Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the City of London, the.
Speaker 1: City of the City, the City of London.
Speaker 3: Please mind the gap between the tree and the financial
Speaker 3: hearts of the country, the city, the city.
Speaker 1: Welcome to in the city.
Speaker 2: Stand clear of the doors. Today's day. It's election day,
Speaker 2: a moment to really reminisce in the past six weeks.
Speaker 2: I like it that there are short cycles election cycles
Speaker 2: in the UK. It's it feels like it's over and
Speaker 2: done with pretty quickly.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I've just got back from the US, where that is
Speaker 3: not the case, and they've just had theirs the earliest
Speaker 3: ever presidential debate. I know everyone's seen it through clenched
Speaker 3: fists or fingers whatever, because it was almost un watching.
Speaker 3: I did feel the contrast coming back to Britain this week.
Speaker 3: You see the choice that Britain has, and yes, you
Speaker 3: can like or loathe both Rischie Sunac and Kirstarma, but
Speaker 3: when you see when you saw the options on stage
Speaker 3: in America, you know, the convicted felon and the guy
Speaker 3: who can string a sentence together, I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: it doesn't it makes you feel a little bit better
Speaker 3: about the options that Britain and.
Speaker 1: Nobody says says that our TV debates were quite good.
Speaker 1: But I thought they were quite good. I know, I'm sad.
Speaker 3: I mean was the bid in the in the in
Speaker 3: the US one where they started slanging off about the golf, golf,
Speaker 3: golf and your child, your child.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was just they couldn't remember their handicap.
Speaker 2: So I just got back from CenTra and it was interesting.
Speaker 2: Everyone wanted to know about the French elections because there's
Speaker 2: so much drama there that it does make you know,
Speaker 2: the UK safe and stable?
Speaker 4: Isn't that?
Speaker 3: Am I supposed to be safe and stable? Find it
Speaker 3: or a little bit boring.
Speaker 2: A little bit boring, but but we're still expected to
Speaker 2: find money to pay for some of the policies that
Speaker 2: laborer will have to put in place if they come
Speaker 2: to barrel.
Speaker 3: Friday morning is going to be a big moment of
Speaker 3: change if the polls are correct for Britain, and huge,
Speaker 3: huge intro problems to fix.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people are fixated on the potential likely departure of
Speaker 1: the Conservative Party and they're in fighting. But I think
Speaker 1: that for all that, there will be you know, lots
Speaker 1: of excitement and sense of new brooms and all of
Speaker 1: that I think you can already see and we've already
Speaker 1: talked about them in this election campaign and before you
Speaker 1: can already see the fault lines of proper division. And
Speaker 1: as you say, guys, there's been pieces on Bloomberg about
Speaker 1: the UK's becoming a safe haven and that is surely
Speaker 1: welcome after lots of the events of the last what
Speaker 1: is it seven eight years in the UK. But equally
Speaker 1: it's not an easy easy wicket for Starman Co.
Speaker 2: Welcome to in the City podcast from Bloomberg about the
Speaker 2: story is important to the city of London.
Speaker 1: I'm Francin Laqua, I'm Melegu Stratton, and I'm David Merritt.
Speaker 2: Phil Aldrich yesterday wrote a story saying that the Labor government,
Speaker 2: of course, is also facing the worst economic and fiscal
Speaker 2: inheritance for any government since the war. So we have
Speaker 2: to talk about where they'll find the money and how
Speaker 2: they spend it. But what's the strategy. Our next guest,
Speaker 2: Breakout Capital chief investment officer and best selling author Rusher Sharma,
Speaker 2: thinks the government is just doing too much. He basically
Speaker 2: goes back and says, look, we think that government intervention
Speaker 2: has been shrinking. He says not so. Rachier, thank you
Speaker 2: so much for joining us here in the studio for
Speaker 2: the podcast.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 2: So this is a very interesting book. First of all, congratulations,
Speaker 2: what went wrong with capitalism? There's a belief, I guess
Speaker 2: out there that the government has done less in previous
Speaker 2: years than they have in the past, and actually we
Speaker 2: don't have that much government intervention, and you argue, in
Speaker 2: what three hundred and twenty five pages, you argue that
Speaker 2: that's not the case, and actually the government is ever
Speaker 2: more present with regulation and also giving money.
