The Architecture of Good Markets
Business leader and ex-President of the Confederation of Indian Industry, Naushad Forbes, speaks with former journalist and philanthropist Rohini Nilekani, about what markets must include, whom they should serve, and the role they must play in enabling inclusive economic growth.
0:00:00.0 Rohini Nilekani: You want government to be able to enable competition and innovation coming from everywhere. So, how does the government enable better, healthier competition, which means it must also look at how a small entrepreneur with a very good idea does not have to take far more risk in putting his innovation out than a big player, right.
0:00:28.8 Naushad Forbes: It’s possible for states and civil society, more broadly, to tax itself such that it invests in education and capabilities for all people in a society, such that they can participate in markets, and it’s possible, at the same time, to create a level… To create a kind of minimum standard that says that these minimum standards have to be achieved because anything below this minimum standard would not be acceptable in a civilized society.
0:01:11.1 Ayesha Marfatia: Hi, I’m Ayesha Marfatia, and you are listening to, On the Contrary by India Development Review or IDR, a show featuring unlikely conversations on topics that affect our future. On this podcast, hear deferring perspectives from leaders and experts as they help us make sense of the most pressing issue of our time. IDR is an online journal that publishes cutting edge ideas, lessons and insights, written by and for the people working on some of India’s toughest problems. You can check us out at idronline.org. Your host for the show is Arun Maira, a thought leader and author of several books on everything from Listening To People Not Like Us to Remaking India. He has the unusual combination of having worked in the private sector, the social sector, as well as the government, where he was a member of India’s planning commission. Here is your host, Arun Maira.
0:02:03.6 Arun Maira: In this episode of On the Contrary, we are talking about the architecture of good markets. Now, to remind ourselves, before the COVID pandemic consumed us, there was great alarm about climate change and the environmental degradation all around us. And there was, and continues to be, universal concern about increasing inequalities which economist Thomas Piketty has written extensively about. And Oxfam reminds us every year about the increasing inequalities across the world through their reports on the topic. India’s condition was very bad before the pandemic, we were rated 179th out of 180 countries in terms of air quality, 120 out of 122 in terms of water quality, and 94 out of 107 in terms of the hunger index. The pandemic has further increased the distance between the wealthy and the rest. Stock markets have been rising, Oxfam has estimated that the wealth of billionaires has increased by $3.9 trillion during the pandemic. This is wealth from the value of their stocks and financial investments. This has happened while about 500 million more people have slipped into poverty. And so, with the stock market rising, what benefit is it to the people of India where less than 3% of the country’s people have any stake, direct or indirect, in the stock market?
0:03:45.9 AM: So, it does seem that there’s something wrong in the design of the economy, where everything seems to keep getting sucked upwards and the trickle down is much less. On today’s show I have Rohini Nilekani, one of India’s best known philanthropist. She is the founder, chairperson of Arghyam, a foundation she set up for sustainable water and sanitation, which funds initiatives all across India. She has also been a journalist, author and founder chairperson and chief funder of Pratham Books, a non-profit children’s publisher. In 2017, she, together with her husband Nandan Nilekani, signed a giving pledge, which commits half their wealth to philanthropic causes. On the contrary, he’s Naushad Forbes. He’s the co-chairperson of Forbes Marshall, India’s leading steam engineering and control instrumentation firm. He is a past president of CII, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and the chairperson of the India@75 trust, an industry-led movement, to create a morally, economically and technologically advanced country. Naushad was visiting faculty at Stanford University and is well known as amongst the most thoughtful and compassionate business leaders that we have in India today.
0:05:10.8 AM: So, here we are to discuss how to find a new, more resilient and more just normal for markets and the economy. Hi, good morning Rohini and Naushad, it’s such a pleasure to be with the two of you together in this podcast of On the Contrary. Rohini, you have spoken so eloquently about the combination of Samaaj, Bazaar And Sarkaar. What are your thoughts about the architecture of good markets?
