The Political Economy of Stacks of Cash

Adam Keily: [00:01:23] G'day and welcome to comedian versus economist. We demystify the world of money and help you get a handle on the bigger picture. My name is Adam and I'm joined, as always by my older brother and real-life economist, Thomas. Welcome, Thomas. [00:01:37][14.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:01:38] Yeah, thanks. Good to be here again. [00:01:39][1.3]

Adam Keily: [00:01:40] Yeah. Episode nine. Thomas seems to think that we would never amount to anything. [00:01:45][5.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:01:47] Yeah. Look at us now dad. Listen, listen, uh, [00:01:58][11.0]

Adam Keily: [00:01:58] episode nine, though, and the final episode in our intro series Ten would have been a nice number. I can't help thinking, well, but here we are. In true economist's style. [00:02:09][10.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:10] We'll round up the 10 [00:02:13][2.1]

Adam Keily: [00:02:13] economists don't round, do they? Let's say I'm an economist like, [00:02:18][4.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:19] no, we don't get bogged down in the digits. [00:02:22][2.5]

Adam Keily: [00:02:23] We're talking macroeconomics here and we're not you know, we can round down to the nearest billion. [00:02:28][4.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:29] Yeah. [00:02:29][0.0]

Adam Keily: [00:02:32] So our episode last week on MMT, if you haven't heard it, do yourself a favor. Go back and listen to that one. Got people pretty fired up. Thomas, would you believe I had no idea that people cared so much about MMT, a modern monetary theory, as it were. In fact, one of our listeners was so worked up that he decided to write an opinion piece in The Australian Financial [00:02:55][22.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:02:55] Review, which is fine. We like email, but then if it's good as well. [00:03:01][5.6]

Adam Keily: [00:03:01] But it came out almost the same time that we dropped the last episode. Don't forget, you can always email us cve@equitymates.com Or via the website equitymates.com/cve. [00:03:12][10.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:03:14] But if you are going to drop an article in the Australian Financial Review, at least Tag us hashtag show cve. [00:03:21][7.0]

Adam Keily: [00:03:22] Yeah, Wolfgang didn't do that buddy. But I just want to I want to give you a few quotes from the article, OK? And you tell me if he's not talking about you. [00:03:31][8.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:03:32] Yeah. Let's let's recap. So modern monetary theory was the reason why we're talking about it is it's like money printing, public finance, money printing to finance government deficits. So money printing to for governments to spend lots of money on whatever they want. MMT is a theory that describes what happens and why that's not as scary as we've been led to believe. In a nutshell, go check out the last episode for a full wrap. [00:03:57][24.9]

Adam Keily: [00:03:57] Yeah, because you're an MMT fanboy and you're on your own team. MMT fanboy Go empty. Yeah, go work on my shirt. [00:04:10][13.1]

Adam Keily: [00:04:11] It's a short chant if you [00:04:12][1.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:04:12] wear like give me an M, I mean three letters written in no time. It's going to be one of the things I like about it all year. [00:04:23][11.1]

Thomas Keily: [00:04:23] I don't know that I'm a fanboy, but I do think, I do think the GFC experience and the quantitative easing era, the money printing that followed the GFC did create a lot of anomalies that Orthodox economics has not been able to explain. And I think in the quest for an explanation about what actually happened and what is happening right now, I think MMT is doing the best job. I think I think they're there. They're ahead. [00:04:50][26.4]

Adam Keily: [00:04:50] Well, Wolfgang, from the IMF, I would beg to differ. Mm. And your urine is urine he cites. So he said a specter is haunting the world. Thomas modern monetary theory inspector form is holding the world. And he called it an example of how populist evangelists can gain quick popularity through blogs, tweets, and talkfests. [00:05:18][27.1]

Adam Keily: [00:05:20] But avoiding serious professional scrutiny through established journals and critical book reviews. He's talking about you is the only way I can read between the lines. that was Dear Thomas. Yeah. [00:05:35][15.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:05:40] It's a generation of inexperienced fringe dwellers in finance and academia began to advocate MMT. That's you. Yeah. Fringe-dwelling friends. Finance and academia. You live in Mullumbimby. The fringe as it gets. Yeah. He said. The age-old wisdom that more money chasing and inevitably slow-growing supply of goods and services leads to painful inflation that cannot be brushed aside easily. Age-old wisdom Thomas. [00:06:16][36.0]

