MMT And Emerging Markets

sort of keep building the foundation. Right. Well, actually, actually I would argue we're going forward and we're picking We're picking up from where we left off in that previous conversation, which was I think at the end, we were discussing about whether or not MMT could ever work outside of

the United States. Right, So obviously when people talk about how the US can have much higher sustained deficits than other places or than than we've had, they're like, well, yeah, sure of course the US can, but that's only because the dollars the global world reserve currency. And so the accusation towards mm T is that it's generalizing from the US example, to something that wouldn't be applicable to countries that maybe don't enjoy that same status for their currency,

right exactly. The argument is that the US is in some way hashtag blessed with a number of financial attributes, such as the reserve currency status UH and the safe haven nature of U S treasuries relative to other assets, and that it is special in some way, and that you can't apply MMT to other jurisdictions, in particular developing

or emerging market economies. There was one other thing that that conversation actually brought up, and this was the notion that, well, we haven't really seen any real life applications of MMT just yet, right. So the argument is that and of course this gets into the distinction between m m T

as the descriptive framework. Basically, m m T s attempt to describe the money system how it actually is, versus the implications the prescriptions, where it's like, okay, well, if you know this is how the money system works, then this is the policies that you can do. And the argument is that we really don't know what it would look like for any country to adopt some of the prescriptive side of m m T and whether whether the sort of fiscal latitude that m m T s as

many countries enjoy would actually improve the economy. Absolutely right. So there's two big questions that came out of that big discussion, one of which is whether or not mm T works outside the U S and the other is whether or not the prescriptive social policies of MMT could actually work in some capacity. So I'm really pleased to say that we have a guest on Today Show who can deal with both of those two very very large and complex topics. Our guest is going to be Fattle Kaboob.

He's someone who's able to talk about both these things. He's an associate professor at Dennison University, and he was actually suggested by Nathan Tankus on Twitter as a possible guest. And I should say Joe, because we did get some blowback from people who said that our last MMT guest was too much of a critic. Fattle comes recommended by Stephanie Kelton as well, who said that he's doing some

very very interesting work outside the US. Great. Well, these are I have a lot of questions, so let's get started. Cool Faddle, Thank you so much. For joining us, Thank you for having me on the show. So maybe just to begin, you could give us an overview of how you ut involved in this topic and why so many people on Twitter are pointing to you as the expert

for m m T outside of the US experience. Well, when I was in grad school about twenty years ago at the University of Missouri, Kansas City at Young k C, where a lot of the you know MMT scholars were based there, Randy Ray, Stephanie Kelton, map for Stature, and others. At that stage in the early two thousands, most of the discussion around m m T was focused on the US, Canada, Australia countries that are you know, advanced countries, countries that

have full monetary sovereignty. And I grew up in a developing country. I grew up in Tunisia, and I was always interested in, you know, how does this supply, how does this transfer? What are the differences, what are the adjustments that need to be made? And that's how it all started in terms of me trying to expand some of the MMT and the post Kayzee in literature in general in the context of developing countries. So one of the things that is still to this day appoint to

confusion about what MMT says. It's it's a very basic definition of what monetary sovereignty is. And even though we keep saying monetary sovereignty, most people here pass it and they just hear sovereignty sovereign government, which is what the general public and even you know, mainstream economists understand as political sovereignty. A country that you know, has its own borders and its own flag, and its own army and its own currency, which is not completely what MMT is saying.

So monetary sovereignty is defined as far as I'm concerned in the following way. It's it's four basic elements that need to apply. One is, yes, a country issues its own currency, its own sovereign currency. Number two, it's a country that imposes taxes and fines and fees on its population in that same currency, the national currency, And that's

pretty straightforward. Most countries can do that. And then three and four is where developing countries become a category of their own and start losing some degree of monetary sovereignty. So number three, it's a country that only issues debt

denominated in its own national currency. And as you know, most developing countries, because of trade deficit, they have external debt, which means they issue debt denominated in dollars, in euros in Japanese end, and that's where they start losing degrees

of of monetary sovereignty. Number four is also related to that, which is, you know, fixing the currency or trying to stabilize the exchange rate at a particular level, pegging the exchange rate to the dollar, to the euro, to other strong currencies, and so both are related to the trade deficit issue. Both are related to the external debt issue. So that means that you don't have a binary where a country either has monetary sovereignty or doesn't. It's really