0:05:38.8 RN: At the outset I must say, I’m no expert on markets, but I will speak as a citizen who’s concerned generally about creative issues of sustainability and equity. Of course, a good market is that which helps to increase the public interest, which helps to increase prosperity, not just of a few, but of all, and hopefully without harming the home in which we all live, which is planet Earth. So a good market should be something like a conversation, not a dialogue of the deaf. It should be a way where you can discover pathways among people, among societies, among nations to discover what things and services of value can be traded in as fair a way as possible. So, in today’s 21st century environment, there are so many questions to ask about how there has been, what people call market failure or what I prefer to call, really, societal failure, because when societies and the state, that is the Sarkaar… If the Samaaj and the Sarkaar are not able to create the leadership, the institutions, the governance, which can rein in excessive market power, then it’s really a societal problem and a state problem. So, I look forward to a world where Samaaj, Bazaar and Sarkaar can be in a better balance.
0:07:27.6 RN: I do believe that, especially in this last century or a little more, maybe after the First World War, the balance has got really skewed. My simple philosophy is that societies came first, people came first, obviously, and that people created both the state, the sarkaar, and markets, the bazaar, to enable people to reduce conflict among themselves and therefore to create more efficiency, more productivity, more prosperity for everybody, not just for a few. So, something in that balance has got skewed and instead of Samaaj being the first sector, somehow we have relegated civil society and it’s institutions to being called the third sector. I think we need to set that right at the outset if we are going to make sure that the state and the markets are much more accountable to the larger societal interest.
0:08:27.7 RN: There are many questions now. One is, how do we create a better system of capitalism or market economy which doesn’t allow all value to apparently be just pulling towards one end of the spectrum? How do we do that? And secondly, before I conclude this segment is, how do we all start to keep at the forefront of our minds that perhaps we are sitting on the branch of a tree, which we ourselves are trying to cut, that we may perhaps be the proverbial frog, and the water is getting hotter and hotter without us noticing it, because this is the decade in which we have to heal ourselves and the planet.
0:09:17.5 AM: Thank you, Rohini. I loved your response when I asked what is the architecture of a good market, and you described it as an equitable conversation amongst people. And it was not about discovering price and efficient transactions and exchanging money value amongst people. We must come back to that. But let me ask Naushad. Naushad, what are your thoughts about what sort of reforms are required to make markets more equitable for workers and for small producers?
0:09:53.7 NF: Let me add a comment first about markets themselves. When people talk about markets, markets have an essential assumption that gets made. First, that a market has many buyers and many sellers for it to work efficiently. Second, that you do not have any one buyer or seller that is able to control the market to the extent that it can make the price move in it’s own favour. So, you have very large numbers of buyers and sellers. And third that you have equal information about the potential benefits and costs of the trade that’s being done, equal information on the side of both the seller and the buyer. So, that’s what actually creates that equity that markets can potentially deliver together with efficiency, but you need that assumption to be actually, true. When that assumption is not true, then you end up with a less equitable market. So, how do we actually enable markets to work for people who are most disadvantaged? It seems to me that the way in which you do that is by investing in capabilities and skills of people.
0:11:10.3 NF: When you invest in education, you enable people to participate in more and more productive activities. And if you’re talking economically, if you’re talking about livelihoods, then it enables people to participate in markets where they’re able to earn good salaries, earn a good livelihood and get the rewards that an efficient operating system can deliver. Now, there are many failures that take place in markets. The environment is one of the areas where there have been significant market failures, where the cost of pollution is not something that markets have factored in, unless you explicitly bring that into the calculation that you want to achieve. And it’s possible to move in that direction, to start bringing in costs of polluting into market mechanisms to make them more efficient.
0:12:16.3 NF: It’s possible for states, and civil society more broadly, to tax itself such that it invests in education and capabilities for all people in a society, such that they can participate in markets. And it’s possible at the same time to create a level… To create a kind of minimum standard that says that these minimum standards have to be achieved because anything below this minimum standard would not be acceptable in a civilized society. And so, you say, “This is the minimum standard we have to achieve regardless of what the market outcome might perhaps be.”
0:13:00.8 AM: Thank you. And Rohini, as you had said, it’s a process of evolution and Naushad, you’re pointing out that we are at the stage where some factors which we have, for the last few decades, excluded when we are considering the quality of the market and the outcomes of the market, must be included. They’re not externalities to the so-called formal markets that economists have been concentrating on, like the condition of the environment, like the condition of society and so on. So in the next level of the evolution of good markets, we have to include the impacts on the environment and people, and as you’re pointing out, Naushad, their ability to participate, to get more opportunity and to equitably be able to participate in the transactions and in the formation of the rules of the markets. So, the question comes, what must we change about the processes that are currently being used for economic reforms, so that we get the outcomes we want for inclusive and sustainable growth? And I might ask Rohini first.