Speaker 4: Yes, as you know that one of the most pejorative
Speaker 4: terms these days is neoliberal that people speak about neoliberal
Speaker 4: to believe that these are people who have let market
Speaker 4: forces run amok and that the role of the government
Speaker 4: has been downsized and the government now needs to come
Speaker 4: in and fix the problems rather than allow markets to
Speaker 4: function so independently. What I show in the book is
Speaker 4: that how much of a myths there is. What the
Speaker 4: Newliberal agenda really did was that, yes, it did promote globalization,
Speaker 4: and also the fact that it promoted financialization, which is
Speaker 4: that the markets became much bigger than the size of
Speaker 4: the underlying economy. So globalization and financialization were very much
Speaker 4: two tenets of the neoliberal era. But one of the
Speaker 4: biggest myths is the fact that the government has been
Speaker 4: in retreat, as I show conclusively in the book I Think,
Speaker 4: which is if you look at the last few decades,
Speaker 4: the role of government in every sphere of economic activity
Speaker 4: has expanded. The basic data is government spending is a
Speaker 4: shit GDP. If you look at US, you look at Europe,
Speaker 4: you look at UK. In all these places, governments spending
Speaker 4: as a share of GDP has increased. In fact, in
Speaker 4: Europe it's and UK it's increased much more than it
Speaker 4: has in the US.
Speaker 2: Because of crises. Right, this is partly because of COVID.
Speaker 2: So it's not only interventionism for the sake of it,
Speaker 2: I mean after problem.
Speaker 4: Right, No, it's one hundred year line, so it's not
Speaker 4: a line which is sort of you know, goes up
Speaker 4: in just the pandemic and staff They take. The US
Speaker 4: government spending as a share of GDP used to be
Speaker 4: three percent back in the nineteen twenties. Now it is
Speaker 4: close to forty percent. Similar trajectory in Europe and UK.
Speaker 4: In fact, government spending as a share of GDP used
Speaker 4: to be lower than America right up until the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 4: and from the nineteen eighties it's gone up a lot.
Speaker 4: So you know, this whole talk, this Reagan Thatcher revolution
Speaker 4: of the retreat and government that they changed the way
Speaker 4: in which the deficits were financed, but not in sort
Speaker 4: of pairing back on spending. They sort of then cut
Speaker 4: taxes without sort of matching it with any spending cuts
Speaker 4: of any consequence. So therefore we have this situation where
Speaker 4: most Western governments, including the UK today are running record
Speaker 4: budget deficits and the debt levels are very high. And
Speaker 4: this is not how it used to be in America
Speaker 4: or Britain. In fact, for hundreds of years they ran
Speaker 4: budget surpluses consistently. But from nineteen seventies onwards, these countries
Speaker 4: have rarely run a budget surplus.
Speaker 1: What chance of it going down very little?
Speaker 4: As I argue in the book at the end, that
Speaker 4: the only way out is through that the only time exactly,
Speaker 4: which is that the only time where governments sort of
Speaker 4: pay back is when they have a crisis. Now, this
Speaker 4: is what happened in some of the Nordic countries is
Speaker 4: that those countries are often held as these models of
Speaker 4: democratic socialism and how the government plays an enabling role.
Speaker 4: But even in those countries, when governments spending the shire
Speaker 4: GDP got too high, the budget deficits got too high
Speaker 4: in the early nineteen nineties, they had a crisis, and
Speaker 4: only when you had a crisis they began to pare back.
Speaker 4: So in fact those countries have done better in terms
Speaker 4: of productivity and economic growth then a lot of Europe
Speaker 4: has done because they have been sort of of course,
Speaker 4: from a very high base. They've been downsizing the government
Speaker 4: and most of those countries have been running budget surpluses
Speaker 4: or at least budget balances, unlike core Europe or UK,
Speaker 4: which are running these big budget deficits.
Speaker 1: Can we just talk about the role of the elector
Speaker 1: in all of this, because I mean we look here
Speaker 1: with sitting here in the UK on a polling day
Speaker 1: with a big election. Part of the narrative has been
Speaker 1: that neither party is really setting out huge reductions in
Speaker 1: the numbers you're talking about in terms of state intervention,
Speaker 1: and you can see you can say it in France,
Speaker 1: you can say it in Italy, you can say it
Speaker 1: in America, that more and more electorates want more from
Speaker 1: their governments. So how do you talked about the Nordic countries.
