Speaker 1: Kiyota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. As
Speaker 1: votes continue to be counted in the US, President elector
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has swept all seven battleground states, confirming his
Speaker 1: dominant performance in the country's election. While many were shocked
Speaker 1: that the US would return to Trump after four years,
Speaker 1: many voters have made it clear their feelings about high
Speaker 1: inflation and the cost of living under the Biden administration
Speaker 1: swayed them towards the Republicans. It's a similar sentiment that
Speaker 1: helped National Act and New Zealand first descend to power
Speaker 1: in our election last year. But in a global economic environment,
Speaker 1: how much sway does one political leader have over how
Speaker 1: much you're paying for grocery and petrol? Today on the
Speaker 1: Front Page, we discussed this with NSID Herald Business editor
Speaker 1: at Large, Liam Dan. Liam, are you surprised at all
Speaker 1: that economic concerns were enough for swing voters to back
Speaker 1: Trump in their millions?
Speaker 2: Well, I guess I wasn't surprised. I picked it in
Speaker 2: a column in advance, which is I wasn't rocket science.
Speaker 2: But the reason I was reasonably comfortable with the prediction
Speaker 2: was because I was following financial markets and betting markets
Speaker 2: so closely, and the financial markets really thought that Trump
Speaker 2: was going to win. The economy in the US sort
Speaker 2: of looks good on paper. Inflation is officially back in
Speaker 2: its box, but if you think about it, it's still
Speaker 2: kind of peak inflation because we're still waiting for wages
Speaker 2: to catch up. All the inflation is cumulative, even though
Speaker 2: it's now only rising at two percent. Over the last
Speaker 2: few years, people have just felt like their worse off.
Speaker 2: So I think that's one of the reasons why the
Speaker 2: Democrats got punished.
Speaker 1: What has been the state of the u US economy
Speaker 1: in the last year. Have they seen much improvement there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they were one of the They haven't
Speaker 2: had a recession, so it's called a soft landing. Given
Speaker 2: what we're all going through, and we've been through in
Speaker 2: New Zealand, all the stimulus for COVID created the inflation.
Speaker 2: Then you've got to take the inflation out by constricting
Speaker 2: the money supply, and that in New Zealand's case, has
Speaker 2: been such an extreme whip saw sort of thing that
Speaker 2: we've gone into recession two or three times and we've
Speaker 2: been in this per capita recession some time, so it
Speaker 2: hasn't been a soft landing here. It's been rough getting
Speaker 2: inflation down. The US managed to do it much better, so,
Speaker 2: you know, I guess there's plenty of commentators and economists thinking, well,
Speaker 2: Biden's done a good job here, and the US Federal
Speaker 2: Reserve done a good job here. They've managed to get
Speaker 2: inflation back down to normal levels without a recession. It's
Speaker 2: quite rare to get that kind of so called soft landing.
Speaker 2: You could make the case that the US economy wasn't
Speaker 2: a good spot or isn't a great spot. Their stock
Speaker 2: markets have actually been good right through the Biden era,
Speaker 2: you know, so it was all good on paper. But
Speaker 2: I think I think that was one of the issues
Speaker 2: was that Americans, and actually you see it around the world,
Speaker 2: people were sick of being told that the economy was
Speaker 2: good because it was good on paper. They didn't feel
Speaker 2: like it was good, so it wasn't good. And that's
Speaker 2: you know that the media, the commentators, the economists, and
Speaker 2: the politicians telling them that. There certainly a sort of
Speaker 2: a backlash against that.
Speaker 3: So the total back in March of twenty twenty for
Speaker 3: this basket of goods yes, I'm an economist. Basket of
Speaker 3: goods was one hundred and seventeen dollars and one cent,
Speaker 3: and today the same basket of goods would cost you
Speaker 3: one hundred and fifty one dollars and ninety nine cents.
Speaker 3: That's an increase of a whopping twenty nine point eight
Speaker 3: nine percent. That's a solid chunk of change.
Speaker 1: Well, the US has the same issues as US, particularly
Speaker 1: with food and energy being more expensive. How much influence
Speaker 1: does the person sitting in the White House or at
Speaker 1: ten Downing Street or on the ninth floor of the
Speaker 1: beehive actually have over those specific costs.