0:14:03.7 RN: That’s a really big question to which I think we have altogether been struggling to find clean and clear answers. But I think we do need government to start creating better regulation. Not regulation which kills markets, not regulation which kills innovation, obviously, but regulation which creates fair competition. I think competition is reducing instead of increasing. We have seen how… We are tending so many sectors that were more competitive are becoming oligopolies, if not monopolies. And that’s not good, it’s not good, and I know this more about the tech sector than other sectors, that the power of some of these big players has become so vast that when innovations do pop up, they just swallow them up into their own stable. I mean, that’s not what we call perfect competition. You want government to be able to enable competition and innovation coming from everywhere. So how does the government enable better, healthier competition? Which means it must also look at how a small entrepreneur with a very good idea does not have to take far more risk in putting his innovation out than a big player.
0:15:33.8 RN: And I think that goes back to the welfare role of government too. You cannot separate the idea of innovation and entrepreneurship from a safety net, a safety social net for all of society. Because otherwise you’re distributing risk unfairly. When a small entrepreneur does not have the safety net of public health, public education, disaster management, risk of absorbing failure, whereas a big guy has all of that, access to private education, private healthcare, private capital, private whatever, then you’re not distributing the risk of innovation fairly. So, that’s where the government has to step in to create fair competition, a welfare net which I think is very much involved in creating good markets, and then of course, regulation for excessive power and oligopolies, monopolies forming. I forgot the fourth one, making capital available to all in the right doses at the right time, without you having to sell your soul for it, if I say so, [chuckle] in a bit of a non-economic way.
0:16:50.3 AM: Naushad, Rohini’s observations are pointing to the failures in markets, in various respects, and one of those failures is, if I can say, is the inequity in the participants, amongst the participants in the market, and I guess the lesser voices that are heard from the people who are suffering the failures of the markets today. So, the question is, to you, how do we overcome the power imbalance in the process of reforms? How to ensure that the voices and views of relatively powerless people are heard, and so that they’re not compelled to find other ways to protest as many are today? And we know that social media is not the solution. It creates more divisions and governments can easily shut it down anyway. So, that is not going to enable more equitable participation, especially of the powerless people, in influencing the process of reforms of markets. What are your thoughts?
0:17:53.1 NF: So, let me start with some… A little, at least my perspective on how we’ve seen the last 150 years, yeah. If you look at what’s happened in the last 150 years, I think more and more people in the world have been able to participate in activities from which they have then benefitted. So, they have been able to participate in what we would call the modern economy, in more and more countries, to a greater and greater extent in their populations. And the same is true of us as a country too. Since 1991, in these last 30 years, we’ve seen a greater reduction in the percentage of the population below the poverty line than in our previous history. So, these are all indications that markets deliver, at the end of the day, a degree of prosperity, which any alternative system tends to struggle with. And does it deliver it uniformly, equitably?
0:19:05.0 NF: No, it doesn’t. So, you address the issues that come up as people participate in a market economy. You address the issues, as we spoke earlier, of market failure, so that you give people an education so that they can participate effectively. You ensure a certain minimum threshold, you do all of those things to take care of matters. But at the end of the day, if you say that the government should try and regulate how a market operates, I worry. Because I think you need to have various mechanisms that would make markets operate more equitably and efficiently, but having the government decide, I worry. Because if you look, for example, at price mechanisms. A classic market outcome is that it determines what the right price is. If a government steps in and says, “This is the price at which you should buy cement,” and Arun you will know from the ’70s and the ’80s, that’s what our government did. It determined the price that we could buy cement. And what did we have? We had a situation where the price was high, actually when price controls were removed the price fell, and there were shortages at the same time.
0:20:26.5 NF: So, we have this very strange situation where a shortage economy and high prices co-existed. And when we removed that intervention by the government in the functioning of the market, the market operated more efficiently. The price fell and the shortages vanished at the same time. So, I think we need to find ways where institutions between them set the rules of the game. And these institutional mechanisms can then be independent of the government. Some of them might be public institutions, some of them might be private institutions. They may, for example, be NGOs. They may be the practices that we agree, are minimum standards that we would like to follow as a society. So, it can be a variety of formal and informal rules, which, between them, adds up to a set of institutions that can determine outcomes. But relying on the government as the source of wisdom and the source of rightness, I worry.
