Latest / Trumponomics / Larry Summers Predicts the Future, and It Doesn't Look Good

Transcript

Larry Summers Predicts the Future, and It Doesn't Look Good · Trumponomics

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to stephanois the podcast that brings the
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: global economy to you, and we have a special episode
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: today in honor of the holiday season. A conversation with
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: the economist Larry Summers, Professor at Harvard, former Treasury Secretary,
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: frequent participant in the public debate about all things economic.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Also my friend and former boss, Larry. I mean, it
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: is the end of the year. I guess we can
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: start with a little gloating. I mean, in any given year,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: economists get a lot wrong, and this year and especially
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: large number of them wrongly assumed inflation was going to
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: be a fleeting phenomenon. But you sounded the alarm early
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: in the year, and we're considered a bit of a
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: crank for doing so initially, but not anymore. What did
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: you see that others didn't see? Definitely, you know, I've
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: been right this year, but they've been plenty of years
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: when I've been wrong. I did what I thought was
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: a straightforward analysis of the situation. I looked at how
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: short incomes were of trend, and I saw that they
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: were about twenty five or thirty billion dollars short of
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: trend each month, and that that number was declining, and
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: then I saw that the proposed transfer payments and other
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: stimulus represented close to two hundred billion dollars a month,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: and so I thought, if you were filling a thirty
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: billion dollar hole with two hundred billion dollars of spending,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: there was likely to be some overflow, and that overflow
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: would translate into inflation. I did the same calculation, essentially
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: looking at g d P, and I saw a two
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: or three percent GDP gap met with about fifteen percent
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: of stimulus. I had thought a lot about the Obama period,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: and I agreed with the concern. Indeed, I expressed them
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: at the time that that stimulus was too small. That
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: stimulus and its first year was perhaps half of the
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: g d P gap. This proposed stimulus was a significant
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: multiple of the GDP gap. I thought there was a
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: case that the Obama stimulus might have been low by
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: might have been low by it surely was not low
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: by a factor of five to ten. So it seemed
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: to me that we were over stimulating the economy. That
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: people had not seen inflation in forty years, so they
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: assumed it was something you didn't need to worry about,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: but that if you just did a straightforward analysis, demand
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: was going to run ahead of supply. I have to say,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: I think that's pretty much what we've seen. I don't
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: think that the analyzes suggesting that this is all bottlenecks
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: are right. Nine percent of CPI components show inflation above
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: three percent, more than above the FEDS target. If I
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: look at what's happening in the labor market, it looks
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: to me like we've got substantial labor shortages that push
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: wages up, but only with a lag, because wages aren't
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: reset constantly. We've got substantial pressures in the housing market
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: that have not manifest themselves at all really in the
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: official price in disease UH yet, So I think we've
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: got a fairly serious inflationary situation that's been growing for
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: quite some time. If wages do go up, and it's
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: true that we haven't seen as much as you might
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: have expected in the last few months, but if they
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: if they do go up, the last twenty years, we
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: haven't seen a follow through from higher wages to higher inflation.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Even in the Fed Zone model doesn't include much response
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: from inflation. So why do you think this time will
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: be different? Well, there are two different questions. One is
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: the response of prices to wages, and the other is
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: the responsive wages to unemployment. With respect to wages to prices,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: we just haven't seen very much variation in UH the
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: level of wage growth, and therefore it would be hard
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: to find a relationship with prices. I'm much more influenced
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: by the experience of my own talking to businesses and
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: even more people like those Bloomberg employees who spend their
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: lives talking to companies, and they all say more or
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: less the same thing. We're gonna have to push up
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: wages because of labor shortages, and when we do, we
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: have plenty of pricing power. And I guess I trust
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: those anecdotes more than I trust econometric relationships estimated over
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: periods when there's been very little variation. We did have
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: some months in with low unemployment and not extremely rapid
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: wage pressure, but that's one several month experience in twenty years.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: I don't think there's any support in the data for
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: the view the FED took that the economy can enjoy
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: three and a half percent unemployment for multiple years with
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: significantly declining UH inflation. Indeed, the FEDS forecasts call for
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: unemployment below its estimates of the normal level interest rates
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: never reaching in the next few years. It's uncept of
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: the normal level and nonetheless continuous deceleration of inflation that
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: might happen, but it doesn't seem to me that it
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: is the most in joyitive reading of our macroeconomic history.