Adam Keily: [00:06:19] Is there something in that? Is that the key? Yeah. [00:06:22][2.8]

Adam Keily: [00:06:22] Yeah. Old age, something, old age people, [00:06:24][1.9]

Adam Keily: [00:06:25] you know, like he's [00:06:28][3.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:06:28] laying out the orthodox economic position. So this is still he's an emeritus professor at New A.W.. I think it is. And you know, what he's talking about is the standard line that's being taught in economics departments, in universities across the country. And it's that money printing creates inflation, painful inflation at that painful. [00:06:49][21.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:06:50] Yeah, well, we and we talked about that last week. And my understanding, if you if you'll indulge me for a moment, my understanding was that that inflation's not going to happen is as long as whatever we're printing the money for is not constrained. So as long as if there are enough things to buy with the money that we're printing, then inflation won't happen. And we can all just keep just fire up the printing machines and march our way into the future. [00:07:20][29.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:07:20] Yeah, that's essentially that's one of the insights of MMT or one of the nuances that the MMT tries to add. And I think it's worth remembering the MMT isn't a radical reconfiguring. It's not of of of economics. It's not like we're moving from a heliocentric universe to an earth-centric universe or one way or the other. [00:07:41][20.3]

Adam Keily: [00:07:41] So what those like selling point helicopter after what what what is helicopter got to do with what's going on? So we're used to. [00:07:56][14.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:07:56] People used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. Then we started believing that the sum of some of the center of the universe and that's a radically different, you know, world view of how things work. Yeah. MMT that I don't think it gets painted as being incredibly radical, but it doesn't it's not throwing out any of the old insights from Orthodox economics. I think what it's trying to do is add nuance to the picture. And so, Emond, who wouldn't say that money printing doesn't cause inflation? I think it would say it can, but it might not. And it depends on the context that money printing happens in whether you get inflation or not or where you get inflation. [00:08:33][37.0]

Adam Keily: [00:08:34] Hmm. [00:08:34][0.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:08:35] Um, so that's sort of adding that nuance to the picture. And that nuance is really needed because after the GFC, we saw the quantitative easing era in the US, massive money printing, and it didn't create consumer price inflation. Arguably it created asset price inflation. The US stock market tripled over the decade following the GFC. So there was inflation in some sectors of the economy, but not in others, not in consumer price and consumer prices, which is where you normally expect it to show up. And so we needed we need to be able to explain that, you know, and because there wasn't inflation, because we didn't see inflation, we've got what we've got now, which is governments and central banks saying like we're in a massive crisis. We printed a crap kind of money last time. Why don't we just do the same thing again? And that's and that's what we've got. [00:09:28][52.6]

Adam Keily: [00:09:29] Yeah. And so we talked about that last week. And there we don't want to cover over too much of the ground that we covered off then. But we're saying now that people are just we should be letting it run at least you know where it's just it's a reality. It's not necessarily that we should be letting it do anything. It's just a kind of reality that we're in. And the printing money is not seemingly having a negative effect. So we don't need to jump on it right away and start paying back the debt. And I guess this feeds into what we want to talk about today. We and I say this with some trepidation today. We want to talk about political economics. Right. Or, you know, the political economy. And Wolfgang in the AFAS, Wolfgang, what was his last name? I forget Caspar. Kasper, Wolfgang. Thank you, Wolfgang. Kasper would no doubt be classed as a conservative. And is this a typical kind of conservative view or how does how do the different sort of sides of politics approach this? [00:10:30][61.1]

Thomas Keily: [00:10:32] Yeah, I think this is where it's really interesting. So I think what you're seeing here is a view that's starting to it would sort of seem to be a coordinated response to what's happening and the traction that MMT is getting. And I think and the conservatives are running arguments against me, trying to discredit me. But I think the arguments are fairly weak. And you say you see here is Kaspar's pointing to inflation, but like it ignores this. The elephant in the room is that we've had a decade of money printing and it hasn't created inflation, so like, why not? That's that's that's the puzzle that we need to explain. But it's the puzzle that conservative commentators just seem to ignore. [00:11:16][44.4]