0:21:35.7 NF: And I especially worry, with that as being the solution for us as a country. Because I do not think we have the capability and conpetence in government to determine the right outcomes, and to make sure that those right outcomes are delivered by government. I would much rely… I would much rather rely on independent institutions, and these independent institutions include civil society institutions, they include the educational institutions, both public and private, and they include institutions that can also try and give people voice. So, to come back to your original question, I think there are various mechanisms that we must use to hear people, and to understand what they really need.
0:22:20.6 NF: Take the farmers’ protest that we are currently all consumed by in the country. It’s part of the reason why these protests have been so very visible and so very strong, is because there wasn’t a mechanism that was used. We have existing mechanisms, we have something called parliament, where it’s not just an issue of who has the majority that decides, it’s that opposition has a voice, that voice has a right to be heard, and if that voice is not heard, then you will see that voice showing up in the form of protests on the street. So if we have existing mechanisms and if we use those mechanisms to hear people out, we will be able to address many of those concerns. We may not address all of them, but perhaps we address enough of them so that people then get convinced that some of these changes and these reforms are indeed in their interest. Not all of them, some of them are. And the ones that aren’t, that strike fundamentally at a livelihood or an immediate livelihood are addressed in another way, such that you then say, “Okay, I can live with this. This is something in the longer run that I’m willing to go along with.”
0:23:35.6 AM: So you’re also pointing to the need to reform the process of reforms or making reforms in which the voices of the people who are to be, should be the primary stakeholders of changing the shape of markets must be heard at the time of formulating the solutions, not being sold solutions devised by experts, sold them afterwards. At this point, we’ll take a small break and we’ll hear more from our guests on the other side.
0:24:08.3 S5: Every day, in a small village nestled in a hilly corner of the northern state of Uttarakhand, a group of women sit together and sing songs of courage, ambition, and resistance. They are members of Gowli Mahila Sangathan, a village collective set up by the women of Gowli. They follow this ritual before every daily meeting. Since 1995, they have successfully led a resistance movement against alcoholism in their area. Ananta Jain, a student of English literature, met them as a part of a rural research program at St. Stephen’s College in Delhi. She wrote about her experience on Ground Up, a feature section on IDR.
0:24:58.3 AM: Ground Up features anecdotal multi-media stories that provide a window into how things operate close to the grassroots, within communities, amidst frontline workers and even inside government offices. They’re stories told by the people closest to the action. If you’d like to read more stories like this, check out Ground Up on idronline.org. You can also reach us with stories of your own, at firstname.lastname@example.org. And now back to the show.
0:25:33.6 AM: Coming back to very much you pointing out that before 1991 in India, things weren’t very good for the whole economy nor for the people of the country, and since 1991, they have improved overall, and they have improved for even the poorer people of this country. The question is the pace at which things are changing. Also, looking at the broader pictures of size of economies and relation to the growth of economies, and relation to the growth of environmental degradation and the growth of inequities, the period after 1991 has been worse, the shape of the economy has been worse. The size has been larger, it has been growing larger, the shape has been worse. Per unit of GDP growth, the Indian economy has damaged the environment more than almost every other country, certainly in our neighbourhood and amongst our competitors. The Indian economy has grown less jobs per unit of GDP growth when we need to grow very many more because of our population than other comparable economies, so it’s the pattern of growth, not the size of the growth. And to change the pattern of the growth, we have to include, as you say, many different diverse voices to see where is the shoe pinching and what can be done about reducing the pains to do that.
0:26:47.7 AM: So, I do feel that in the last… This is my view, in the last 15, 20 years, another virus has caught the people who are better off, is the virus of indifference. We are losing touch with, we are stopping to listen to the people who are not benefiting, and when they speak up, we say they don’t understand, they are just protesting and they’re a nuisance in the way of the good reforms. Michael Sandel, in his terrific book recently published, called The Tyranny of Merit, puts it out very well. This is happening all over the world. The experts believe they have the solutions, the economists believe they know how economies should be run, and they’re not listening to diverse voices of other disciplines, and certainly not of people with less power in the system. So, I’m coming to the fourth question, that, can we humbly admit… I’m including myself here. Can be humbly admit that we do not have the answers and that we do not know what the new way should be? We have to recognize that it’s very difficult for big chiefs in governments as well as the high priests in economics to admit that they do not know, it sort of threatens their positions. And so, I want to ask Rohini, how will we change this situation?
