Jennifer Burns on Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand

26:35Which is it? Which one is your master? Was Peter J. Right? Was Milton wrong? What's your view? I love that exchange because if you recollect Peter J. keeps pushing and finally, Friedman and says, I think this is verbatim, freedom is my God. And I was like, wow, freedom is your God. You know, I expected the lightning bolt to come down. It was very intense, but I think that is ultimately it. And so I think freedom didn't want to believe you had to choose between freedom and greater prosperity, you know, between an unregulated economy and widespread differentials of wealth. He really didn't want to make that choice because one freedom was his God and two He was not any egalitarian, but he definitely was concerned about those who had less and he wanted there to be fewer poor people and so He didn't really want to confront that tension.

27:30He spent a lot of time trying to massage it I think that's where the his interest in what we will call you be eye comes from But the other thing I really do want to stress is in his era It looked plausible that you didn't have to choose. In other words, it's the era of the sort of convergence of incomes. It's the era where as countries develop economically, their income inequality goes down. And so he's seeing a very different set of figures, you know, then we look at today. And as a result, he was much more optimistic that the more capitalism spread, the more inequality would decline, the better off everybody would be.

28:10And he really didn't wrestle very much, although he started to a bit at the end of his life with the conundrum, what if capitalism spreads and things get worse for a lot of people? What do I do then? You mentioned treatment in Chile. What's the bottom line on that whole episode in your opinion? I think in most of it, it was manufactured as a campaign against Friedman because I think ultimately his impact was similar to what any Western trained economist would have had and he was not the architect of the Hinta. He was not particularly connected to Pinotier. He came in after an economic catastrophe and prescribed what pretty much any Western trained economists would prescribed stop inflation.

28:59And he was then tagged as the sort of architect and western endorser of the regime, which was not the case. But I think he came to stand in for people's discomfort with the idea that the Nixon administration had perhaps supported the coup. And I think there's another piece of it is that the dream of Iende was there could be a peaceful road to socialism. And the coup seemed to suggest that was not true, that the peaceful road to socialism could not happen. And so if the coup was not inevitable because it was a manufactured by Western economists and Western governments, then perhaps we could get back on the via Chalena and make our way to the peaceful redistribution of property and power and the success of a socialist government.

29:51So I think he got really tangled up in all these questions about, you know, is it possible to have a peaceful transition to a socialist or communist government and making Friedman the problem enabled you to focus on Friedman or Nixon rather than the very real problems created by the I &A government in Chile. You use the word prescribe, like what just physically literally, what did he do? What's the thing? Oh, yeah, I can talk about that for sure. And he actually didn't do that much, which is interesting. So I'll get a little bit granular. Basically, a nose shut takes over from a country where the state sector has expanded dramatically and inflation is, I think it's almost 600 percent, it could be wrong.

30:39It's hundreds of percent. It makes our stress about, you know, 6 % inflation really puts it in perspective. So when the Hoonter comes in, they basically keep doing everything they've been doing in terms of state control, the economy. They reprioritize a little bit, but they don't really know what to do. So say the socialist governor of the mine is replaced by a military governor of the mine. And then nothing is improving economically. So it's about a year and a half in. There's a changing of the guard internally in the Chilean regime and a group of economists, several of who did have Chicago training, basically are able to get the ear of the dictator and say, look, we need to do things differently.

31:21We need to privatize. We need to open markets. We need to reprivatize rather. We need to open markets to international trade. We need to do all this stuff. And Penochet basically says, okay, let's do it. And it's at that point that they're like, let's bring in Milton Friedman. So then Friedman comes in, the policy has been decided. And basically his role is to speak to what I kind of jokingly call a Chilean deep state. He goes around and he meets with all of the military functionaries who will carry out these policies. And he explains in his very lucid way, here's why this is the right medicine for Chile.

32:00He does interviews. He meets a lot of different people. He meets Penochet very briefly, and he tells him, you know, you have to cut spending, to cut inflation, and he also reportedly says, according to someone who's in the meeting, you know, if you give the people economic freedom, eventually it's going to be in political freedom. And apparently, Penochet is like, yeah, you know, whatever, sure. What I found in the records that I read, the big question that everyone had for Friedman was, this is going to be too painful. We can't do this. This is going to hurt too many people. So even in the military regime, they are worried if we cut all the state supports that have been created and we try to stop printing money and stop inflation, this is going to cause a huge amount of economic pain.

