WEBVTT - Rachel Reeves Calms Some Nerves 0:00:02.680 --> 0:00:09.400 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to in the City. 0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:12.440 Each week we unpack a story that's crucial to the 0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:17.840 world's financial capitals. I'm Allegristratton. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered 0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:21.400 her Spring statement, and in Reeves's address to Parliament, she 0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:24.479 said her task is to secure Britain's future in a 0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:26.680 world that is changing before our eyes. 0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:30.480 Mister speaker, the job of a responsible government is not 0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:35.040 simply to watch this change. This moment demands an active government, 0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:38.879 a government not stepping back, but stepping up. 0:00:40.080 --> 0:00:42.519 So this week on the podcast, we are looking at 0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:45.479 whether the government's effort to step up is enough to 0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:48.640 secure the UK economy and whether Britain now has a 0:00:48.640 --> 0:00:52.919 financial plan that factors in the unstable global outlook. 0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:56.160 Welcome to the City of London. 0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:58.840 The City of the City, The City of London. 0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:07.720 Again between and the financial heart of the country. 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:12.720 The City, the City. 0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:19.440 Welcome to in the City, then clear of the doors. 0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:24.160 I'm joined by Chief UK Economists with Bloomberg Economics Dan 0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:28.680 Hansen and senior Economics reporter Phil Aldrich. And for those 0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:31.119 that you can't see, which is everyone, They've both been 0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:33.039 on their mobiles. 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:34.240 Trying to work out what's going on. 0:01:36.040 --> 0:01:37.160 Swopping and sharing. 0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:37.800 Did you see this? 0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:40.200 Did you see that? Okay, I thought there was a 0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.480 mini spring in the spring statement. I felt like Rachel 0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:46.279 Reeves seemed quite chipper. 0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:51.120 Yeah, Phil, Yeah, I think it definitely was not the 0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:53.880 sort of gloomy show that we thought it was going 0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:57.960 to be. The growth forecast from the OBR was largely unchanged. 0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:00.680 Right at the end of the forecast. In their tables 0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:02.760 they suggest it's well, they say it's the economy is 0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:07.040 slightly bigger. They did this dynamic scoring on the planning reforms, 0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:09.639 which wasn't predicted. They say that by the end of 0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:12.600 the parliament you'll be getting zero point two percent permanent 0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:17.840 growth as a result of these deregulation early deregulations of 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:20.040 the planning system. They say that adds one hundred and 0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:22.960 seventy thousand homes you get to one point three million, 0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:24.840 which is not far off their one point five million 0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:28.560 home target. So those are really positive things for the markets. 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:31.680 The big thing was her headroom had disappeared was actually 0:02:31.760 --> 0:02:33.840 it was pretty nasty. They went from nine point nine 0:02:33.880 --> 0:02:37.920 billion down to four point one billion deficit. The whole 0:02:37.960 --> 0:02:39.919 lot she's made the whole lot back and it didn't 0:02:39.960 --> 0:02:43.760 require quite such severe public service cuts and welfare cuts 0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:46.880 as were expected. There's been a bit of jiggery pokery 0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:50.040 around the changing from current spending that's the day to 0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:54.280 day staff to casual spending. Yeah, so that's some largely 0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:58.160 from aid to defense, which is relatively painless compared with. 0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:00.400 Nasty Tree when you wrote about didn't you. 0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:05.480 Yeah, yeah, trickery wizardry exactly. But ultimately it hasn't been 0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:08.360 quite the horror show that some people were theory. 