Speaker 1: How did they do it? How did they kind of
Speaker 1: pair back while also giving the electra what they wanted.
Speaker 4: Well, they paid by because they had no choice. I
Speaker 4: think that this is one of the things which exists
Speaker 4: a lot of people, including here, some of the elite
Speaker 4: economists sort of say we unnecessarily did austerity and in
Speaker 4: like Greece and other places. But these countries did it
Speaker 4: because they had no choice. When you run out of
Speaker 4: other people's money, you have no choice but then to
Speaker 4: pay back in terms of you know what you do.
Speaker 4: So that's what I say that unless you pay back
Speaker 4: that you have a crisis. It's very hard to pay back. Now.
Speaker 4: The issue is that governments are doing this to keep
Speaker 4: the citizens happy. Well, if it was working, then they'd
Speaker 4: be getting re elected instead. Trust in governments across Western
Speaker 4: societies is at record lows, and also the fact that
Speaker 4: you have such poor economic growth as a result of
Speaker 4: all this. At the end of the day, people want
Speaker 4: the pie to grow bigger, so there's more for them
Speaker 4: to share off. If you have stagnant per capita incomes,
Speaker 4: then you're obviously going to get a lot of anti
Speaker 4: establishment feeling, regardless of what your political leanings are.
Speaker 2: Sure, what's the problem with the government actually being a
Speaker 2: bigger regulator about spending more and borrowing more? Fundamentally, what
Speaker 2: does that do?
Speaker 4: I think that's a great question, because that's the productivity paradox,
Speaker 4: which is that you are damaging the creative, destructive fiber
Speaker 4: of an economy with such intervention. That is not what
Speaker 4: capitalism is supposed to be. Capitalism is supposed to be
Speaker 4: pro competition, pro churn. Instead, with all these interventions make
Speaker 4: capitalism feel like it's pro big business and pro the entrenched.
Speaker 2: But it's saving jobs. It's saving business, isn't it.
Speaker 4: If it's doing that, it's also undermining the dynamicism of
Speaker 4: the economy. So yes, you're keeping alive a lot of
Speaker 4: dead wood companies. Remember this term zombie companies was popularized
Speaker 4: in Japan in the nineteen nineties when a lot of
Speaker 4: companies which couldn't earn enough to even cover their interest
Speaker 4: payments kept going right. So that's how zombie companies were there.
Speaker 4: These companies are not supposed to exist in a capitalist society.
Speaker 4: Back in the US or UK, the number of zombie
Speaker 4: companies that they share of the total listed companies was
Speaker 4: as low as two or three percent back in the
Speaker 4: nineteen eighties, when the UK US press would mock Japan
Speaker 4: for running these zombie companies. Today, guess what UK has
Speaker 4: about the highest number of zombie companies in the world.
Speaker 4: Twenty two percent of the total number of listed company
Speaker 4: needs in UK can be classified as zombie companies.
Speaker 2: If the government hadn't stepped in, would we now be
Speaker 2: in a recession? And would you argue that that's a
Speaker 2: good thing, because actually it gets rid of you know,
Speaker 2: zombie companies.
Speaker 4: Nobody wants a recession, nobody wills a recession, but if
Speaker 4: you end up at times having a recession, there is
Speaker 4: a cleansing effect to it. So I think we have
Speaker 4: to make this trade off. Do we want higher long
Speaker 4: term growth and higher productivity or as I argue in
Speaker 4: the book, that this culture of pain management that has
Speaker 4: become so sort of popular, which is like in the
Speaker 4: US as well, which is that the slightest hint of
Speaker 4: any trouble, we administer drugs to the patient. And that's
Speaker 4: how the US has sort of become hooked to this
Speaker 4: opiate crisis. The same sort of approach now has come
Speaker 4: to economic management slightest hint of trouble. We're going to
Speaker 4: administer stimulus in the name that we are doing this
Speaker 4: to smoothen out the cycles and to alleviate any pain,
Speaker 4: But in doing so, we are completely destroying the creative,
Speaker 4: destructive fiber of the economies.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's just take COVID and the pandemic. Do
Speaker 1: you think they had an option not to spend the many,
Speaker 1: many hundreds of billions that they spent.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, like I'll make two points here. One, the
Speaker 4: fact is that the governments felt emboldened to spend so
Speaker 4: much and do the lockdowns like to start with, because
Speaker 4: they thought they could just paper it over by spending.