32:42And so Friedman's sort of like a broken record, like, yes, but you have to do this and the quicker you do it, the quicker it'll be over. Cut this bending, provide emergency, economic support, and you'll get through it. And basically, he uses a metaphor of cutting off a dog's tail, just sort of a horrific metaphor, but he says you got to do it all at once, you can't drag it out. So I would say his function is to certify and explain a policy change that has already happened. And so he's basically like a big name, flown in to tell everybody, here's a new program, here's why it's going to work, you know, let's get psyched and do it.

33:19So he's not the mastermind in any way. Part of the reason it's so controversial is, I mean, the real reason his presence there is so controversial is the Nobel Prize, which is awarded, I think it's about a year later, and the really unfortunate part is the Nobel Prize announcement comes just a few weeks after Pinotje's goons have assassinated a regime critic on the streets of Washington, DC. They blow up his car on the streets of Washington, D .C. And then a couple weeks later, Friedman wins the Nobel Prize. Now, there's no connection between these events, but it appears that this sort of, you know, right -thinking people of the Western world are padding the dictator on the head.

34:02That's how it's framed. Like, nobody cares about what's happening in Chile. Look, they're celebrating this economist who's somehow responsible for what has happened. So I think it all gets kind of mushed together to make a political point. What's the future of Milton Friedman? Say 30, 40 years from now. Where will their reputation be? Because University of Chicago is no longer Friedmanite, right? We know that. There are fewer outposts of Friedmanite thinking than there had been. Yeah. Whether he be underrated or somehow reinvented or what? Well, I mean, okay, let me look into my crystal ball. I think he's going to be, I don't think the name will have faded.

34:45I mean, I think there are still names that people read, you know, people still read canes and mill and figures like that to see what did they say in their day that was so influential. I do think that, I think that Friedman has kind of got into the water and into the air a bit. And I do some work on tracing out his influence within economics. No one's going to say, oh, I'm a Friedman, I, or a few people are. But this is someone whose major work was done half a century or more ago. So I don't think that's surprising. It would be surprising if economics had been at a stand still, such as, you know, Friedman still called the tune.

35:19I do think, you know, when you think about the way we accord importance to the modern federal reserve, of course, there were things that happened in the world. But Friedman's ideas did so much to shake that understanding. He's still in policymakers' minds. He's still in the monetary policy establishment's minds, even if they're not fully following him. I think we're in the middle of a big reckoning now. You saw all the debate about M2 and the pandemic and monetary spending. I don't know where it's all going to settle out, and it's a more complicated world than the one that Friedman looked at. I tend to think he's sort of an essential thinker that the basics of what he talked about are going to be known 50 years from now for sure.

36:05Milton Friedman have friends? He did. He did. He had lots of friends. Who is his best friend? Not colleagues, not co -authors, but other friends. Well, so now that's an interesting thing because most of his friends were his colleagues and were those in agreement with him sort of ideologically. He had a friendship with someone named Leo Austin who was a humorist, kind of a humorist. Great writer. Wrote a lot of books about Yiddish culture. Yes, exactly. So he was friends with him. But Austin agreed with Friedman, mostly, right? Yeah. So he'd be in the Industrial Revolution. It sounds very Friedman -Aid.

36:39Probably. I mean, he probably glossed a lot of what he was hearing from Friedman. He apparently did have a friendship with Daniel Borsten, who's a historian at the University of Chicago. I would say most of his close friends, though, were, I would say, either George Stigler or Aaron director were probably his closest friends. And Aaron director was his brother in law, and George Stigler was his grad school friend, and eventually became his colleague. So this is one thing I really noticed in the book that for Friedman sort of friendship and ideological sympathy and commitment to a certain political vision, they're all intertwined.

37:17So he had cordial relationships with a lot of different people, but they weren't quite friends. And even, I think, the great crisis in his friendship with Arthur Burns is a policy disagreement. And for Friedman, that policy disagreement just calls into question the whole friendship, although he very quickly tries to reestablish that connection. And he won't let that connection go. But the fact that it is so stressed by their disagreement over monetary policy I think is really indicative. So yeah, he walked, talked, breathed economics all the time. Your other biography, it's a vine -rand. Again, it's called Goddess of the Market.