0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:10.640 I mean, we're all in Bloomberg HQ, not in the 0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:12.960 Commons chamber, and I suspect we'll hear quite quickly from 0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:15.160 our reporters who will be able to see the looks 0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:17.520 on Labor MP's faces, because that was quite striking when 0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:20.200 you see the doughnut around the Chancellor, you've got the 0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:22.640 PM and then the cabinet Minster's either side, and obviously 0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:26.160 their poker face. But it will be interesting to learn whether, 0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:28.040 as you say, the mood from the back benches is 0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:30.840 that could have been worse or goodness me, even though 0:03:30.840 --> 0:03:33.000 it wasn't as bad as we thought, it's still going 0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:37.040 to hurt in our mailboxes and in our constituents hearts 0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:39.880 and minds. Dan, you're still are you writing? You texting? 0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:40.160 Are you? 0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:44.560 I am looking at the OBR documentary, not texting my wife. 0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.920 I wasn't going to suggest that, but you would get 0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:48.640 to grips with it. 0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:51.040 I think feel something up really nicely. I think when 0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:53.680 I listen to it, it feels like the OBR hand 0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:55.840 is her a bit of a gift. To be honest 0:03:55.880 --> 0:03:59.160 with you, I think it's interesting your point about the 0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:01.480 politics of it. If you look at where the cuts 0:04:01.480 --> 0:04:03.760 of land is in terms of getting the headroom back, 0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:07.240 it's really all welfare. There's a bit on departmental spending. 0:04:07.240 --> 0:04:09.200 We thought there would be something there, we thought would 0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:11.880 probably be a little bit more, but actually it's all 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.440 on welfare and that's really interesting. And I mean the 0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:16.680 other thing, I'm not sure how to interpret it at 0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:18.560 the moment, but just getting yourself back to the headroom 0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:21.560 you had exactly to the decimal point that you had 0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:25.800 in October. It feels very much like I'm just gonna 0:04:25.839 --> 0:04:29.080 do the absolute minimum possible here to get myself down 0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:31.520 to the autumn, which is the next staging post. That 0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:35.359 was my takeaway and I think she would have initially thought, 0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:36.720 I'm going to have to do a lot more here 0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.440 on departmental spending. We're going to have the usual questions 0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:44.720 about fiscal fiction. Actually there's been pretty much nothing done 0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.080 on it. As a small amount of change in departmental spending, 0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:48.839 but it's not very much. So I think the general 0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:52.120 takeaway is that she has been given For me, at least, 0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:53.880 she's been given a bit of a gift from the OBR. 0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:55.600 I'm not going to sort of start we can get 0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:57.159 into this if you want, but whether it's delayed the 0:04:57.200 --> 0:04:59.640 tough choices, whether the OBR might come back in the 0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:02.280 autumn and say, look, the economy isn't as strong as 0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:04.840 we thought. There's a box in the OBR document about 0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:07.479 tariffs and the impact that could have on the economy. 0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:10.719 So all of those things taken together, I think she's 0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:12.479 on the minimum she needed to get through the event. 0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:14.960 For me, the head room being exactly the same is 0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:17.920 interesting because I think it was criticized that it was low, 0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:20.479 and it was low back in November, and then to 0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:23.560 go for the same low number. Is it she's got 0:05:23.600 --> 0:05:26.640 away with the minimum she can do to lessen the 0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:29.960 political pain, or is it she hasn't learned that lesson 0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:33.039 and actually there'll be another physical event in six months 0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:35.080 time that could be yet more painful, and we'll find 0:05:35.080 --> 0:05:36.880 out in the days ahead, which you know, when we 0:05:36.920 --> 0:05:39.000 get the briefing from the Chancellor's team on why they've 0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:41.800 made that judgment. But before we sort of look look ahead, 0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:44.280 you keep saying, the OBI has been very kind to her. 0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:47.360 They've been kind in being dynamic about how they think 0:05:47.600 --> 0:05:50.320 planning reforms will in the end deliver the growth that 0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:51.400 the government wants. 