Speaker 4: So maybe the approach to lockdowns should have been smarter
Speaker 4: in terms of rather than just saying, Okay, everybody just
Speaker 4: you know, like we have to stay in and we're
Speaker 4: going to just paper this over by giving you massive
Speaker 4: amounts of stimulus. There was something wrong with that too, that, yes,
Speaker 4: if you're going to tell businesses to shut down, then
Speaker 4: you have to give them relief. The issue is that
Speaker 4: the indiscriminate kind of relief that was given. It was
Speaker 4: unprecedented where a lot of very well off, rich businesses
Speaker 4: got enormous amounts of relief because of this, and then
Speaker 4: to expect no consequences from that is foolhardy. So we
Speaker 4: had a burst in inflation, and more than inflation, I
Speaker 4: think what also irritates many people, especially the average person,
Speaker 4: is the burst you had in acid price inflation. Prices
Speaker 4: or properties jump up so much due to so much
Speaker 4: easy money. Remember, a lot of people in places like
Speaker 4: UK are feeling that it is so difficult to buy
Speaker 4: a new home now because these home prices have surged
Speaker 4: so much and it's happened, happened like in the US
Speaker 4: even more so, that creates a lot of disenchantment. So
Speaker 4: I think if you think through what the consequences of
Speaker 4: these actions are, is it really.
Speaker 2: A fair comparison to see what's happening now with, for example,
Speaker 2: some of the banks that the US bailed out, or
Speaker 2: some of the things that happened in the UK compared
Speaker 2: to one hundred years ago.
Speaker 4: So where are we going to draw a line on this,
Speaker 4: which is that every time there is a small crisis,
Speaker 4: because we're going to feel that that small business or
Speaker 4: medium sized bank is going to go out of business,
Speaker 4: that we have to bail it out. Is that the
Speaker 4: culture that we have come to and in terms of
Speaker 4: how long are we going to afford to be able
Speaker 4: to do this, which is that how long are we
Speaker 4: going to keep running these deficits that we have and
Speaker 4: keep piling on debt? So where do we draw the line?
Speaker 4: Like even when it came to like in the US,
Speaker 4: the mid sized bank of rich depositors you know, goes
Speaker 4: belly up, which is Silicon Valley Bank, and the impulse
Speaker 4: is to go out and intervene and to save it
Speaker 4: from happening with the same question, if you don't do that,
Speaker 4: we'll have an entire system collapse.
Speaker 2: I can see the headlines here in the UK price.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you know some of the previous governments
Speaker 2: did not intervene or put money out it.
Speaker 1: Would they or they would have worried it would have
Speaker 1: been electoral They still had electrial death.
Speaker 4: So in terms of that, like what if they gained
Speaker 4: by doing it, we have still had multiple governments, we
Speaker 4: have still had electrial death. So if these policies were succeeding,
Speaker 4: then these government should be getting reelected, not getting thrown
Speaker 4: out of office. So if these policies of saving jobs
Speaker 4: ostensibly or of you know, doing these bailouts. If all
Speaker 4: of this was working, then surely the government should be
Speaker 4: getting reelected. But as I argue in the book that
Speaker 4: the number of governments getting re elected in the Western
Speaker 4: world has declined in an appreciable way over the last
Speaker 4: ten or twenty years. Even the US says, you know,
Speaker 4: the approval ratings of leaders across the Western world is
Speaker 4: at a record low. So if these were working, and
Speaker 4: we and they say like they're justified, then surely these
Speaker 4: governments should get re elected instead of this huge amount
Speaker 4: of anti establishment feeling. The fact that in most countries
Speaker 4: now including here, the average voter feels that they will
Speaker 4: not be better offen their parents. That's a you know
Speaker 4: that that's a huge sort of declineate cont They.
Speaker 1: Just just just to test the point one more time.