0:28:10.1 RN: I think markets need to return to being spaces of discovery and trust, discovery of goods, discovery of services, discovery of talent, and you need to deepen trust. I think there’s a breakdown of trust between state and market, and consumer and market as well. I think we need to find quick ways to rebuild trust. But a lot of my interest, really, Arun has been in the environmental dimension of it, because I think we underestimate how much, first of all, the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary, as they say, of the ecology, but also that the ecology is very critical to people, because especially in India, our people’s livelihoods are so deeply tied to the ecology.
0:29:06.0 RN: And we talk about farms, and the perfect way of getting more people into prosperity is seen as pulling them off of farms because we say we have very low productivity agriculture and so we don’t need 600 million people to be engaged in agriculture. But, okay, fine, even if you removed 400 million of them and try to do more productivity on your farms, what will you do with the 400 million people, and what will that do to the ecology? Unless we’re able to answer that question, I don’t think we can even think of reimagining agriculture. And so, I see this conversation that is happening between the government people and farmers as an opportunity to rethink how we can do sustainable agriculture while keeping people’s livelihoods attached to the land in a sustainable way. So, that’s one way I can think of about restoring the idea of local innovation, discovery, and trust.
0:30:11.8 RN: But more than that, I want to reiterate my point that we are all citizens first. We are not consumers first, we are not subjects of the state first, we are citizens and human beings first. So we need to ourselves develop our ability to hold conversations about what are good markets and what is a good state? And we need to do this so that we can all continue to survive together. We need the power of markets, we need that innovation, we need that drive towards efficiency. We need the state obviously to hold human beings, to create the institutions that Naushad was talking about, to have more equity, to unleash the good of markets. I think people have realized, the time has come. Now is the time to grab these big questions literally by the horn and experiment without… The problem is, and this is where I answer your question in a rather long-winded way.
0:31:13.4 RN: The problem is where all of us, me included, we want to speak and we want to show how right we are all the time, and we want to show that therefore you are wrong. If I’m right, you have to be wrong. How do we, in this decade, because we have an existential problem before us, and instead of more polarization, how can we have confidence in ourselves to hold on to the grey, to occupy the grey, to occupy those rich spaces between black and white, where we can ask questions, not judge the other person or the other idea, and discover more and more of how we move together to literally, first of all, get us out of the existential threat that we are facing right now, and then unleash more creativity? Because the minute I shut you down, I shut down the potential of your ideas and your innovation. The more you shut me down, you do the same to me. I think we need to right now learn how to hold and express doubt and use our critical reasoning so that we can… And do it without fear of reprisal, without fear of being hounded in social media. And we need to recover those spaces of speaking maturely without judging and without attacking. There are many pathways given by so many experts, let’s listen without immediate judgement, let’s occupy the grey to understand its nuances and riches.
0:32:50.4 AM: That’s beautiful, Rohini. Time is running out, and unless we find another way, a better way to find the solutions, we will not survive very long as a civilization. We have to open our minds and listen to people not like ourselves, and we must do this now, now. And my worry is that we know this has to be done, and we knew it. And Naushad, India@75 was set up 15, 20 years ago, and this was the dream, that we are going to be able to describe, not just what India should look like in the 75th year, which is a couple of years away, but how we are going to become that, an inclusive democratic participative process. I’m afraid that we haven’t paid much attention to actually putting the processes in place for making participative equitable reforms. Naushad, you are amongst those policy circles quite often. How can you get your voice heard about this matter? Please, let’s listen to others and change the process and not appear as solution givers.
0:33:57.7 NF: I want to start with the question that you asked about expertise, because I’m a great believer in expertise. I think expertise is essential to progress. And there’s this huge example of a country that chose to deliberately target expertise, with terribly damaging consequences. In China, with the Cultural Revolution, where it was a direct attack on expertise and on any form of elitism. And the consequences were there for everyone to see, in the form of 50 million people who died in the course of the Cultural Revolution largely as a result of the stupidity that resulted on the policy front instead of relying on expertise.