0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:53.159 Yeah, I mean there are a couple of bits of it, 0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:55.720 so that there's that bit of it which we weren't expecting. 0:05:56.040 --> 0:05:59.280 And we spoke on the podcast previously about all of 0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:01.320 these policies, said it in that speech. They take a 0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:03.160 bit of time and you've got to be patient. And 0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.359 sort of point two on the level of the economy 0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:08.000 after five years is it's not very much. It's peanuts. 0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:09.960 You know, it's a rounding error on growth and things 0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:12.800 like that, so it's not very much. So she was 0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:14.400 sort of given a bit of a boost there and 0:06:14.400 --> 0:06:16.760 that actually because of that, it meant that the savings 0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:19.359 she needed to fund and find in terms of spending 0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:21.680 cups were smaller because if the economy is bigger, it 0:06:21.760 --> 0:06:24.760 generates more tax receipts. That's a good news story for her. 0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:28.560 And the other side of it is we've spoken about 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:31.160 this before as well, is that the Ober is at 0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:33.560 the top end of the pack, if not at the 0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:36.159 top of the pack, when it comes to growth forecasts, 0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:40.360 and that stems from a view about productivity growth. And 0:06:41.320 --> 0:06:43.600 they've sort of made a point in their document that 0:06:43.720 --> 0:06:45.600 they think the level of productivity will be a bit 0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:47.520 lower than they thought in October. But actually if you 0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:50.400 look at the growth numbers, they're still pretty strong. You're 0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:53.080 not shy of two percent in most years, and that 0:06:53.480 --> 0:06:54.440 given recent. 0:06:54.240 --> 0:06:57.320 History, will take that absolutely. 0:06:57.640 --> 0:07:00.719 Absolutely, given recent history, we would definitely take that relative 0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:03.160 to the consensus vieme, certainly relative to our view. So 0:07:03.200 --> 0:07:05.120 I think when you go back to this point of 0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:08.400 moving to the autumn, we'll see what the OBR says. 0:07:08.520 --> 0:07:10.480 They'll have a briefing as well, but whether they're going 0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:12.440 to have sort of look at this in more detail 0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:15.160 over the next six months or so, that's going to 0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:17.360 be something very important to watch as of course, is 0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:20.640 what's going on globally, particularly with the tariffs. 0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:21.600 What is the tariff box saying. 0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:23.840 So it's basically I think I can't remember the specific 0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:26.360 but it's basically saying, if we get if you get 0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:28.720 twenty percent, that was, if you get twenty percent of 0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:32.040 tariffs across the world, as Trump is threatening, that'll knock 0:07:32.040 --> 0:07:35.280 one percent off GDP and all her headroom is gone, 0:07:35.520 --> 0:07:38.080 just like that. So Trump will eliminate her headroom again. 0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:40.320 But then there's other mechanisms as well. They say, should 0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:43.920 our productivity forecast be changed and lowered, then you know 0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:46.320 she loses her headroom and more. There's a couple of 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:48.440 other warnings in there. I think again there's a debt, 0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:51.880 interest risk, et cetera. So they are pointing out again 0:07:52.040 --> 0:07:55.200 that this is this is a tight margin for sort 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:57.000 of insurance that she's left herself. 