Adam Keily: [00:11:17] When did we have inflation? When was inflation at its worst? [00:11:19][2.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:11:21] Back in the 70s? Probably. I don't think we've. Yeah. There are different types of inflation, economists think about different types of inflation, that is what they call demand-pull inflation, which is when there's so much money and so much demand and heat in the economy that that starts beating the prices up of everything in the economy. You also have what's called supply push inflation, which is when the cost of inputs go up and that pushes price levels up. And we saw that with the OPEC crisis when OPEC got together and decided to push up oil prices, that a huge spike in oil prices flowed through that was input into everything in the economy. And so as that input cost increased, that increased everything, the price level in the economy. Right. So that. Yeah. So that's sort of that was the last major intense period of inflation was back in the 70s. Really. [00:12:13][51.9]

Adam Keily: [00:12:13] Yeah. All right. Sorry. So back to the back to the is the. [00:12:18][4.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:12:19] I mean, the other thing that's interesting about MMT, I think is that so it is true that MMT, I know what you call them, proponents or theorists or whatever. [00:12:28][9.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:12:29] Fanboys, families. [00:12:30][0.8]

Adam Keily: [00:12:31] Yeah. [00:12:31][0.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:12:33] They go. Stephanie Kelton said yes, she was mentioned in the article. Is it. [00:12:37][4.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:12:38] Yeah. She's probably one of the leading proponents or the economic adviser to Bernie Sanders campaign. Right. Um, it is true that one that they are the fringe that is not widely accepted, the MMT view, yet. It's still very much a fringe sort of idea, even sort of along conservative or progressive lines. MMT sort of exists even on the outer of all of that. And it's a very small cohort [00:13:04][25.4]

Adam Keily: [00:13:05] that could have added whispers in speakeasies, around campuses. So when you get to you know, you can join the Frisbee Club or there's a secret society. Yeah, but I mean, it it [00:13:25][20.1]

Thomas Keily: [00:13:25] it was such a central tenet of orthodoxy economics for so long that that money printing causes inflation that anyone who said that that wasn't true was sort of like just laughed out of the room and in a practical sense, didn't get it, didn't get tenure, didn't get a position in the economics department. And so they've sort of there are very few names that you can point to driving this and Stephanie Chilterns and an exception to that. But the reason she's able to kind of CASPA, as Wolfgang Kaspar's complaining about, is that she didn't do it through normal channels. She didn't do it through economic departments and published journals. She did it through blogs and, um, talkfests and podcasts probably. [00:14:12][46.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:14:13] Does that make it invalid then? I mean, you know, we're looking at wearing covid times and we're looking at vaccines. And we want and there are lots of conspiracy theories flying around about Bill Gates is going to inject us with, you know, tracking devices and things. So you want something that's peer review. Don't you want some kind of some backing for your claims or for your theories? [00:14:38][25.1]

Adam Keily: [00:14:40] Yeah. Yeah. [00:14:41][0.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:14:41] Enough to just go on to go on a talkfest like this or you know. [00:14:44][2.9]

Adam Keily: [00:14:45] write your own podcast, you know, who are you anyway. Yeah. Yeah. [00:14:53][7.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:14:54] Look, ideally, you do ideally do. But again, this goes back to the ideal. [00:14:57][3.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:14:59] Sure. It's nice to have independent peer review. [00:15:01][1.9]

Adam Keily: [00:15:02] That's a nice to have. [00:15:03][1.1]

Adam Keily: [00:15:03] We put that in the club. We put that as a last to have uh. Yeah. [00:15:12][9.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:15:13] But like again it comes back to this pop and revolution idea inside period stuff. [00:15:18][4.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:15:18] Yeah. [00:15:18][0.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:15:18] What Kaupapa I thought about this last week is that science doesn't advance in gradual, incremental steps. It advances in revolution. [00:15:25][6.8]

Adam Keily: [00:15:28] Yes. Yeah. Yeah. [00:15:29][0.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:15:29] So yeah. So economics departments select people who already agree with what they believe and so on. And that's not a bad thing necessarily. You don't want economic departments jumping all over the political spectrum one week to the next level. Certain stability is probably ideal, but I think MMT has been around enough and it's pointing to this as like it's a massive elephant in the room. You've got massive money printing that didn't create consumer price inflation. And we're running the same story now. We're running the same story now without any orthodoxy economics being able to explain what's going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen at the end of this or what the journey is going to be because we're off the charts with the story ends with there should be at some point consumer price inflation. But it does appear that it's much more nuanced than that. And that's where M.A., I think, is adding value. What's interesting about Amante proponents is that politically. They all seem to be clustered around the pool, the very progressive end of the spectrum that, you know, so Bernie Sanders, for example, that, you know, he's practically a radical and that seems to be where many proponents are the ones that get coverage. That's where the political alliance, that they're progressive by nature. [00:16:44][75.1]