Speaker 1: If you look at the polling, people want more spending
Speaker 1: on the public services and elsewhere. So it is you
Speaker 1: are right that that something is not working, if we
Speaker 1: all agree, But equally, the stimulus that an elected politician
Speaker 1: is getting is is how do you have that conversation
Speaker 1: with the voters where you say, you may want more
Speaker 1: spending and you may want your public services to be better,
Speaker 1: but actually economically for the reasons you've set out reash it,
Speaker 1: it's not worked.
Speaker 4: And they're say in the book the first step to
Speaker 4: a curist to diagnose what the problem is. If you're
Speaker 4: going to say that the problem is small government, then
Speaker 4: that's the wrong sort of you know, thing to see. Secondly,
Speaker 4: I think that you're right that every voter feels that
Speaker 4: they're entitled to more in terms of from the government,
Speaker 4: that's a fair thing. When the voter also sees that
Speaker 4: who is the government bailing out? Right, that the governments
Speaker 4: like are bailing out these big banks ostensible to save jobs. That,
Speaker 4: as I argue, is a modern form of trickle down economics,
Speaker 4: which is this argument that you've got to save these
Speaker 4: big businesses because if you don't do it, there'll be
Speaker 4: job losses down the line. When the voter sees that,
Speaker 4: they are even more livid that if the government's doing
Speaker 4: that for big businesses, and the government's doing that for
Speaker 4: big banks, then like I deserve even more so. I
Speaker 4: think that that sort of is what corrodes capitalism, and
Speaker 4: that is what makes people lose faith in capitalism. The
Speaker 4: average person is thinking, if those guys are getting bailed out,
Speaker 4: why am I not getting much more out of this?
Speaker 1: Not so just did I mean they had you know,
Speaker 1: with furlough, they had the salaries always just paid for
Speaker 1: quite a long time in the Yeah. And then with
Speaker 1: you know, in the UK we've had energy bills paid
Speaker 1: for considerable area it as well. Yeah, parts of them paid.
Speaker 1: The kind of equality of help was a bit more there.
Speaker 1: But in the book you do have like best practice,
Speaker 1: don't you, because you talk positively about East Asian economies
Speaker 1: and that they're allowing capitalism to be more unfettered.
Speaker 4: I mean I co three examples. There's a whole chapter
Speaker 4: in the book for you know, which says where capitalism
Speaker 4: still works. Now, this is to show examples of countries
Speaker 4: that have given their people more economic freedom over time.
Speaker 4: So for me, capitalism it's back to basics. What is capitalism.
Speaker 4: For me, capitalism is about giving people as much economic
Speaker 4: freedom as possible, for the government to have a role
Speaker 4: as a facilitator, but not for the government to micromanage
Speaker 4: affairs of people and to be like overly involved. So
Speaker 4: in the book, as I show there are three different
Speaker 4: countries I show there in terms of Switzerland, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
Speaker 4: I picked these three countries. It seems like an odd lot,
Speaker 4: but three countries which are across the income curve. Once
Speaker 4: the richest country in the world, Switzerland, how it has
Speaker 4: the maximum amount of economic freedom of any country in
Speaker 4: the world. It's people amongst the happiest if you look
Speaker 4: at the happiness in disease, and yet it is the
Speaker 4: richest and it's been able to do so with much
Speaker 4: lower government spending as a share of the GDP than
Speaker 4: any other country in Europe. Light touch regulation, right, So
Speaker 4: that's how it does it. I quote Taiwan as an
Speaker 4: East Asian example that people talk about East Asia, you know,
Speaker 4: in terms of as this sort of countries with very
Speaker 4: good governments and how they're facilitated growth. But in places
Speaker 4: like Taiwan, as I show Taiwan, even Korea, that government
Speaker 4: spending the share of the economy is half that of
Speaker 4: countries here in the West. And yet they were praised
Speaker 4: a lot in the pandemic of being able to manage
Speaker 4: that pandemic very well shows you that when you have
Speaker 4: a very tech savvy state, you can get a lot
Speaker 4: out of the state without having to throw so much
Speaker 4: money at it. And then I show like Vietnam which
Speaker 4: is still a relatively poor country. That how it's been
Speaker 4: giving its people more economic freedom, the state has been withdrawing,
Speaker 4: and how Vietnam is emerging now as such a big
Speaker 4: manufacturing powerhouse in the re So these are three examples
Speaker 4: where the common thread is you give people more economic
Speaker 4: freedom and you end up getting much better economic results.