degrees of monetary sovereignty. So when you look at that the US, Australia, Canada, these are countries that enjoy full monetary sovereignty. In Japan is is the same. Whereas you know countries that completely gave up their monetary sovereignty. You think of countries that dollarize, like like Ecuador completely, so the extreme other opposite of of that spectrum. But most

developing countries are somewhere in between. And what what MMT allows us to do if we start from this basic definition is to ask the question what would allow a particular developing country to regain or reclaim its full monetary sovereignty, and the question of external debt becomes important. And that's where the distinction between the debt denominated in the national currency, the local domestic national debt versus the external debt becomes important.

And unfortunately, most analysts just talk about debt as if it's the same thing. And that's where it becomes very clear that the US, when we talk about the US and the job guarantee or a green new deal, the comparison between a US debt and Venezuela's debt or or any other you know, developing countries that become irrelevant. And that's why for most mainstream economists, the case of Japan

is a puzzle. As as bol Krugman said several times, it's just not they can't comprehend why massive national debt in the case of Japan doesn't lead to hyper inflation, doesn't need to default, and things like that. So, first of all, that was really helpful, and I think I had never quite heard monetary sovereignty articulated that well, because it is a term that gets thrown around a lot.

One thing that I think is really important and I don't want to gloss over it is you know, in the intro we were talking about the US and it's reserve currency status, and I think it's striking that you didn't include that in any way in your definition. And so we have the full characteristics of monetary sovereignty obviously in the US, but as you point out, you also see him in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, and no one would consider any of those national currencies to

be anything closed to reserve currencies exactly. So, so once you have, once you have your full monetary sovereignty, then or if you lose your monetary sovereignty like most developing countries, then the question is what is the thing that's leading to those structural problems? And it's hard to generalize, but I'll still attempt to generalize. In general, you'll find three

structural weaknesses that most developing countries suffer from. It as a result, most countries that lose monetary sovereignties suffer from So when we talk about reclaiming monetary sovereignty or regaining it, you have to focus on those root causes. So number one, it's energy deficits, and this is even true for countries that are big oil exporters, and I'll explain in a second. Number two it's food imports, food lack of food self sufficiency.

And number three, which is the biggest problem for developing countries, it's it's a situation where countries find themselves imp boarding high value added content and exporting low value added content. So no matter how fast you accelerate your your exports, you're always digging yourself in a in a deeper hole because you're just adding cheap labor and you know, subsidized public policy to a production process. But you still have to import all the intermediate goods, all the capital goods,

all the technology. So you end up losing in that game on on the energy front. So the solutions, obviously, if you want to reclaim monetary sovereignty, you have to plug those holes in your in your economic systems. And in this day and age, it becomes urgent to invest in renewable energy production sources in most developing countries so that you produce energy domestically and you stop not only fossil fuel emissions, but you stop the massive imports of

petrochemicals and fossil fuels into the local economy. Number two, it's it's food self sufficiency. Food sovereignty is extremely important for monetary sovereignty for developing countries, and that obviously relates to a lot of international trade issues that we can,

you know, spend another thirty minutes discussing um. Number three, it's this structural you know, import and export issue in in in the process of industrialization, where you end up importing a lot of capital goods and intermediate goods and high value added content and just export low value added content, so you're just an assembly line, you know, adding cheap

labor to the production process and subsidized industrial development. Nothing is gonna address the external debt issue unless we address these three issues. And if you shift for a second to the US or Japan, you realize these are not these are not the issues, right. The fact that the US has a reserve currency doesn't really affect these three structural issues that are that I'm describing here. So if a developing country wanted to reclaim it's monetary sovereignty, this

is where the job guarantee comes in. You can use the job guarantee as as a policy tool to reclaim that so that you're directing jobs in areas where you need additional productive capacity for food or for renewable energy, or for higher end production lines that add more value added to the process um than than the current situation. So this is this is where I would start, and this is where the MMT lens allows us a completely different way of looking at the process of economic development.

What are the national priorities and at the same time, how to deal with inflation. Because if you're importing food and your trade deficit, your external debt is putting pressure on your exchange rate, then a currency depreciation means the next morning, where you're importing wheat, when you're importing medicine, you're importing inflation. So this is why the mm T lens, the job guarantee, the inflation issue are built into the analysis.