38:01I'm ran in the American right. Before the novels, was she a good screenwriter? Let's see, I think she probably was. I mean, she had success in a pretty competitive industry. Most of them tended to be these kind of melodramatic plots. I actually liked the film We The Living, that they did a fairly good version of it. The other thing that's hard to say is she didn't compose a ton of original screenplays, what she would do is take an existing screenplay and kind of tart it up a little bit, make it more interesting. So I don't know that will ever fully, that would be a project actually to try to excavate what it, which films did she have a hand in.

38:40But the fact that she went from Penalist immigrant, you know, to having a creative role in one of the major studios of her time, there must have been something that was recognized. Also, again, as a woman in an era when that wouldn't have counted in her favor to any means. Which do you think is the best of the novels? Some would say least bad, but either way. Hey, like I said, I'm partial to we the living. It's set in Russia during the revolution. So it has that historical flavor. I like it's sort of a Romana clef. It's characters and families she knew. So while the sort of central love triangle is quite imaginative and will strike many readers as not true to human nature, the sort of ancillary characters I think do ring true.

39:27So I think that her flights of imagination were sort of tempered by the fact that she was working from this material. And I think it's just a fascinating glimpse into, you know, Russia 100 years ago. So I think those are, and it's long, but it's not quite so long. You know, the pity with Atlas Shrugged is she was uneditable by that time and she really needed to be edited. Sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. What do you make of them as a reader today? I think they're part projection. I think they also can be very usefully read as part of the Romantic genre. Like if you were to pick up a romance novel in the supermarket, you would find a very similar plot structure.

40:05And so it's very much against our sensibilities, they sort of rape as romance, coercion as romance. But again, if you read a sort of dime store romance novel, this is like a trope, that's very common. So I think she was kind of pulling on these tropes. And then I think she was imagining this kind of heroic manly man that if she actually ever met in real life, she would not be attracted to and probably not even be able to tolerate, but in her imagination, this could be sort of an idealized partner. I recall at age 13 visiting the foundation for economic education and Leonard Reed boasting to me in his office that he had high in Rand on his desk and pointing to where that happened.

40:48What was the equilibrium in her love life? How did that work? So let's see, I don't know if, I mean, I'm sure she flirted with Leonard Reed, that would make sense. The equilibrium was she was always drawn to younger men and that is sort of true from the beginning. So she was very much drawn to her husband. She was kind of the aggressor in that relationship. And then there's a couple of, before Nathaniel Brandon, who was her student and then her collaborator and her longtime lover, I think 25 years her junior. There's a couple of other young men who she was testing as potential romantic partners.

41:24So I found a couple in our reminisces of the archive. She would start a friendship. They would come visit her. And then in retrospect, they were like, you know what, if I had wanted to pursue this romantically, she would have been willing or she was trying to set me up. She was trying to seduce me, but she was going a little slow and I didn't know what was going on. So there's like, well, I think there's maybe two people that were kind of in that position before Nathaniel Brandon. And then I think once she was with Brandon, she was pretty content with him. She wasn't looking elsewhere. So I think her equilibrium was what she achieved briefly, which was adoding and supportive husband.

41:59and an exciting secret lover, much younger than her. So she had it briefly, but it didn't last. What was the role of the Roy Child's open letter to Ein Rand? That's a great moment. So Roy Child's writes this letter to Ein Rand. He's basically saying, if I remember correctly, like be in an arco -capitalist, like you haven't gone far enough. Like if you follow the logic of your thought, there should be no state whatsoever. I mean, she wasn't really paying attention and what did she call them? Hippies of the right. You know, she hated anarchists. She hated libertarians. By the end of her life, she hated anyone who liked her, which was a difficult position to be in.

42:38So I don't think that it had an impact on her, but I think it was one of these documents that said to all of you who like On -Ram, but feel like she hasn't gone far enough. Let's go there together, and we can appreciate her without feeling like we have to stay with her understanding of the state or her, you know, clinging to this sort of aativistic state. And my feeling on both her and Friedman, and they're not going all the way to Anarchy, I think it has something to do with their backgrounds in Rans case living through revolution and living in Europe and Friedman's case a very real consciousness of his Jewish identity.