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: Just to follow up briefly on the on the wages
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: and prices thing, you're you're obviously right that that companies
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: have been complaining about labor shortages, have been talking archly
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: about rising costs, meaning they were going to have to
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: push up prices, and they clearly do have pricing power.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: All the data that we've looked at, and we discussed
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: it on the on the podcast a few weeks ago
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: suggested that they've already used that power to raise profit
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: margins this year, well beyond any increasing costs. And it's
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: not obvious that they couldn't absorb some of this increase
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: wages in profit margins. I mean, inherently that wouldn't be
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: such a bad thing, right if you had more wages
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: for workers and companies absorbed some of it in profit margins,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: which in some cases are historically high. You know, Stephanie,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: prices are set by supply and demand, and we're seeing
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: in a very wide range of sectors rising demand. For example,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: retailers are engaged, apparently, is best one can tell from
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: the anecdotes, in much less promotional activity this Christmas than
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: they have been in previous Christmas. That's showing up in
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: higher margins for them and for their suppliers. I don't
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: think there's anything nefarious about that. That's just what goes
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: with an economy where UH stores are stores are full. Um.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: I don't know that, you know. I think the diagnosis
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: that you're implicitly offering is the one that the Nixon
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: administration rather unsuccessfully offered, that rising prices necessitate price controls
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: so as to contain profits and reduce inflation. That worked
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: out rather spectacularly badly, and fortunately that's not an idea
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: we've heard this time around. I think trying to restrict
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: prices would be the best way I could imagine two
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: lengthen the period of shortages, UH bottlenecks, and disillusion me.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: We tried that strategy with respect to gasoline in the
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: late nineties seventies. I don't know why businesses would not
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: be pushing on prices when they had shortages of goods
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: and supply. I guess well, I'm tripping up over is
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: that you've written quite a lot in the past. An
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: important academic is actually about the decline in labor bargaining
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: power and the impact that this had had, and that
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: particularly how the scales had shifted in favor of employers
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: in many parts of the labor market. Um, it just
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: sort of feels in the analysis that you're giving. I
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: don't recall you accuse me of proposing price controls. I
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: don't recall ever saying that, but I'll check the transcript.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: But the description you're giving suggests there is no way
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: to reset that balance or perhaps even in the sort
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: of macro terms, start having a higher share of national
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: income going to labor relative to capital, you know, reversal
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: of what we've had in the last few years. Because
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: if if wages go up faster than productivity, you're saying
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the FED should definitely put on the brakes in response
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: to that, and if it doesn't, companies will inevitably just
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: pass on any wage increase and it will just result
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: in more and more inflation. It doesn't feel like there's
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: any way to reverse that psycho we've seen over the
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: last few decades. That's that's really not what I'm saying, Stephanie.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: I mean, first, just on the facts. This period of
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: high inflation has coincided with more rapid reel wage reduction
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: than we had seen previously. So for the majority of workers,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: it's working out badly so far, not working out well.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: That's a political response to inflation that we're observing. Second,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: I am a strong supporter of the type of labor
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: law reforms that the administration has worked on. My colleague
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: in the labor power paper that you wrote referred to
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: Anna Stansbury, has done very important work showing that when
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: you put reasonable penalties on it influences behavior and allows
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: union organizing to take place. I am a strong supporter
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: of measures to strengthen labor through UH, the labor movement
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: in unions, through a range of innovations that would encourage
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: labor power. What I don't agree with is UH the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: idea that's simply running the economy hot on an unlimited
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: basis can do it. If I thought we could sustainably
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: run the economy in a red hot way, that would
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: be a wonderful thing. But the consequence, and this is
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: the excruciating lesson we learned in the nine seventies. Consequence
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: of an overheating economy is not merely elevated inflation, but
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: constantly rising inflation. And that's why my fear is that
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: we are already reaching a point where it will be
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: challenging to reduce inflation without giving rise to recession. Should
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: we do all kinds of things. Should we raise a
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: minimum wage, absolutely, Should we empower unions, yes, but this
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: kind of policy, there are no examples of successful inflationary
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: policy that has worked out to the benefit of workers.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: And there are dozens of examples, from the Labor Party
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: in Britain in the nineties seventies to multiple Latin American
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: experiences to our own experience in UH the nineteen sixties