You can't really separate one from the other. And I'm happy to talk more about this, you know so called political you know connection between MMT and the job guarantee and a political choice, because I have a few things to say about it if we have time, Well maybe just before that, foul, could you walk us through exactly how you think that the full employment or or the job guaranteed type program can affect. I mean, basically, you're

talking about structural reform of developing economies. How does that work exactly? So you start looking at a particular country, you identify the particular items that are putting pressure on the exchange rate, putting pressure on on the external debt. In most cases, I said, it's it's food imports, it's um energy imports. So you're not going to switch the

system structurally overnight. What you want to do is, you know, stop doing what you've been doing for the last thirty years that's been getting you deeper and deeper in trouble, and look for a new stratgy. The new strategy says, shift away from subsidizing fossil fuels, for example, which most developing countries do, because they imported at a higher cost.

And if it's not subsidized, then it goes into the economy as a higher cost of doing business, higher costs for transportation, higher costs for energy production, for heating, for cooling, and all of that, and that means riots on the streets, and in most countries, the same thing with food food imports. If it's if it's not subsidized, and your importing inflation. You have riots the next morning, food riots, bread rice.

We've seen this in many countries. So what you want to do is start shifting the current subsidy system that you have in most developing countries away from subsidizing fossil fuels and into building more productive capacity for renewable energy. And the more you accelerate in that direction, the closer

you get to reclaiming monetary sovereignty. When you get so called aid from the Western world from development agencies, the aid shouldn't be directed towards subsidizing the existing mechanics that gets you deeper in trouble. The aide should be directed towards building productive capacity that's encourages and enhances your productive capacity of renewable energy, of sustainable food locally, of moving your productive capacity from low end, low value added manufacturing

to high value added manufacturing. So you restructure the national priorities. Because most countries have some sort of employment program, especially emergency employment programs that happened during economic crisis, they tend to be small scale, they tend to be temporary. They're not a job guarantee in the fullest sense. Of the term that that we talk about in the MMT and the post games in literature, and they tend to be phased out or canceled as soon as the economy goes

back to normal, so called normal. So what we're talking about is directing these employment programs and increasing their effectiveness over time to build productive capacity in this area. Most mainstream economists will tell you, in the developing world especially, will tell you if we pay workers through some sort of public works program or a job guarantee program, those workers are going to take their wage, which is in the local and the national currency, and they're gonna go

out and buy stuff. It's going to add to food demand, it's going to add to transportation, is going to add to demand for imports. So that money is going to find its way as a point of pressure on the exchange rate. So what they say we need to do

is leave people unemployed. You know, what a what a cruel system to you know, use a buffer stock of millions of people unemployed and poverty and misery and not using the human capabilities that we have in the system, especially human capabilities that developing countries has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate, to raise in a healthy way and then leave a young population in mass unemployment instead of using it in a in a productive way. Fottel,

I have a couple uh. First, a short question and that's slightly longer. On the short one, why does a country in your view like Saudi Arabia, which obviously has no problem on its energy balances, why does it seed monetary sovereignty byger definition in not letting the real float freely? Well, if you if you look at sat Arabia in particular, that's that's an interesting example because it's it's a massive,

you know, oil exporter. But if you look at sat Arabia's imports, it's actually the extreme case of of what I've been describing. Um, most of the food that's that's consumed in sat Arabia probably close to a not exactly percent, but most, I would say, at least the eyeballing at here is imported food. And satur Abia also imports all

the capital goods, all the intermediate goods for its manufacturing. Uh, satur Abia also import it's a lot of labor, foreign cheap labor, and Saturreby also imports refined petrochemicals to think about the interject But does MMT from this lens implicitly reject this sort of a popular view of trade, which is, you know, some countries are not are going to specialize in oil, some countries are going to specialize in food.