43:17And I think for both of them while they felt the state often discriminated against minorities, I think they were more fearful of what would happen without a state in a situation of anarchy in which they would be identified as you know racial or ethnic or religious minorities. I think they had a visceral fear of that for themselves and for any other community that would be in that situation. And so I think that kept both of them from saying you know blow everything up and let's just see what happens. You know Roy later in his life admitted did Rand was right and that is how an open letter was wrong.

43:52I didn't know that. Change his mind. Yes. Did Rand and Friedman, Milton Friedman, know each other? They did. And what did Friedman call her? A, like, something like a terrible and dogmatic woman who did a great deal of good. And to go back to Leonard Reed, the big schism between I and Rand and Leonard Reed, so Leonard read was an early publisher of libertarian pamphlets and materials, came when he published Friedman and Stigler's Roots or Ceilings, which was an economic analysis of rent control. And they were analyzing rent control from the position of economic efficiency, like the rent control is economically inefficient.

44:33And they were also philosophically opposed to rent control, but they decided, really strategically, rather than get into this whole philosophical battle, we're just going to talk about this being economically inefficient, policy choice and policy argument. I ran understood that Leonard Reed had agreed to use her as a kind of ideological gatekeeper and that he was according to her going to show everything the foundation published to her and she would give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down and then it would be published. So this may or may not have been the arrangement, whatever it was, Reed did not follow that process.

45:08He published roofs or ceilings. And I'm Ren Retta and she hit the roof. And you have this just fascinating situation where this one sort of titan of the American right, I'm Ren is calling another, you know, figurehead of American conservatism Milton Friedman, a communist. She thought that Stigler and Friedman were communist because she could tell they were using this utilitarian argument and scrupulously avoiding any kind of moral argument. And she viewed that as a sort of veiled way of neutralizing discussion of economic issues such that you couldn't make an ethical case on behalf of private property.

45:48And so she became livid. She in Reed had a huge fight, letters back and forth. She's going to have nothing to do with Leonard Reed. Now interestingly, Reed and Friedman and also had a huge fight over this. And part of it was because the original version of the pamphlet, although it was mostly utilitarian and it's argument, it did have a nod to the idea that Friedman and Stigler would like more equality. Then there is now, and they said something like, you know, even if you want more equality the way we do, like you should still support this on efficiency grounds or something like this. And this is that influence of Henry Simon's again, who was much more egalitarian, then Friedman, and when he was close to Simon's, Friedman had a more egalitarian cast.

46:31Well, Leonard Reed, he had a henchman, orable Watts, he was very almost a social Darwinist, I would say. Watts did not want that in there. And so Watts cut that out, and Friedman and Sigler said, no, you need to keep it in there. And they said, okay, we'll keep it in. And then they foot noted it and said something like, well, we disagree with this. And then they published in a bridge version of the pamphlet that cut it out entirely. So, Friedman and Sigler were so mad, and they wouldn't talk to read for like five years. So to me this episode is just so illuminating because it's a question of how do we, in 1946, coming out of the World War II era, coming out of the Depression, coming out of the success of the New Deal, how do we talk about economics, equality, and fairness?

47:16Should we talk about it in the old idiom, you get what you deserve? Should we talk about it in a new idiom? Let's help everyone have the basics. or should we not talk about it at all and use a language of economics about what is the most efficient which ultimately will redound to the greatest good for the greatest number. And it's not really worked out and people have really different positions on this. And so this question of rent control is really huge. There's like a huge percentage of housing stock in the United States was rent control at that time due to the war. There was an enormous housing shortage.

47:46And so this was a really big issue. It was coming up for Congress. So everyone kind of got in and they couldn't figure out how to talk about it in a way they just couldn't figure out how to talk about a period. So that's like the big explosion moment. I think it's 46 and you know in another decade they'll be closer to kind of figuring out these questions. What do you think of the Kris Kierbarra argument that Rand drew a lot of for basic ideas from earlier Russian philosophy? I think there's probably a good deal to it. I don't know that I would lay it all. He really emphasizes that I think it's a Russian silver age.