0:07:57.240 --> 0:07:59.400 That's the point is it doesn't And of course it 0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:02.679 matters to people's lives whether these things happen, but purely 0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:05.720 in terms of setting fiscal policy, if you set yourself 0:08:05.880 --> 0:08:10.080 or you set aside a big buffer, then whether the 0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:13.680 OBR downgrades productivity forecast, whether the Trump hits US with tariffs, 0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:16.720 you know you're safe. You're not having to go after 0:08:17.760 --> 0:08:20.400 and constantly rebuilding and every physical event is just this 0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:23.600 obsession with the headroom. If you have a broader fiscal 0:08:23.640 --> 0:08:25.880 strategy where you set yourself some money aside, and of 0:08:25.880 --> 0:08:28.560 course you'll come back to me and you'll say, well, 0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:30.280 they can't. They haven't got the options for that. They 0:08:30.320 --> 0:08:34.880 can't raise taxes, spending two time, they won't. They were welfare, welfare, 0:08:36.200 --> 0:08:38.800 welfare cut. I'm just like heading over the past, but 0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:41.160 welfare cuts. They've not gone too far, but they've already 0:08:41.160 --> 0:08:41.440 done that. 0:08:41.520 --> 0:08:42.400 Uctually, she doesn't have. 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.360 You're caught between the politics of it, which goes I 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:48.240 think is about the nine point nine where we sort 0:08:48.280 --> 0:08:51.360 of started, and that there's just no political appetite to 0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.280 go further than that because the choices it involves, and 0:08:54.320 --> 0:08:56.280 you've caught on the other side of all these potential 0:08:56.320 --> 0:08:59.520 economic shocks that could hit you. And I guess the 0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:01.680 path that they think is the path of least resistance 0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.560 is that they do increment. They take the government takes 0:09:04.559 --> 0:09:08.000 incremental action at every fiscal event, which is not in 0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:10.199 an ideal world, that's not how you'd set fiscal policy. 0:09:10.840 --> 0:09:12.959 I mean, you'd like to think she's got a hail Mary, 0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:15.160 she's got something she can see that she can do 0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:18.240 between now and the autumn in order to make that 0:09:18.360 --> 0:09:20.840 not be the case. Phil's raising his eyebrows. The reason 0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:23.640 I'm saying that is because we all know that, because 0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:26.240 of the head round being so small, the story will 0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:29.520 start up tomorrow or right now, what will she do? 0:09:29.600 --> 0:09:32.400 What taxes will she increase? And that isn't just oh, 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:34.920 how annoying the British press is so annoying, though obviously 0:09:35.120 --> 0:09:37.600 she will be starting to think that. But but it's 0:09:37.640 --> 0:09:40.640 also about confidence, and it's also that people make businesses, 0:09:40.679 --> 0:09:43.760 making families, making choices about the future, which she needs people, 0:09:44.160 --> 0:09:45.880 you know, to be quite kind of bullish about. 0:09:46.040 --> 0:09:48.640 That's definitely the risk is that we get back into 0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:51.160 that terrible cycle of like what is she going to 0:09:51.200 --> 0:09:53.520 do next? Then you get up with the policy uncertainty. 0:09:53.840 --> 0:09:56.440 The fact this time, though, the positive for her this 0:09:56.520 --> 0:09:59.400 time is that the markets have actually responded positively and 0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:03.200 actually imediately. After the budget in October there was a 0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:05.800 big shift up in borrowing costs, which effectively had wiped 0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:08.480 her whole headroom out within days. The reaction this time 0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:11.440 has looks like it's going the other way. So you know, 0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:14.719 if there is a hail Mary. It may be that 0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.439 they that the markets are beginning to swing behind the 0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:21.920 labor agenda and that could help her. Obviously, these the 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:23.880 other things out there in the world that you just 0:10:23.960 --> 0:10:26.160 can't ever plan for this stuff, which is why you do. 0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:29.480 You should have twenty five billion of headroom because it 0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:32.520 gives you enough to absorb any shocks. But if they 0:10:32.559 --> 0:10:36.320 haven't done that, so outside of you know, something external 0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:39.000 which they'll blame on the world is changing as is 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:41.880 now the repeated mantra, this appears to have been received 0:10:42.200 --> 0:10:43.360 a lot better than October. 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:46.720 You mentioned that the labor agenda in the market swinging 0:10:46.760 --> 0:10:49.640 behind it. You guys did this amazing piece of work 0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:52.400 that was in one of our podcasts recently about that's 0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:54.960 the schoolcard, we'll call it, you call it, and you 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:57.440 gave numbers out of ten for each area, and obviously 0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:00.360 seven out of ten you gave to planning. And today 0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:01.920 the OBR has kind of done the same. 0:11:02.200 --> 0:11:02.400 Yeah. 0:11:02.440 --> 0:11:04.960 Absolutely, I mean that was we've been saying for a while. 