want to, the reason I bring that up is I'm not convinced that the inflation problem is over. You know, I do worry that we might see a recurrence of inflation. I mean, the Fed continues to lower rates. There's a big issue about whether the Fed lower rates again. That will flush more money into the economy. And, you know, so,

We're not near the 2% target right now. We're closer to 3% inflation. So that's something that keeps me up at night. Another thing that does keep me up at night is what you mentioned earlier about these massive deficits. And what happens is, you know, it's an old saying that, you know, the economy is really not by run by politicians, but it's run by the bond market. And the willingness of people to buy our bonds. And, you know, so far people have been, all over the world have been willing to buy our bots. But, you know, we learned in 2008 when we had the financial crisis that these things can come in like a hurricane, right?

I mean, remember 2008, we're all – seemed like the economy was healthy, and then all of a sudden, within a period of weeks, major banks were failing. We made it – and so, you know, that hurricane may be coming again. You never know. And I just want us to be as ready for that as possible and to do all the things that make that less likely to happen. And so you're quite right to keep focusing on these fiscal deficits because they are scary. One of the legacies of the Biden administration is that Yelan's time, Janet Yellen's time, as Treasury Secretary, she had been borrowing on the short end of the curve. So to our listeners, that means she's borrowing short-term treasury bills under a year because it's cheaper in a way for her as exposing the government to higher interest costs that would have

resulted from borrowing at the longer end of the curve, where the U.S. government traditionally has done more borrowing because, again, there's more predictability about future interest costs and less vulnerability. There's a lot of U.S. debt here, Steve, that you got to roll over now in the Trump administration, thanks to Yellen, thanks to this, let's face it, a kind of management that she engaged in to allow the Biden administration to skirt the full puninary effects of their large-scale spending in terms of the government budget, in terms of interest charges. Is that a worry that you have? You know, so it's interesting. You should ask me that question because I've been, I wrote a piece on this recently. And by the way, I'm going to take you

back to this was about 2018, 2019, thereabouts. I forgot which year it was. But I went to see President Trump in the White House, in the Oval Office. And I said to him, Mr. President, we need to be issuing 50-year-bots. Because remember at that time, interest rates were very low, you know, historically low. And it was pretty obvious to any same person that, you know, we had a window of low inflation, I mean, interest rates that we needed, we could have taken advantage of. And you kind of locked in those low interest rates on our massive debt and reduced our borrowing cost over time. And Trump liked that idea. He was talked out of it by some of the people at the Treasury Department. But the point is, it pains me that we didn't do that. Because if we had done it,

we could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars in our interest costs. Now, fast forward now to, you know, the year 23 and 2024, when Janet Yellen has been doing exactly the opposite. In other words, I was saying, let's issue more long-time-term bonds. Janet Yellen has been issuing more short-term bonds to take advantage of that, as you quite correctly said, the rate of an interest on the short-term bonds is traditionally lower than it is on up. So you can sell a two-year treasury at a lower interest rate than a third of year treasury. But because we did that, that makes us much more vulnerable. You're right. You have to turn over that debt much more quickly. So a year or two from now, if we have higher interest rates, I think the interest rate on the 10-year is, I think it's

about 4 percent right now. I don't remember exactly what it is. You know, what happens if that tenure goes from four to six. You know, so you're right. So in other words, this is a risky strategy. Look, I hope Janet Yellen turns out to be right. But right now, I would say the odds are that interest rates will be higher rather lower in the future. And so this makes us, I think, vulnerable.

Final question. If you're going to look ahead to the four years of this second Trump term, what could you see is the major economic accomplishments. If things generally go the way that you're hoping they will, that the president's hoping they will, what four years from now would you see as the kind of economic legacy? And in particular, Steve, are there some things

that maybe the layperson, myself included, might not fully appreciate in terms of things that Trump himself wants to achieve, the ways that he kind of thinks about these issues and how he wants to be remembered as an economic steward of the American economy. Well, that's a great question as well. I have talked to President Trump about this. And one of the things he was proudest of in his first term, and I think he didn't emphasize this enough, for example, when he was debating Biden, was that he is really focused on what is happening to the real wages, the take.

home pay of middle-income Americans. And, you know, it's very interesting in this election. It was a, Trump has changed the Republican Party in a major way. You know, I go back to the Reagan years. That's when I first came. And when Reagan was president, I love Reagan. I think he brought to the time about Rushmore. I think it was one of our great presidents. But, you know, when he was elected, if you looked at the voting pattern, the wealthier the county, the more likely that counting was to vote for Reagan. And so in other words, dominated, dominated through the lower income people and the lower middle classes and Reagan dominated more of the higher income classes. That's completely changed, completely chased under Trump. So Democrats dominate the very low

income areas and the very, very rich areas. And what Trump has done has really made the backbone of the Republican Party middle class, working class Americans who have kind of rebelled against the Democrats. And so, and Trump under the Trump, understands that. He knows, you know, you dance with the one who brung you, is the saying goes, though he is attentive to raising the living standards and the incomes of those people in the middle. And so that's what I think if you asked him four years from now, he wants to see middle class workers. And by the way, we did this in his first term, middle class workers did very well. They had about a $6,000 real increase in pay. I think he'll be really focused on that.

The other thing, I'll just say this. I believe I just wrote a column on that. this. I believe that this kind of Trump, I call it Trumpism, this kind of populace revolt against the era against a big government. And you have that in Canada. It's true in Britain. It's true in Europe. It's true all over the world. I think you're going to see in the next year major governments topple. I think the German government is going down. I think the UK government is going down. I think you're seeing that in France right now. There's people around on the world, they're looking at what's happened in the United States and saying, we want that kind of power to the people movement in our country, too. And so I do think, let me put it very simply,

I think Trumpism is going to go global. And I think that's a good thing because it really puts the power back into the hands of the people, not the politicians. Steve Moore, so insightful and just so balanced and reasonable in your analysis and insights. It's always a pleasure to catch up with you. I know you were just down in Marilago, so I'd no doubt the president is continuing to benefit from your sage and sound advice. And hopefully we can keep in touch with you over the coming months as we see how this U.S. economy shakes out after January 20th.

And best of luck to you and your team and everything that you're involved with, this exciting time in American politics and economics. Thank you so much. enjoy it. Well, that wraps up today's dialogue. I want to thank Stephen Moore, our guest, he certainly gives us a lot to think about. If you have questions or feedback on what you've just heard on this or any of our podcasts, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of civil and substantive public conversation, one dialogue at a time. I'm your host and moderator,

Rudier Griffiths. The Monk debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.