And one country sells the other country oil, the other sells food and they both when when I mean, it doesn't really make sense for a country that's essentially in the middle of the desert to expand energy on turning its land uh into good farmland when there maybe a nearby neighbor that can grow food uh much more efficiently, right, And nobody's arguing that satur Abia should start growing food

in the desert. Although you know, if if we're talking about aquaponics, which doesn't need to use any soil and uses less less water, especially the more advanced forms of you know, high tech equaponics these days, then you can grow it anywhere, including and especially in a country like sat Arabia. I've been advocating this actually for for a

number of years now. Um. But from an MMT perspective, the kind of the simplistic international trade framework is not the right way of looking at things because specializing and low value added content is a trap. It's it's not about efficiency, it's about a trap that leads to loss of monetary sovereignty, and it leads you into a public policy framework that keeps you locked into that situation. It

doesn't actually move you higher up. Think about the countries that really made it in terms of the process of economic development, like like Korea, like UH, Singapore, UM. They didn't make it by specializing and low value added content. They made it by having a very clear industrial strategy of moving up higher and higher up in terms of value added content and not specializing in the cheap stuff.

And the countries that specialized in you know, um UH, low value added agriculture and low value added manufacturing, they went deeper and deeper into external debt and deeper and deeper into trouble. The countries that have been blessed with massive amounts of oil, they you know, they managed to move closer to a higher level of degree of monetary sovereignty. In the case of saut Arabia, saut Arabia lacks monetary sovereignty because of the currency peg with with the US dollar.

It has massive amount of reserves that are you know, depleting in the last few years, but it still has a massive buffer of of foreign currency reserves that give it some privileges. But by twenty eight, which is when most estimates that have seen say that satur Abia will

become a net oil importer. If we continue at the current pace, then sat Arabia will you know, quickly burn through its foreign reserves and move into a classic case of a developing country that imports all of its food and imports you know, energy, and it specializes in little value added manufacturing as simply line type of stuff. And that's really you know, a disaster for most developing countries that are trapped in this situation. So then what are

your public policy options? If you're developing country, then you become obsessed with accumulating foreign currency reserves, so you try to accelerate your exports. It doesn't work because you the more you export, the more you have to import and capital and energy and high value added content. Number two,

you you start to increase your tourism. Where you bring more tourism, it means you bring more energy consumption, more food consumption, more water consumption, and some parts of the world, so it's a it's a trap, and you're competing with two hundred other you know, a hundred and fifty plus other countries who are also racing to the bottom because they too want more tourism. Then you become obsessed with

foreign direct investment. But what kind of foreign direct investment are you going to be able to attract as a developing country that has, you know, not advanced so much in terms of value added content you're gonna attract. It's going to be a race to the bottom, and there's gonna be another hundred plus countries who are also competing for you know, outsourcing jobs from from the US and Canada. You're not going to be Germany or Japan, you know,

competing for the high end skilled manufacturing stuff. So all of these are traps that most developing countries are stuck into because they need the currency reserves, because without currency reserves, their currency will depreciate, and it means the next morning they're going to import food and medicine and capital at

a higher cost, which means they're importing inflation. It means in two days they're gonna have riots on the streets unless there's an IMF intervention to put a band aid on this situation and start over again with higher levels of external debt, with lower degrees of monetary sovereignty. So as as Warren Mosler sometimes says, if if you're stuck in a in a hole, the first thing you do is you stop digging and figure out a different way

to get out. And and that's really where the MMT analysis, you know, shines a light on this, on this deep hole that most developing countries are stuck into, and says stop digging, stop using the traditional policy advice, and think of real strategies to reclaim monetary sovereignty UM and focus on the root causes that are leading to this situation.

And that's where directing job creation and incentives towards building productive capacity in the areas that you identify as the weaknesses becomes the important strategy of creating jobs, developing a country on a sound foundation, and at the same time dealing with the inflationary pressures, the real inflationary pressures that

are existing in the system in most developing countries. And that's why I keep saying you can't separate the MMT analysis from the structural policy solutions that need to be in place to deal with the inflation, to deal with an employment, to deal with climate change to So how easy is it though, to start digging yourself out of

that hole? Because, as you describe it, the entire existing system of trade and global capitalism, I suppose, is pushing you in one direction, which is that race to the bottom, and you're fighting against that, trying to shift productive capacity again as you put it into areas where it hasn't naturally been shifted before. How do you do that? How hard is it to do that? And where does the money come from in order to make that happen? Right? Well,

it's nobody says it's easy. Because number one, you have to fight the ideas of the mainstream policy makers, the mainstream economists. That's that step number one. Number two, you have to fight the power structures, the the interest groups because in most developing countries there is you know, licensing systems for importing food, for importing energy, uh, and those are those are quite profitable. So people are going to

oppose that with with whatever power they have. Then you have the global trading system, the w t O rules. I mean, we live in a in a free trade world, right, so you're not gonna be able to exit from from those trade relations easily. Uh, you're gonna fight, you know, domestic business interests that you know from from an individual perspective, UM gain from from the existing system, but then comes to you know, if if you deal with all of these issues, then it becomes how do you do this?