Speaker 2: The cycle economic cycle has been very similar all over
Speaker 2: the western world, so you can understand why some people
Speaker 2: would say, Look, you're getting obsessed with blaming individual politicians.
Speaker 2: It seems to be whoever was in power through the
Speaker 2: worst of that spike has been thrown out, and you know,
Speaker 2: voters have punished the incumbents generally. There are some areas
Speaker 2: of control you could have applied fiscal restraint during that
Speaker 2: period would have limited the amount of inflation. So there's
Speaker 2: all those big tradeoffs, and I don't want to get
Speaker 2: back into that big argument again about how much we
Speaker 2: should have done through COVID. There are arguments about the
Speaker 2: trade offf the health tradeoff and how much we close
Speaker 2: down the borders and how long we're in lockdown all
Speaker 2: that sort of stuff because that cost money. And then actually,
Speaker 2: you know, in this country there's been arguments about how
Speaker 2: tightly the money was held or used and where money's
Speaker 2: gone from the COVID budget to other things, and so yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there's definitely you can make arguments
Speaker 2: for and against various politicians and political regimes doing better
Speaker 2: than others. But I think the general trend over the
Speaker 2: last five years since COVID, you can see, really didn't
Speaker 2: matter whether you had the Tories and power in the
Speaker 2: UK or labor and power in New Zealand. Those broad
Speaker 2: trends were pretty universal.
Speaker 1: So it's pretty rare that someone say on the campaign
Speaker 1: trial promises to fix the economy being able to actually
Speaker 1: fix the economy when push comes to shove.
Speaker 2: Well, it's about fixing the economy overnight. In the end,
Speaker 2: really fixing the economy means getting the settings right for
Speaker 2: people to sort of create wealth, and that might go
Speaker 2: all the way back to having to deal with a
Speaker 2: better education system, and it you know, a lot of
Speaker 2: people argue it does or some really fundamental settings dealing
Speaker 2: with that. The flip side would be dealing with social
Speaker 2: inequality because that's slowing our economy because people aren't productive.
Speaker 2: But regardless of which political way you look at it,
Speaker 2: there are some really fundamental things you need to do.
Speaker 2: There are some short term things I guess governments can do.
Speaker 2: Depending on their political stripes, you can effectively what the
Speaker 2: governments can do, and what central banks also do is
Speaker 2: just pump more money into the economy or take more
Speaker 2: money out. Any government can pump money into the economy,
Speaker 2: central banks can pump money into the economy. But as
Speaker 2: we've seen, you know that if you just pump money
Speaker 2: in without it being underpinned by real wealth creation and
Speaker 2: basically productivity, which by which we mean you know, people
Speaker 2: making more stuff or doing more stuff to earn money
Speaker 2: for the country from elsewhere in the world, then you're
Speaker 2: just creating inflation. So that's one of the things that
Speaker 2: government's come up against, is just the ability to really
Speaker 2: create long term wealth and to create long term benefits
Speaker 2: for the economy. And that's unfortunately the political system's got
Speaker 2: this short cycle, so it's easy for politicians to think
Speaker 2: short terms, so hopefully they will tend to think a
Speaker 2: bit longer term things like infrastructure as well. You know,
Speaker 2: you just can't turn on and turn off infrastructure. You've
Speaker 2: got to get the planning going over a number of years.
Speaker 2: And that's another big key to our economic success.
Speaker 1: Well, the coalition government here has taken credit for positive
Speaker 1: economic news throughout this year. But how much of that
Speaker 1: is actually because of this government versus the previous government
Speaker 1: and versus I guess global economic movements.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's interesting one. And some of it, you know,
Speaker 2: it's the central banks, you know. So inflation has come
Speaker 2: right again. I mean, you know, when you look at
Speaker 2: the economy and how much stress people are under, I
Speaker 2: don't know quite what they'd be taking credit for. Yet again,
Speaker 2: it's that thing that the inflation is beaten on paper.
Speaker 2: I don't think the public necessarily feels that good about it.