Adam Keily: [00:16:45] Right. I've got something to ask you about that. But before we do, I just want to take a quick break here. Let's take a pause, grab a quick word from our sponsors, and then we're going to come back and talk more about political economics. See you soon. [00:16:58][13.4]

Adam Keily: [00:18:02] Welcome back to comedian versus economist. We're talking more and more specifically or less specifically, maybe we're talking political economics. And Thomas, you are actually a political economics tutor, weren't you? At one point? [00:18:15][13.0]

Thomas Keily: [00:18:16] Yeah, political economy. That's the sort of like the branch of economics that deals with the intersection of how the economy works, economic theory and politics, how how it gets dealt with in the real world. [00:18:27][11.2]

Adam Keily: [00:18:28] Let's not show off. OK, so you were before the break, you were talking conservatives and you know their view of MMT. But the Liberal Party in Australia, at least, they've overseen some huge spending, some huge money printing, particularly in the covid response. And I got in my mind, I've always been the Conservative Party. So what's driving that? Are they expecting that they still like Josh Zoidberg is still like we're going to pay it back, we're going to get it back in the black or is even are they like. They're not they're not they don't have a plan yet. [00:19:11][43.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:19:12] Yeah, it's quite it's a little bit of a ridiculous situation. Like we're talking about a trillion dollar deficit that, you know, we've gone from a debt and deficits disaster to being totally cool with the trillion dollar deficit. So it's a very unusual situation. The Liberal Party does seem to be clinging to the need for austerity and for running a disciplined budgets, even though they're not right now. And everyone's cool with that. So, yeah, it's it's a very unusual, unusual time. Um, and I think, like, it's worth thinking about what like why why progressives have been drawn to MMT, because progressives, you know, want to run typically want to run good social programs. They want public housing, they want free dental, they want environmental protection and support these sort of things. And typically the political resistance to those things is conservative, saying, look, look, we're all about that is a great idea. But it's a bit tight this year. And I think we just don't have the money for that yet. [00:20:23][71.1]

Adam Keily: [00:20:23] There's no cash. There's no cash here. [00:20:24][1.4]

Thomas Keily: [00:20:25] Yeah, no cash. A big sign on parliament as says that there must be. Really. [00:20:35][10.3]

Adam Keily: [00:20:39] Yeah. And so so progressives who want to drive a progressive agenda have been drawn to MMT because MMT offers a way to fund these things. Conservatives typically and we're talking about not just like current era conservatives, but like for generations have been opposed to government spending. And sort of the driving idea out of the US is something called starve the beast, that if you the less you spend on government provision of services, the smaller government is. And you want to keep the government small. You don't want it growing too big. You don't want it growing into a beast, because once it becomes a beast, then it becomes difficult to control and you end up with totalitarianism. Right. So the full government control of everything, communism, whatever you want to call that. And so sort of the doctrine of Starve the beast is like, well, let's keep, um, keep government spending constrained to avoid it starting to infringe on civil liberties. That's sort of the conservative. [00:21:43][63.3]

Adam Keily: [00:21:44] I don't know that providing homes for people without homes is infringing too much on civil liberties, though. Is it like I mean, in terms of starving the beast, I think [00:21:52][8.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:21:53] we could feed the beast a little bit. Maybe we find a little bit of room [00:21:59][6.5]

Adam Keily: [00:22:00] in the beast for some hospitals and [00:22:01][1.6]

Adam Keily: [00:22:03] welfare programs, although. [00:22:05][1.6]

Adam Keily: [00:22:06] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yes. Actually, I mean, I understand we don't want the government controlling everything and, [00:22:11][5.2]

Adam Keily: [00:22:11] you know, looking after us. But, you know, I wish spread a little bit of a little bit around. Yeah. Yeah. [00:22:21][9.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:22:22] I mean, yeah, it's like I personally find it a little bit of a difficult position to to really defend wholeheartedly like I think it is. I mean I guess like, oh I'm probably more of a Social Democrat. I like the idea of the provision of essential public services. I think that's good. I don't think the market does a particularly great job, a great job of providing essential services all the time. So I think there is definitely some role for that. Um, I'm not into, you know, totalitarian communism, [00:22:51][29.5]