You're not going to be able to switch it overnight, especially with the structural low value added exports, high value added imports stuff, because in order to shift to higher levels of value added production, you need to invest in UM infrastructure. You need to invest in education, vocational training, you need to invest in research and development. And that's not going to happen overnight. It takes a generation or two of consistent investment in those areas to move up

to that higher level. In terms of food production, no country can move to you know, full food sovereignty in in one or two years or even a decade. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to demonstrate that you're actually making progress, and you need to dedicate

more resources. This is where sacrifice becomes important. You may have to impose capital controls, you may have to restrict certain imports or or use your taxes them your RIF system to incentivize uh, certain kinds of consumptions and certain kinds of behavior in the domestic economy. It's really hard to do it as a single developing country. It's slightly easier to do it as a block of developing countries.

So this is where the idea of you know, uh, competition and in a national system and free trade is is an important concept to look into because everybody says competition is is good, it's fair, it's healthy, it's efficient, like in like in sports, like if if you're in a boxing game, we we have heavyweight, you know, boxers

fight heavyweight boxers and lightweight go with with lightweight. Nobody would watch, you know, it's it's illegal to have a heavyweight champion, you know, beat the hell out of a lightweight boxer. It's ugly, it's illegal, Nobody would watch it. And yet we allow that to happen in the international trade system. When we say it's healthy, it's competition, well it's not. So nobody says competing with countries that have equal levels of economic development is not a good idea.

And this is where South South trade becomes an important mechanism to enhance competition amongst equals and to use the complementary endowments of different countries within the region to enhance their the size of their market, access to markets, to enhance competition, and to build resources within the region that can secure a better level of economic development. UM, so

we have to rethink international trade systems in that context. Thought, before we go, I want to make sure we touch on one other point in your characteristics of monetary sovereignty, which in my mind might have a lot of relevance in the e M world, and that was your number two point, which we haven't talked about much, and that is essentially the ability of a government to raise taxes levy finds within its own currency that it prints, and one of the things that developing countries might lack is

essentially good government infrastructure. And a key part of government infrastructure is essentially the ability to do exactly that, to actually maintain tax compliance, to of eliminate tax evasion, stuff like that. Talk to us about that challenge and how important it is, and within the e M context, just this ability to build up stable institutions that aren't driven with corruption and that can actually enforce the use of

the domestic printed currency. Absolutely. I mean the issue of tax evasion and corruption, especially in developing countries, is a key structural weakness and it's not something that that can be fixed overnight. I mean, we've tried, we've tried and tried with corruption, it's it's very easy for it to seep into the system and it's extremely difficult to to cleanse the system of it. But that doesn't mean we

should we should give up. And and this is where international assistance, this is where enforcing the democratic institutions, transparency within within countries is extremely important. So MMT doesn't reject that,

if anything, we want to enhance that. The the issue becomes, especially in developing countries, the the issue of progressive versus regressive taxation because most developing countries rely on value added tax UH sales tax and developing countries and that that's not ideal, but that's because there's a lot of informal transactions that happened in the system. There's a lack of

effectiveness and and reporting and tax collection UH. There's also the issue of UM taxing the rich, taxing wealth versus taxing income UM. All of these issues need to be addressed, and some countries are doing a better job than others. But that's a that's a key aspect of the effectiveness. Uh. The point that MMTY highlights across the board for developed or developing countries is the purpose of taxation. The purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue to fund a

particular program. The purpose of taxation is to offset some of the spending and to deal with the inflationary pressure. And in the case of you know, high marginal tax rates and wealth tax rates, it's also to protect the democratic process and to reduce the market power and the political power of the elites of the oligarchy and the

political process and the democratic process. Not because we need their money to fund a particular program, but because we need to reduce their influence in the political process and reduce their influence in the market process, because let's not forget that, you know, political influences always for an economic gain. So that also has something to do with inflation, something to do with with the rentiers mechanism that that exists in most countries. So MMT acknowledges that, and it's an

important thing. MMT is not a silver bullet to you know, fix everything, but it does acknowledge that there is corruption.