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: and seventies, where it backfired with respect to the very
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: people it was trying to help. Do you think biden
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: nomics deserves a dictionary entry or will deserve a dictionary
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: entry when the dictionaries get rewritten or revised? Does it
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: does it amount to anything in your view? I mean,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: we've had any twelve months. I think we'll have to
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: see what happens down down the road. UH. The hope
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: would be that it represents a kind of progressive supply
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: side economics that emphasizes supply and does so through public investment. Unfortunately,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: the share of the spending that represents transfer payments rather
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: than public investment has been sufficiently high that I'm not
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: sure how great the benefits will be, and I'm concerned
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: that there's been insufficient incent impulse to making the public
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: investments uh cost effective, streamlining infrastructure investment, for example. On
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: the other hand, Uh, Stephanie, I think that the recognition
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: that we have On the one hand, on your flight,
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: you can now watch television in the seat in front
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: of you in a way that would have been inconceivable
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: thirty years ago. On the other hand, it takes half
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: an hour more to get from Boston to Washington than
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: it did thirty years ago, just because of the decaying infrastructure.
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: That's a kind of misplaced priority, and it's a metaphor
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: for what's going wrong, um, in important parts of the
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: way our economic system has functioned. I mean, I've known
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: you for a long time and through a lot of
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: that time, and certainly when you and I were the
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: Treasury Department in the late nineties. The kind of default
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: view of most government government governments was that government should
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: meddle as little as possible in mark and set the
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: rules for markets, but then let the chips fall where
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: they may, especially on trade, um and potentially the environment,
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: industrial policy, all those things we tended to be a
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: sort of default was to be suspicious of these things. Um,
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: do you have you had a change of heart on
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: those things? I mean, I notice notice that Janet Yellen
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: recently talked about needing to be less reliant on other
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: countries for critical goods. And I've seen you have talked
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: a bit about in the environment of wanting a more
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: sort of muscular approach to government. Are you Are you
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: rethinking your view of government. I think that there's been
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: this extraordinary change in relative prices stuff. Um, if you
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: look at the relative price of the day in a
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: hospital and a television set, it's changed by a factor
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: of a hundred since the night. That means we're in
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: a very different economy and a much larger share of
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: the economy, a much larger share of the people working
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: ari in sectors that have a range of market face years.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: And certainly there's a case for government involvement in those
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: But I think what needs to be very very careful
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: about how governments will carry out any kind of industrial
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: policy intervention. And I have to say that when I
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: hear about in industrial policy in the name of achieving
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: green objectives, I'm much more sympathetic, for example, than when
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: I hear about it in the name of preserving jobs.
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: I think the available evidence on protectionist strategies is that
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: they mostly cost a million dollars a job saved or
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: more once you work through their full UH impacts. Take
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: for example, UH steal protection. UH steal textion operates to
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: save potentially fifty tho jobs of steel workers, sixth as
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: many as we have manicurists in the United States, but
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: it makes industries with five million people that you steal
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: less competitive than the otherwise would be. Going back to
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: the Janet yelling comments, a lot of people look at
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: the supply chain snarl ups, the lines of container ships
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: outside Long Beach and other big ports and say Donald
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: Trump was right, we should be less reliant on all
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: these foreign manufacturers. It's important to understand why we have
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: those supplies, why we have those long lines. It is
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: not because of anything that China is doing. It is
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: because our demand for goods searched and I would much
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: rather see us be better at expanding port capacity quickly.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: Do we need to pay attention to rare earths and
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: other goods that are highly concentrated in the world for
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: our national security? Yes, we do. Should we institute some
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: broader program of non reliance on trade, I suspect there
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: would be very substantial inefficiencies from doing that. I do
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: think we need to manage the global economy much more
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: than we have. That's why I was such a strong
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: supporter of the initiatives that Secretary yell And brought to
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: completion to harmonize corporate taxes around the world so capital
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: could run, but it couldn't hide and would be taxed
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: in uh reasonable ways. That's why I think the right
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: trade agreements pay attention also to the context in which
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: trade takes place. What kind to regulations, uh there are?