Speaker 2: And now, of course you've got because of the higher
Speaker 2: interest rates, you've got companies' earnings down and we're in
Speaker 2: this recession. So you know, you've got to be cautious
Speaker 2: what you take credit for at this point. I think
Speaker 2: the government's taking credit for the direction shifting. It was
Speaker 2: going to shift anyway, there's no question about that. Question
Speaker 2: is how quickly and how efficiently, And I guess National
Speaker 2: would argue that the Coalition would argue that it's been
Speaker 2: quicker and more efficient under their regime, and that if
Speaker 2: labor had come in, maybe the spending would have kept
Speaker 2: going and we'd have had inflation for longer and so on.
Speaker 2: But a couple of things there. One is that in
Speaker 2: actual fact, the last proposed budget under Grant Robertson was
Speaker 2: also taking a lot of money out of the economy.
Speaker 2: They were tightening up as well. Whether you believe that
Speaker 2: they would have would have done that or not, that's political.
Speaker 2: So I guess that would have happened. But if even
Speaker 2: if labor was looser and inflation lasted longer, you might
Speaker 2: have seen the economy roll on a bit stronger. So
Speaker 2: it's more of a shorter sharp shock when you have
Speaker 2: both the central bank pushing up interest rates and a
Speaker 2: government cutting spending. And look, I think they probably have
Speaker 2: got it going in the right direction efficiently, you know,
Speaker 2: in good time. But how much of the general direction
Speaker 2: they can take credit for, I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the US, Trump's big on cutting
Speaker 1: regulation and giving people tax cuts. Is that going to
Speaker 1: help with the costs on the average American household?
Speaker 2: The tax cuts and the deregulation. They would boost corporate
Speaker 2: earnings because he's talking about tax cuts for the corporations
Speaker 2: first and foremost, so that the view would be that
Speaker 2: they would then be hiring more, can pay more. The
Speaker 2: economies booming because America's business is booming. There was talk
Speaker 2: of some other tax cuts or tax credits for return
Speaker 2: service people, first responder's, all sorts of stuff. There was
Speaker 2: a lot promised on the campaign trail, so that could
Speaker 2: pump the economy. Their question is can they actually afford it,
Speaker 2: because they already have a giant deficit in their government spending.
Speaker 2: They don't take enough revenue for all the government spending,
Speaker 2: so they have to borrow. And the US government borrows
Speaker 2: his borrow trillions, and that means that, you know, they
Speaker 2: have to be sensitive to what happens to interest rates
Speaker 2: and their ability to borrow further. And some people have
Speaker 2: suggested that if Trump was to do all the tax cuts,
Speaker 2: then it really would blow out the national debt quite
Speaker 2: bad and push interest rates up very high.
Speaker 1: What happens then, if the US was to borrow even
Speaker 1: more than it does.
Speaker 3: So now, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean I should say Trump says that his tariffs are
Speaker 2: going to pay for all this, right, None of the
Speaker 2: economists believe that that's possible. But you know, it may
Speaker 2: come down to how big the tariffs are and how
Speaker 2: big the tax cuts are in the end. But if
Speaker 2: he did the most extreme outer edge stuff, then it
Speaker 2: kind of doesn't add up in an orthodox economic way.
Speaker 2: It becomes a very big experiment. It's an experiment because
Speaker 2: America has never done this before. We've seen other countries
Speaker 2: around the world try to do this where governments, you know,
Speaker 2: like a socialist government comes in in Venezuela, or we've
Speaker 2: seen it in Greece after the GFC, where they've tried
Speaker 2: to implement policies that the world's financial markets, the ratings agencies,
Speaker 2: and the bond markets have just gone, oh no, that
Speaker 2: looks terrible. And you know, they just trade the price
Speaker 2: of borrowing up for these nations until they can't borrow anymore,
Speaker 2: so that they basically see you as a high risk
Speaker 2: and then they say yield, but your interest rates on
Speaker 2: those bonds goes through the roof. Sometimes some countries it's
Speaker 2: like I think in Greece, it went up by thirty
Speaker 2: percent overnight and they just could not borrow anymore. So
Speaker 2: they were sunk because they couldn't get any more money,
Speaker 2: so they had to go to Europe for bailouts, and
Speaker 2: it made a special case. So you know, most countries
Speaker 2: in the world come up against bond markets, which is
Speaker 2: really just the world's debt market. I loved the idea
Speaker 2: that it's the most powerful thing in the world, like
Speaker 2: literally the most powerful thing. There's armies, But even armies
Speaker 2: need money to run, right, And so without the support
Speaker 2: of bond markets, you know, you can't borrow. And the
Speaker 2: whole world runs on debt, Like the whole world's economy
Speaker 2: is debt fueled. And if you come up against these
Speaker 2: bond markets and they say no and you can't get money,
Speaker 2: you're really sunk, very very quickly. So there's a famous
Speaker 2: line from Bill Clinton's strategist James Carvill, this guy who
Speaker 2: once came up with it's the economy stupid. But he
Speaker 2: also once said that if reincarnations real, I used to
Speaker 2: want to come back as a president or a pope,
Speaker 2: but now I want to come back as the bond
Speaker 2: markets because they intimidate every one, and it was a
Speaker 2: reminder that no one's bigger than those bond markets in
Speaker 2: the world. Now, the US might be a special case.