0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:07.480 Of all the things that labor have they've announced, I personally, 0:11:07.480 --> 0:11:09.480 I think they've announced a lot of positive things. So 0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:12.240 investment spending, they've lifted that, so it's at least flatter 0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:13.719 as a share of GDP. It was falling as a 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:17.800 share of the GDP before Planning reform. You know these 0:11:18.520 --> 0:11:20.560 you obviously have to take it, as we said in 0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:22.679 the scorecards, slightly with a pinch of salt. In the 0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:25.320 getting up to three hundred thousand homes a year is 0:11:25.600 --> 0:11:27.880 basically doubling the number of homes that are built every year. 0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.239 So it's quite a big, big number and a big move. Nonetheless, 0:11:32.280 --> 0:11:35.720 the economic benefit from it, which the OBR have recognized, 0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:38.319 I mean, it's not huge. Point two percent on the 0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:41.000 level of GDP isn't massive, but it's not nothing. And 0:11:41.840 --> 0:11:45.200 I think the OBR, going back to your point your 0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:48.199 questions fill about questions in Downing Street about the OBR. 0:11:48.240 --> 0:11:50.360 Are they getting people's backs up? I think they are. 0:11:50.840 --> 0:11:54.680 They have certainly lowered the bar for scoring policies like 0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:57.160 this and putting it into the forecast, so things like 0:11:57.160 --> 0:11:58.800 planning reform, things like labor supply. 0:11:59.320 --> 0:12:00.920 So that's new as well, it has. 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:02.960 Been you over the past few years. So Jeremy Hunt's 0:12:03.040 --> 0:12:06.120 Knicks cuts they scored positively. Obviously, the flip side of 0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:08.800 the rise in employer national insurance in October was that 0:12:08.840 --> 0:12:12.240 they scored that negatively for the economy, but capital expenses 0:12:12.480 --> 0:12:14.640 they scored that positively, sort of in the medium term. 0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:17.240 It's a long term and they hadn't been doing that. 0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:20.520 So I think they're listening, certainly to the criticisms that 0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:22.040 have been made. But as I said at the start, 0:12:22.080 --> 0:12:24.640 these things do take time. But I think the planning 0:12:24.640 --> 0:12:27.400 reform thing, yes, of all the things that have been announced, 0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:29.559 that's if you're trying to get out of the sort 0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:33.560 of malaise and thinking about that's the most exciting policy 0:12:33.760 --> 0:12:36.120 for me that the labor have announced. They've come out 0:12:36.120 --> 0:12:38.600 and they seem pretty serious about making in roads into 0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:39.520 the planning system. 0:12:39.280 --> 0:12:41.679 As well phil other bits of the schoolcard. Would you 0:12:41.760 --> 0:12:44.120 make any changes in the quite brutal numbers you go 0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:45.920 some of the other bits of the agenda. 0:12:46.040 --> 0:12:49.840 I suppose we could raise the labor market. We had 0:12:51.160 --> 0:12:53.840 score for their efforts to get employment up to eighty percent, 0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:56.400 And you could say that some of the welfare changes 0:12:56.480 --> 0:13:00.800 may deliver some change, some positive change. And I think 0:13:00.920 --> 0:13:03.960 the OBR has one of the one of the generous 0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:06.800 gifts that, as Dan put it, that they've given them 0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:10.240 as a sort of better labor market outlook. So they're 0:13:10.280 --> 0:13:12.120 just saying that the picture is generally a little bit 0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:14.439 more positive there, so maybe we could go from one 0:13:14.480 --> 0:13:16.679 to three. 0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:20.319 I suspect that's a pretty good place to leave it. 0:13:20.440 --> 0:13:22.840 And you both have to write now, don't you try 0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:26.200 to hear all right? Dan Hansen, Phil Aldric, thank you 0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:32.480 very much, thanks for listening to this week's In the 0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:36.520 City from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted by me alegra Stratton. 0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:40.439 It was produced by Summersadi and Moses and Am Sand 0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:45.200 designed by Blake Maples. Brendan frantzis Newnham is our executive producer. 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:49.640 Special thanks to Dan Hanson and Phil Aldric. Please subscribe, rate, 0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:52.160 and review wherever you listen to podcasts.