48:20I mean I think to my mind the clearest through line for her is Friedrich Nietzsche, who would have been a presence in, you know, Russian intellectual circles, but it's not necessarily Russian. And so, you know, the fountain head in its original conception had a head note from Nietzsche in each of its four sections. And she pulled those right before publication, because she thought it's too much. So I would say, you know, this idea, she loved the phrase from Nietzsche like the noble soul has reverence for itself. She loved all those ideas and they've just resonated with her very powerfully. I think even in her unpublished work, she really takes some kind of a bit to the edge of madness.

49:00They're more tempered in the fountain head. But I mean, I definitely, I'm like, yeah, she's a Russian novelist. Look at those books. They're huge. They're panoramic. You know, she's very convinced of her role. She's very convinced of the power of the intelligentsia. Right? that was a complete conviction that a salon of committed intellectuals could cause profound social and intellectual change, which of course she had seen happen. So I definitely think she's part of that tradition, but there's also, you know, she's not just Russian, she's Russian Jewish. And so I think there's a kind of counterpoint to that in her concern with, you know, the powers of this state and her focus on rationality and her celebration of, you know, other cultures, sort of high European cultures beyond Russia.

49:48She in the end would say, Russia, it's just a mystical state. It's interesting because in recent years, when we've seen, you know, the glories of fantasies of, you know, mother Russia or the role of the Russian Orthodox Church or all this, you know, the mythic importance of key or whatever it might be, I think back to Iran grumbling like, it's just a mystical state and like they're all obsessed with mysticism. I'm like, She was right. Maybe so. How did Brandon Mises get along? So Brandon Mises, it's a complicated story. There's some of your more viewers and readers who are more into this literature might have heard of an anecdote or supposedly they screamed at each other at a party that appears to not be true, that appears to be a rumor started by William F.

50:33Buckley to kind of cause trouble. She actually loved Ludwig von Mises. She said on several occasions, my economics is from Mesis. Everything I know about economics, I know from Mesis. So I think they are both thinkers who kind of have this rational framework, who kind of have a few axiomatic first principles that they then build a system upon. So I think she really didn't know a ton about economics and hadn't thought about it until she read Mesis. So in person, they did tend to clash. They are both pretty difficult personalities, sort of in the same way, but the letters between them are always respectful.

51:12And Mises was one of the few people, living people that she didn't cut down to her students, that she recommended her students read, if he read the objective as newsletter, those mentions of him and articles on him. So I think that was an important connection. Why is it in the 20th century in America fiction seems to have been so much more important for the left than for the right, especially if you take away Rand. Why that huge difference? That's such an interesting question. It may have to do with I think a general truism that this sort of artistic and creative and life is often a bohemian life as well in which traditions, whether they be, you know, traditional marriage or traditional monogamy, things like that are questioned as part of the kind of creative process, it seems to be where things ferment.

52:03And so, you know, if you are a person who values tradition and values established norms and social practices, that may not be, you know, an environment conducive to creating imaginary worlds, you know. And so I think you need a culture to support artistic creation and fiction creation. And I think the culture, once a culture tips a certain way, it kind of goes that way. So I could certainly imagine societies and perhaps your listeners will No one's to where, you know, the production affiction is done more by conservative writers or thinkers, but I would imagine they have a culture to support that even if it's just a city, a university, a small tradition, a literary school, but I do think as much as creativity's individual at flourishes in community.

52:48So, you don't have that community, it doesn't get written. Why are there so few successful business women in American fiction? So there's Rand, There's gone with the wind, but very little else comes to mind. Oh, like why there's so few depictions of women as successful business men, business. There we go. I just said it myself. Whatever you want to call me. I think fiction is trying to reflect the human experience. And it's to this date there's just been more men who've applied their life's work in business and women. So I think that's part of it. I think it's too bad. I think, you know, Rand's created some memorable characters because of that.

53:24On the other hand, there is a way in which, sure, her characters are women, but they're not engaging in pursuits that the vast majority of women engage in such as motherhood. You know, they are kind of living masculine lives, although she's describing them as highly feminine. So they're a bit of a blend in some ways. Did Milton Friedman read much fiction? Not that I can tell. I mean, there's some stories where I guess Rose wanted him to come to the opera with her. And he was like, well, can I bring a book so I can read if I get bored? He didn't really appreciate culture. And so there's also on a Schwarzenegger story where he was spending, you know, a semester in Paris.