Speaker 2: It's hard to know how far they can go. Because
Speaker 2: the US is so big and so powerful, and its
Speaker 2: currency is the world's reserve currency. It will be interesting
Speaker 2: to see how far Donald Trump can push it.
Speaker 1: Well. Stocks on Wall Street closed on record highs the
Speaker 1: day after Trump's victory, largely due to confidence in how
Speaker 1: his policies will benefit them.
Speaker 4: This is what happens when there's a lot of uncertainty.
Speaker 4: People breeze for the worst and then they breathe a
Speaker 4: sigh of relief. I mean, the S and P's up
Speaker 4: about two point three percent today, which would be the
Speaker 4: strongest post election reaction post election d reaction we've seen
Speaker 4: since my data started in nineteen fifty. You know, people
Speaker 4: are definitely reacting, maybe celebrating, maybe breacing for more.
Speaker 1: That's obviously a vote of confidence for Trump, but he
Speaker 1: can't really control if the markets react positively or negatively, right,
Speaker 1: and then how the public read that? Can he?
Speaker 2: No, that's right. So the big, big short term bump
Speaker 2: for Trump the Trump bump. So there's a few things there.
Speaker 2: One was that it was a certain election. There was
Speaker 2: no going to court and worrying and having no leadership
Speaker 2: in the US, So that was removed so that that
Speaker 2: the market's very happy to have that certainty. They were
Speaker 2: happy that they didn't get Kamala Harris's tax hikes, so
Speaker 2: that was removed. And then in the short term they
Speaker 2: see a lot of benefit from Trump coming in. Tech
Speaker 2: stocks are really happy about this deregulation stuff. There'll be
Speaker 2: deregulation around oil, around banking, so it'd be easier for
Speaker 2: them to do business that reduces costs, and then if
Speaker 2: they get a tax cut as well, they're basically going
Speaker 2: to be more profitable. So that's the short term thing.
Speaker 2: There are risks there there. I mean, you know, but
Speaker 2: markets at this level aren't aren't trading that risk yet.
Speaker 2: The risks are that in the longer term, because we've
Speaker 2: seen bond yields rise all the way through. They picked
Speaker 2: Trump coming in, so bond yields rose in the weeks
Speaker 2: and I should just say interest rates basically rose in
Speaker 2: the weeks ahead of Trump coming in, and then they've
Speaker 2: continued to rise. And normally when interest rates are rising
Speaker 2: on financial markets equities are going down, so that it's
Speaker 2: a weird thing both going up at once and you know,
Speaker 2: longer term, I guess the markets could turn against Trump,
Speaker 2: and that to me when you look at how powerful
Speaker 2: he is right now, Like he's got the Senate and
Speaker 2: he's got such control of that Republican Party, and he's
Speaker 2: probably going to get the rest of the House of Congress,
Speaker 2: and so then he'd have the three branches. He's kind
Speaker 2: of got the Supreme Court stacked as well, so that's
Speaker 2: really the four branches of US power. So he's got
Speaker 2: complete political control and that that really just leaves that
Speaker 2: financial market, bond markets, equity markets, basically Wall Street as
Speaker 2: the curb on his power.
Speaker 1: We saw the opposite of that support in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two in the UK, wh Trust's short lived government announced
Speaker 1: forty five billion pounds in tax cuts without properly funding them.