Speaker 4: The Western countries are moving in the opposite direction after
Speaker 4: being these beacons of economic freedom for decades, if not centuries.
Speaker 2: I mean Switzerland a you wealth per capita is one
Speaker 2: of the largest in the world. And they also government
Speaker 2: engineered the big takeover of Curtiswee. So I don't know
Speaker 2: how less affair they are.
Speaker 4: No in terms of there's no country today which is
Speaker 4: a perfect nation. So there's no country which is Lassi
Speaker 4: fair right. And as say in the book, there's no
Speaker 4: going back to nineteenth century Lassi fair capitalism. That model
Speaker 4: is dated. What you need now is the balance to
Speaker 4: be correct, which is the fact that you have countries
Speaker 4: where the government's going to play a role. The days
Speaker 4: of the nineteen twenties where the government spending the share
Speaker 4: of GDP was three percent and the government just spent
Speaker 4: all its time delivering mail or doing some defense. Those
Speaker 4: days are gone. You need a welfare state now. But
Speaker 4: I think that you need to get the balance correct.
Speaker 4: So all I'm saying in the book is is that
Speaker 4: let's at least recognize that we are so out of
Speaker 4: balance just now, and how do we get the balance
Speaker 4: correct so that we get back to capitalism, or at
Speaker 4: least let's stop calling this capitalism. Most young people in
Speaker 4: these countries today say they would prefer socialism over capitalism.
Speaker 4: But this is not capitalism. What we have today. We
Speaker 4: have socialism for the rich in a way, we have
Speaker 4: socialized risk along the curve. So let's not call this
Speaker 4: capitalism anymore. And let's say that, Okay, if this is
Speaker 4: the system we want, this is a form of democratic socialism,
Speaker 4: and this is what we're going to get. But the
Speaker 4: result also we have to live with, which is lower
Speaker 4: productivity growth, lower economic growth, and possibly hire inequality and
Speaker 4: a feeling of the average person that there is not
Speaker 4: an equality of opportunity for them.
Speaker 2: Do you think if that bounce is redressed that the
Speaker 2: outcomes of elections would differ, including here in the UK.
Speaker 4: It's possible. I'm saying that they couldn't be anything worse right,
Speaker 4: which is the fact that this idea that you keep
Speaker 4: and even the UK government coming in, if you look
Speaker 4: at it, it seems to be a lot more pragmatic, right.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's supposed to be labor, but I think
Speaker 4: even they have sort of recalibraated in terms of what
Speaker 4: they are they're not talking about, you know, they're also
Speaker 4: talking that we want to be both pro labor and
Speaker 4: pro wealth creation. It's not a sort of you know
Speaker 4: thing like France or other places where it's like, you know,
Speaker 4: very antithetical to the concept of wealth creation. And yet
Speaker 4: look at the example of France that the number of
Speaker 4: billionaires in France today as a share of the economy
Speaker 4: is among the largest in the world, higher than uso UK.
Speaker 4: And you have government spending there as a share of
Speaker 4: GDP at fifty eight percent. Can you imagine the irony
Speaker 4: of that such an active state for governments spending the
Speaker 4: share of GDP is second to possibly only North Korea,
Speaker 4: and yet you have a culture there with a number
Speaker 4: of billionaires you have in France today is among the
Speaker 4: largest in the world. So, like, how is that achieving
Speaker 4: any better result?
Speaker 2: We're sure?
Speaker 4: Thank you enjoyed that.
Speaker 2: Thank you great, perfect, amazing. Thanks for listening to this
Speaker 2: week's In the City from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted
Speaker 2: by me Francine Laqua, David Merritt, and Alegra Stratton. It
Speaker 2: was produced by Summersaudi Production support and sound designed by
Speaker 2: Moses and m Brendan. Francis Newman is our executive producer.
Speaker 2: Sage Bauman is Head of Podcasts Special thanks to Rashier Sharma.
Speaker 2: Please subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen to podcasts.