0:34:43.4 NF: So I am a great believer in the expertise that Rohini was talking about, an expertise that is doubting, an expertise that listens, an expertise that is humble. And if we can combine expertise with doubt, with listening, with humility, which says that, “Listen, yes, I might be knowledgeable on this subject, but that does not mean I do not have more to learn about it.” And I think if we can combine expertise with humility, doubt, and listening, we can get very far. But I would definitely not recommend moving away from a reliance on expertise, because I think at the end of the day that’s how societies progress, and we should actually be trying to get as many more people in the society to have expertise, different areas and greater depth in as many areas as we possibly can, because that’s how we can actually progress much more.
0:35:46.0 RN: I would like to second what Naushad is saying, because we have been experimenting with unbridled democratisation of opinion. And it was necessary, because at first, not enough people had platform to say whatever they want. Social media allowed that to happen. It’s been a wild ride and an amazing experiment. But experiments can and do go wrong. Reason lies in knowing when an experiment has gone too far. And while we should never have to clamp down on anybody saying anything, everyone has a right to be stupid, like I do, and however, to undermine professionalism and experience and say everyone can be an expert just because they have an opinion has actually damaged the building of better governance, better markets, better societies. So I agree with Naushad, that we should allow ourselves to respect experience, respect professionalism.
0:36:56.9 RN: However, I think the problem happens when those who are already in power, and it could be any system of power, monopolise what expertise is, and who can become experts, and who can acquire experience, and who disregard those traditional wisdom experts, that’s when it goes wrong. But I think we have reached a point of extreme danger in society to say that everyone is equally able to profess an opinion, because we are not. Then it’s a race to the bottom. Even when it comes to the relationship between consumer and the producer, I think some forms of expertise and experience have to be re-respected to make markets better.
0:37:51.2 AM: Thank you very much. I’m taking two great insights out of this conversation. Firstly, both of you and myself too agree that the experts we require now to find the new normal, which will produce a more inclusive pattern of growth, more equity, more justice, and less environmental degradation, are experts who are humble, experts who listen deeply, and experts who have doubt, means they’re willing to learn. The second is that in the world today, because of the openness that democracy has caused which the tools of the internet and social media have sort of aggravated in a way that has made everything so open, anyone can say anything they want to about anything, and can post it up there and create more noise. So the public space has become more open, and that’s a good thing, we want people to have the place where they can speak up if they wish to and need to, and so the public space has become very open.
0:38:49.1 AM: The problem is that the people who are to take decisions on the top are getting confused by the amount of noise. And there are groups who will, with false facts or even good analysis with real facts, make a point of view and another group will make the opposing point of view. So the people at the top are not able to reconcile the points of view. And parliaments don’t function like ours or even the US Congress, where the discussions are all around partisan lines, around opposing preconceived ideas. You’re not able to deliberate. What is required, as James Fishkin puts very well, is the middle layer. The layer, which is between the noisy public layer and the people above who should get some predigested opinions and ideas, solutions, predigested. And they will then debate about the consequences of applying those solutions and the changes in powers and impacts that they have, that’s what they are elected to do there.
0:39:48.4 AM: So it’s the middle layer, which is missing, and I think the need is to create those forums or platforms for democratic deliberation, and they can’t be online only. The online part will through up the noise and the facts, but to take it and to deliberate amongst different sorts of citizens with different perspectives to listen to each other and come to some options which are fair to everybody, this is what is missing in the evolution of our democracy, as well as, if I might say, the growth of a more equitable and just economy for India. And Rohini, you pointed out that you are leading the charge to create such platforms and forums. And I know, Naushad, India@75’s urge was to do precisely that. So I think it’s a time to do it much faster, to do it much faster, so that we can get some signals amongst all the noise that we hear around ourselves. Thank you so much. Thank you Naushad, thank you Rohini.
0:40:51.7 AM: On The Contrary is produced by Rachita Vora, Smarinita Shetty and me Ayesha Marfatia, with additional support from Kuber Bahtla. This episode was hosted by Arun Maira for IDR, production by Maed in India. To learn more about the kinds of ideas featured on this podcast, check us out at idronline.org. If you like our show, subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts. You can also recommend the show to someone you think will like it, share it with a friend, colleague or someone in your family, or leave review on Apple podcasts so that more people can find out about us. Thank you for listening and see you next week.