Speaker 1: The markets reacted negatively and the country went into crisis
Speaker 1: mode and Trust was gone as we know shortly after.
Speaker 1: So do they have the real power here? Is that
Speaker 1: getting a bit too much into tenfoil hat territory?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: I think they do. It's kind of weird, like for
Speaker 2: people you know about ten foil hats. People talk about
Speaker 2: the deep state. What is the deep state? What is
Speaker 2: the establishment? What's the most powerful end of it? And
Speaker 2: that's why I keep coming back to financial markets. There
Speaker 2: is this kind of non political structure around global debt
Speaker 2: markets and you know, and equity markets that is kind
Speaker 2: of like a deep state. And yeah, like this Trust
Speaker 2: wasn't in a powerful position to start with. The Tories
Speaker 2: weren't in a powerful position. The UK was economically shaky
Speaker 2: after Brexit, so she didn't have a lot of power
Speaker 2: to push that through and it sure sunk her. Yeah,
Speaker 2: as I mentioned earlier, we've seen it happen, and lots
Speaker 2: of other countries around the world, smaller countries, New Zealand
Speaker 2: would to do anything unorthodox again in the face of
Speaker 2: financial markets, given how much debt we.
Speaker 5: Have quote the current trajectory of debt is concerning. New
Speaker 5: Zealand are currently running physical deficit about two point four
Speaker 5: percent of GDP. It's structural, meaning it is not solely
Speaker 5: the result of the current economic downturn. The Treasury estimates
Speaker 5: that we would be in deficit even if the country
Speaker 5: was a normal economic times rather than recession.
Speaker 4: You're talking about two point four percent of GEPP.
Speaker 2: That's tiny in comparison to our external debt, which is
Speaker 2: currently I think running at forty to fifty percent. The US,
Speaker 2: as I say, could be different or is more powerful.
Speaker 2: I would say though, that Trump has kind of staked
Speaker 2: his reputation on being the Wall Street guy, the big
Speaker 2: market guy who knows how Wall Street works and has
Speaker 2: got them on side. So he couldn't really afford to
Speaker 2: get too far offside with them. And there are a
Speaker 2: lot of powerful backers around him, as financial backers, Elon
Speaker 2: Musk and those people that obviously don't want the whole
Speaker 2: thing tanking. They don't want to see the US economy tank.
Speaker 2: You know, as much as we might want to call
Speaker 2: him autocratic or authoritarian, he's not likely to completely go
Speaker 2: off script. I mean, it's not really something that he
Speaker 2: could get away without. I imagine some quite powerful forces
Speaker 2: around him, even in his close circle, sort of pulling
Speaker 2: him back. And so I think, you know, he'll have
Speaker 2: to deliver some form of tax cut, some form of deregulation.
Speaker 2: He'll have to deliver some tariffs. Whether they are at
Speaker 2: the extremes of what he promised over the campaign probably
Speaker 2: doesn't matter. People probably forget the details of exactly what
Speaker 2: he said. They seem to have short memories about most
Speaker 2: most things, he says.
Speaker 1: I recall when he was president last time, all he
Speaker 1: would have to do is tweet something and it would
Speaker 1: change the markets, right, And he does have a tendency
Speaker 1: to say something quite crass or be quite reactive to things.
Speaker 1: And also his relationships with other world leaders such as
Speaker 1: Kem jong un and Aldamir Putin to name just a couple.
Speaker 1: Could those things be his downfall when he's trying to
Speaker 1: correct the US economy, those little things that perhaps could
Speaker 1: reverse or slow down his ambition to do so.