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: What kinds of rules there are for workers? What kind
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: of exchange rate arrangements? Uh there are? But I think
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: a strategy of actively pursuing disintegration is not likely to
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: make us more secure. And certainly the first order effect
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: of stopping us from buying goods from abroad when they
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: are cheapest will be to exacerbate inflation rather than to
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: reduce inflation. So the idea of cutting off cheap supply
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: as a strategy for reducing inflation at a moment when
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: that's our principal economic problem seems to short run economic
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: problem seems to me bizarre at two very quick ones.
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: Because you mentioned trade. One of the areas where President
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: Biden has been probably most similar to his predecessor is
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: in relations to China, um general attitude to China. Do
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: you basically agree with that? I think we have not
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: yet formulated a satisfactory China strategy. I don't think President
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: Trump had one. I think two of the struculence is
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: very risky, and we have had a lot of that.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: I hope we'll see evolution in the months ahead. Just
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: going back to what we were talking about the beginning,
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: and you you painted a picture where you thought it
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: was much more likely than not that we were ending
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: a period. But we're starting a period that was going
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: to be quite hard to control inflation, and inflation could
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: continue for some time. You know, people will remember for
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: many years you were talking about secular stagnation. If you
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: look at the bond market, very low interest rates still
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: out into the long term future. There's the suggestions meems
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: to be from them that secular stagnation is still here,
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: that we still have structurally low growth prospects. How is
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: do you still believe in secular stagnation? Do you now
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: believe in secular stagflation? I think secular stagnations are real
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: risk looking out a few years. I certainly think that's
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: what the market is, as you say, Stephanie, pricing in
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: I'm surprised by how low long term interest rates are.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: That's something I didn't get right. I would have forecast
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: larger increases in interest rates given conditions. I think part
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: of it is that markets are foreseeing that we will
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: do what's necessary to contain inflation, and that process will
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: be quite contractionary, and that's part of what I think
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: is being factored into the level of markets. But I
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: do think there's a real chance that there will be
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: a return to secular stagnation. I'm not sure you know.
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: In some ways, Stephanie, this current episode of a very
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: large infusion of spending brings back memories of World War Two,
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: and there was an expectation that after World War Two
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: the economy would return to the kind of secular stagnation
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: depression that it had been and for a variety of
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: reasons that never materialized. I'm really not sure what's going
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: to come after uh this current episode. I'm certainly not
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: confident that we're going to have sustained excess demand for
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: many years. I think the challenges that we've pumped up
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: aggregate demand now and then who knows how we're going
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: to work our way through back to more normal levels
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: of demand. Well, you've paid it a pretty worrying picture
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: for the next year, for twenty two. So I kind
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: of hope for all our sakes that you're more wrong
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: next year than you were this year. But I hope
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: you have a happy new year. And thank you very much,
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: Larry something, thank you. And that is it for this
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: special episode of Stephanomics. We'll be back next week with
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: a special look ahead to two. In the meantime, enjoy
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: your holidays if you get any, and follow at Economics
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: on Twitter if you feel like escaping into news and
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: analysis from Bloomberg Economics. This episode was produced, as ever
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: by A Mangus Henrickson, with special thanks to Larry Summers,
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: Kelly Friendly and Julie Shampoo. Mike sasso Is executive producer
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: of Stephonomics and the head of Bloomberg Podcast is francesco Leavie.