Adam Keily: [00:22:53] but we're not trying to. Yeah, well, I could give it a go. Go. Why don't we just try everything? So. That's right. I mean, you know, you go well, [00:23:02][9.2]

Adam Keily: [00:23:03] what do we know about inflation and money printing? Turns out we didn't know a whole lot about it if this all works out. Mind you, this is not like this is this is still a long way to run. Something tells me. But I'm not advocating communism here. [00:23:17][14.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:23:17] it is dog whistling to the communists in the audience. But I think [00:23:27][10.3]

Thomas Keily: [00:23:27] so it's interesting. Like, it's interesting because MMT itself is essentially value-neutral. Like it's saying that money monetarists of sovereign governments can print money, can finance their own deficits, and can have money to spend on stuff that they want to spend, what they then go and spend with that. That's a political question. And it doesn't have to be progressive stuff. It could be as just as easily be spent on building a wall between, you know, New South Wales and Queensland as it could on, you know, universal health care or something like that. Like it doesn't just because the money's there doesn't mean that that it needs to go into progressive causes. Erm so it's so, it's so it's interesting that. That the conservatives are pushing back against it, and I think it must be because it's this sort of starving the beast argument that they don't want government provision of everything. And that's sort of what happens if there is an unlimited budget. And this isn't what money is. Opponents are suggesting there is. They're not saying you can just money and there are no consequences and you never have to pay the piper, then they're not saying that. But if that idea is that that's a misconception that starting to take hold and conservatives are driving that misconception. But if that's conception, starts to take hold the political calculus changes radically because once the public thinks there's money for everything, then they're going to want money for everything. First of all, for everything that they, you know, they want in life. So it is it does seem like it is a road to big government. And I think that's why conservatives are worried about it and they're pushing back. But right now, I think Wolfgang Kaspar's article is a good example. They're not doing it very effectively and they're not hitting targets in my mind. They're not they're not mounting a good argument and they're not addressing the real problem that the evidence that needs to be explained, they're not providing a plausible explanation. [00:25:27][119.8]

Adam Keily: [00:25:28] Hmm. Interesting. Something else that I've noticed, I noticed in the article and something that keeps popping up is this word, Canadian, Canadian, Canadian, some kind of reflexology, isn't it? [00:25:41][12.6]

Thomas Keily: [00:25:42] Canadian stimulus. It's when they really think their knuckle in the heel. The particular point in the state myth is that it is Keynesianism. [00:25:57][15.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:25:58] Canines in France named after John Maynard Keynes, famous British economist in the 1930s, [00:26:04][5.8]

Adam Keily: [00:26:07] the famous British obviously very famous. You don't have too many theories named after you basically said [00:26:22][15.5]

Adam Keily: [00:26:23] the Great Depression hit. And his response was that the government should just spend money. So that saying that the problem with the Great Depression was inadequate demand, there wasn't enough demand to keep everyone in full employment and to keep the economy ticking along. And the government should step into the breach. The government should just, you know, dig a hole, bury one hundred million dollars and let people dig it up, just whatever the public demand should fill, fill the gaps created by private demand and sort of from the 30s through to the 60s, 70s, that was the dominant economic idea that the role of government was to backfill demand whenever private demand collapsed to a certain point to to create inflation, sorry to create unemployment, that the government should step in at that point. But that idea went out of fashion in the 60s and 70s. Why? Partly because of the inflationary episodes that followed that a lot of a lot of that sort of governments, you know, didn't always do a great job of reading where private demand was at and tended to overspend and that overspending created inflation was it was arguably one of the causes of the inflation. [00:27:32][69.5]

Adam Keily: [00:27:33] So is that way it's different then? Is that is that MT's different because there is controlled spending somehow it's controlled. [00:27:40][7.1]

Thomas Keily: [00:27:42] I wouldn't I wouldn't know. [00:27:43][1.2]

Thomas Keily: [00:27:44] I think I think they kind of they kind of click together in a way like again, a sort of like MLT doesn't necessarily say what you should spend the money on, even though many proponents have progressive agendas, then they would like to see the money spent on MMT itself. Just sort of is a description of how the world works, how the money flows around, what the money gets spent on. So whether it's, you know, military spending or whether it's backfilling demand through Keynesian stimulus, that's a political question. That's sort of not really what MTIs trying to answer definitively. [00:28:17][33.7]