Speaker 2: I suppose the geopolitical thing is a big, big issue obviously,
Speaker 2: just for the you know, the state of lay in
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Middle East and all that sort of stuff,
Speaker 2: and the relationship with China. But as to the little things,
Speaker 2: I wonder if we've become a bit immune to his unpredictability,
Speaker 2: Like it's so predictable that he's going to say these
Speaker 2: random things. And I think that's probably was evident through
Speaker 2: the campaign and the result in the election is that
Speaker 2: people just aren't taking it literally, so they've all we've
Speaker 2: brought into this idea that you don't worry too much
Speaker 2: about what he sees. You just look at what he does,
Speaker 2: even though that unfortunately doesn't give us any any foresight
Speaker 2: into what might be coming. But already, you know, things
Speaker 2: like the cryptocurrency and bitcoin are through the roof, So
Speaker 2: that's stuff that reactive stuff's already just totally excited by
Speaker 2: his return. You know, it could be if the markets
Speaker 2: were jumping and he was to tweet something that suggested
Speaker 2: he was going to do some sort of terriff or
Speaker 2: something like that that would really hurt interest rates. Well,
Speaker 2: that could happen, and it'll be I mean, it just
Speaker 2: will be around those announcements. They'll have to, you know,
Speaker 2: they have to think that through very carefully. He's going
Speaker 2: to be expected to do some stuff he's promised, but
Speaker 2: he can't do too much. It'll or blow back on him.
Speaker 2: It'll be interesting to see how far as advisors let
Speaker 2: him go.
Speaker 1: If a political leader really wants to make things cheaper
Speaker 1: for the people who voted for them and let them
Speaker 1: keep more of the money that they make, what is
Speaker 1: the best way of actually doing that? Is there a
Speaker 1: key stat that they should be focused on improving?
Speaker 2: Well, the only way to really make things cheaper is
Speaker 2: to genuinely make people wealthier. You know, you've got to
Speaker 2: have more more money. It's not more money, that's the
Speaker 2: wrong term. It's more wealth. You know, if you legislated
Speaker 2: a minimum wage up to thirty dollars in or something
Speaker 2: like that, it doesn't translate to everybody suddenly having more
Speaker 2: money because of the inflation. It creates the system sort
Speaker 2: of got prices and wages intertwined, right.
Speaker 1: So the system will know that you're getting paid more.
Speaker 1: Thus cheese goes.
Speaker 2: Up because there's a certain amount of money in the economy,
Speaker 2: and you know, there's the financial institutions, the central banks,
Speaker 2: the ratings agencies, everybody's keeping track of that. So it's
Speaker 2: it's really I mean, it sounds boring because they go
Speaker 2: on about this a lot, but it does come back
Speaker 2: to productivity and actually generating more wealth per person, more
Speaker 2: productivity per person ideally without working harder, working smarter, So
Speaker 2: getting the whole nation working smarter, producing more and doing
Speaker 2: more without having to work too hard, and generating more
Speaker 2: wealth in people bag labor. But Grant Robertson got it too.
Speaker 2: I mean, I haven't met many politicians that didn't talk
Speaker 2: big about productivity. I just think that they bump up
Speaker 2: against you know, there are some arguments that's some big
Speaker 2: structural things need to be done to get to improve
Speaker 2: productivity in this country, and they tend to bump up
Speaker 2: against the day to day politics, and it sort of
Speaker 2: means that they're reluctant to do big, bold things, you know.
Speaker 2: And we don't have an upper House in New Zealand,
Speaker 2: we don't have an executive branch, so you know, we've
Speaker 2: got a governor general. But in theory, the US has
Speaker 2: got two tiers of government of Parliament or whatever your
Speaker 2: congress you'd call it, and an executive branch and a
Speaker 2: judicial branch. So it's it's meant to keep power and check.
Speaker 2: But it's a balance, you know, you say, vulnerable to
Speaker 2: extreme power on the other side. I worry you. You
Speaker 2: can go the other way. You can just be gridlocked
Speaker 2: or on a stalemate around actually making big change, and
Speaker 2: then we're.
Speaker 1: Just stagnant waiting for a highways be built over forty years.
Speaker 2: So you see these reactions from the public, like, after
Speaker 2: a while of feeling like we're stagnating whatever, they might
Speaker 2: throw power to someone and say, look, just get on
Speaker 2: with it and throw a bit more absolute power. You
Speaker 2: hope that they don't, you know, you hope they choose
Speaker 2: someone who's of good moral care character for that, so
Speaker 2: that we don't end up with dictators. So I'm you know,
Speaker 2: I don't think I'll comment on with you. This is
Speaker 2: landed there.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Liam.
Speaker 2: Thanks good to be here.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 1: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 1: at enziherld dot co dot enz. The Front Page is
Speaker 1: produced by Ethan Seals Richard Martin as the sound engineer.
Speaker 1: I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
Speaker 1: for another look behind the headlines.