It does acknowledge that their political issues, and the criticism that sometimes you hear from from some colleagues about MMT kind of going into a slippery slope of you know, political prescription or whatever is is really not a fair criticism because give me any theory or any analytical framework that doesn't have a political bent to it, or I mean, what is not political When you build a theory based on certain assumptions, those assumptions have an ideological bent, They

have a political bent to them. And MMT is is not saying we're we're politically neutral. Nothing out there in terms of academic thinking and academic analysis is politically neutral. Uh. It's always a certain choice about how you organize a society and economy because it's organizing a society. Organizing economy by definition is a legal process, which means it's a political process. So you can't really divorce the economic thinking from the legal thinking, from the political thinking from the

social realities. These are all intertwined, and m T S really prides itself for building a coherent interdisciplinary framework to address issues that are by definition multifaceted and require legal analysis, economic analysis, and political analysis. So there is no slippery slope. It's the whole thing from the beginning, start with the social reality in which we live, which has legal implications,

of political implications and economic implications. Fat Out, I'm sorry, we're going to have to leave it there, but that was a really fascinating conversation. Fatal Kaboob, Associate professor at Dennison University. Thank you so much for coming on all thoughts, Thank you for having me on the show. That was great.

Thank you very much so, Joe. That was a very interesting conversation sort of ended up in a very different place to our previous conversation with Colin Roche in the sense that I mean, Fottle is pretty out there about the notion that whatever economic system you choose, or economic theory you choose, comes with a set of political implications

or beliefs along with it. Yeah, and I really like this conversation a lot because I think when people say that, oh, you can't apply the MMC framework to emerging markets, what they're really saying is you can't expect emerging markets to just spend a lot of money all of us sudden,

overnight and produce beneficial effects. And what I think is, uh, what Fottle the point he was making is like, sure, that's true, but that's not really the idea, and that the idea is let's go to the root premises of MMT,

the value of monetary sovereignty, and achieve that first. And I really like that reframing because of course, the US is different spending and fiscal capacity than a country like Turkey or anywhere else, But that doesn't mean that the overall framework isn't useful, both in terms of understanding Turkey but also sort of a policy path that might benefit these countries. Well, the approach is much more realistic than I thought it would be when we first started discussing

the notion of applying MMT to emerging markets. But that said, it's realistic in that sort of reframing of the problem. Sure, but you know, when you listen to Fattle describe everything that needs to happen in order for a developing economy to actually climb out of the whole and start on the path to monetary sovereignty, it sounds like a huge,

huge ask, right. They need to basically extricate themselves from the existing exploitative trading and international capitalist system, restructure their entire economy, deal with very controversial issues like taxation, um and subsidies for things like fuel and food, and then only then they'll be sort of at the beginning of

what's going to be possibly a multi generational process. Absolutely, but I think what's useful about that, even though obviously any country will phase extraordinary difficulty, is just how much we've come to accept certain things about international development. Is facts like, oh, of course you ought to boost your tourism, or of course you start off by selling cheap stuff and that enables you to eventually sell higher value stuff,

and then higher value stuff. Just these certain things that we sort of assume our iron facts about development, and that of course this is the way you're supposed to progress, and as he points there all sort of drawbacks and so obviously if you have a tourism boom, but all that does is accelerate your demand for oil and water and food to move and feed all those tourists. Are

you just on a treadmill? And so I don't think it necessarily follows the tourism is bad per se, obviously, but just these sort of conventional wisdom about this is good, this is bad, this is what you do to develop at least they're challenging some of our assumptions on those things, which I really like. It could be a lot of food for thought. Absolutely, if if nothing else, MMT has definitely forced a lot of people to sort of reassess

our starting point for economic theory. For sure. That agree and I think that all right, shall we leave it there? Let's there cool. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts Podcast. I'm Chasey Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy Alloway, and I'm Joe Wisntal. You can follow me on Twitter at the Stalwart. And you should follow our guest on Twitter, follow Koboo. He's at Follow koboob and be sure to follow our producer to for Foreheads. He's at foreheads T, as well as the

Bloomberg head of podcast, Francesca Leave at Francesca Today. Thanks for listening.