Adam Keily: [00:28:18] So just to kind of recap here, we're kind of nearing the end of this episode. But so it's still quite a fringe kind of mindset. It's we can't really separate it in terms of the left and the right. You know, you hear that here that a lot on, you know, in the media about the left and the right and what their approaches to, like the Labor Party, for example, aren't proponents of MMT, are they necessarily versus. But then I guess that's not, you know, true left and right, sort of left and right. [00:28:50][31.5]

Thomas Keily: [00:28:51] Yeah. I mean, the political economy drifted a long way right over the last 30 or 40 years. So, you know, what was what's considered progressive now would like it sort of like the high watermark was probably with Whitlam and the introduction of free higher education and all of that. That was probably like the high watermark for the progressive left, leftish economic policy. And since then, it's been drifting rightward and quite strongly. And that's taken both the political parties with it, both a lot further right. Of where they used to be. [00:29:22][31.4]

Adam Keily: [00:29:23] Yeah. So that's sort of. [00:29:24][0.8]

Thomas Keily: [00:29:25] Yeah, we're not going to hear the because if the Liberal Party come out now and they're like they're effectively doing they're doing MMT, they've been doing it doing quantitative easing, we're not going to hear the Labor Party come out and say we're going to scrap it if we get in, like we're going to put the brakes on. Are they or is that what they're saying? [00:29:46][20.9]

Thomas Keily: [00:29:47] It's very unlikely, I would think. Yeah. I mean, now that there is money for stuff, you know, typically Labor is a fan of more spending relative to the Liberal Party. The Labor Party's come a long way right over the last 20, 30 years as well. But, um, they're not as sort of as aggressive as the coalition has been. This is the sort of the idea of the right-wing ratchet, that sort of. Richard Denniss, the Australian Institute talks about, which is that you're trying to in order to starve the beast, you offer tax cuts when the time when times are good and then when times get bad, you cut services. And so and then when times get good again, you offer tax cuts. So that reduces your revenue. And then when times get bad, you spend less by cutting services and it sort of ratchets down. And that's sort of what's happened over the last 20 or 30 years, that the government sort of got smaller and smaller through cutting taxes and then cutting, cutting services, services, spending. [00:30:45][58.3]

Adam Keily: [00:30:46] Well, I reckon that does us for this week's episode and the final week of our intro series. So if you haven't heard the first eight episodes of the series, then be sure to go back and start at the beginning. From here, we're going to change up the format a bit, I think still to be determined exactly what that looks like tonight. But we're going to start looking at a bit more current events and some of the data that's coming out as it comes out. Look at some of the jobs data as it relates to talking about what that means, but the growth data, all that kind of stuff. So we hope that the first nine episodes that we've done here have given you a good grounding in a lot of the basic or the fundamental macroeconomic terms and economic terms and concepts. Hopefully, this is something that as we go on and when we get to episode four hundred and fifty and people are tuning in all over the world for the very first time, we can say, go back and listen to episode one to nine where we you know, we got in trouble with the AFA because [00:31:43][57.4]

Adam Keily: [00:31:47] because we played that one of their chief writers, [00:31:49][2.6]

Adam Keily: [00:31:51] I don't know. But we do think Wolfgang Kasper, for his for his response to our episode last week, [00:31:55][4.2]

Adam Keily: [00:31:55] was listening with the fresher you tuning in, Wolfgang, don't forget, you can leave a review on iTunes that got a good [00:32:04][8.8]

Adam Keily: [00:32:09] but you don't have to write an article in the AFR. Contact us if you want, you can send us an email at cve@equitymates.com. You can find us on the website equitymates.com/cve. Thank you to our buddies over at Equity meIt's, Bryce and Alec for their support and helping us get this intro series done and dusted and [00:32:34][24.7]

Thomas Keily: [00:32:34] shout out to Sasha for the production on this first series. [00:32:37][2.8]

Adam Keily: [00:32:38] Yeah, absolutely. Just amazing job Sasha does. So yeah. Thanks for tuning in. We hope you join us next week for Episode 10, the first one of the rest of them. Until then, take it easy and we'll talk to you soon. [00:32:38][0.0]

[1708.7]