54:08And she was like, oh, the museums will be so wonderful. And he said to her, why would I go to a museum? I just literally didn't know why he would spend his time that way. So like I said, he enjoyed the fiction of Leo Rosten. That's really the only fiction I've heard of him from mentioning. You know, the literature on Amusia, which is a condition where you're not able to enjoy music, sometimes sightseed, Sreadman, is having had Amusia. I'm not sure that's confirmed. Do you know anything about that? No, I don't. That's interesting. I haven't, I'm not familiar with that literature. It's, that does make sense though, with this story.

54:43And I wonder if maybe they saw that story where Rose, she loved the symphony, she loved the opera, and he was basically like, okay, fine, I'll go, but I need to bring my own entertainment along. So what he did for recreation, he really enjoyed woodworking. Aaron director was a skilled woodworker in his basement, had a whole set up. And so I think Friedman built all the furniture for their first home by hand. So he liked building. He's played tennis and he likes skiing. So I think his relaxation was with his hands or sort of physical in nature. I think otherwise when he was reading, he was reading for work.

55:20I also learned from your book, by the way, that Aaron director and Mark Rothko had been childhood friends. It's remarkable. It's not fascinating. It's really fascinating. I have to say there's a historian. I think he's at the University of Rhode Island, Robert Van Horn, who's really excavated a lot of the early life of Aaron director, and it's absolutely fascinating. Very last question or set of questions, but what will you do next? That's a great question. I have a couple of book projects in mind. One is to just kind of look back a little bit more rather than write a biography of, you know, essential figure to kind of put them together into a broader story of the intellectual history of American conservatism or something like that.

55:59So that's one more of a synthetic history, I would say. There's just been such an outpouring of literature on the subject. I think it would be, some days I think it would be fun to bring it all together. Other days I think it's going to be maybe not so fun to have to pick through all that. I'm also interested in writing something sort of a history of postmodernism because I've been teaching an intellectual history class here at Stanford that's been kind of tracing it across the century. And I think that's potentially really interesting. It would be quite different than what I've done thus far.

56:29And so I guess I'll have to wait and see do I want to strike out for a new terrain or keep kind of Plowing the field I'm in so stay tuned is all I have to say on that Just a one follow -up question on that many of us Observing history have the sense that the intellectual tradition within the American right has been in decline for several decades Like a do you agree and be if so what most fundamentally is driving that change? I think there are you know It's a less vigorously intellectual culture. I mean, one thing I sometimes face with undergraduates is they're genuinely surprised when I say, well, yeah, the conservatives had all the ideas, you know, in the 20th century.

57:13And the conservatives really made an impact because they came up with all these ideas that were really powerful and important. And they just, it doesn't really compute because I think the conservatism they've grown up with is not driven by ideas in any meaningful way. So I think that's certainly true. I would say one of the reasons I think it's happened is that, you know, conservatism became an establishment and then you kind of have a set of greatest hits and you have a variety of ways you can make your living within this establishment provided you sort of adhere to the greatest hits. So there's not a ton of incentives to do things differently.

57:49I do think there's a lot of, you know, ideological ferment on the right or amid conservatives right now, it's heavy on ideas. It's often in, you know, internet forums that are not, like, deep engagement with ideas, I would say, in the same way as when, you know, you're reading books in magazines, I think it's more faster and more rapid. It's really interesting, like, any, where all, there's much more competition in the realm of ideas than there was, right? Besides reading a book or going to college, you can get ideas. because they're sort of coming out of everywhere, coming out of the ether. So I think that's gonna lend less coherence.

58:27And I think you can have a lot of people who are intellectual leaders of smaller tribes, rather than having a couple of the big leaders that everyone's heard of, you know, Friedman Hayek, this and that. I just think we're in a more fragmented place. I tend to attribute it to just kind of the media environment we're in, which probably isn't going away anytime soon. So the question is, can we live and thrive in this fragmented attention ecosphere, or are we going to recreate something akin to the three big networks to filter and manage all the information we have? I think we'll see that evolve or not over the next 50 years.

59:02Again, everyone. The book is Milton Friedman, The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns, B -U -R -N -S, highly recommended. Jennifer, thank you very much. Thanks so much, Tyler. Thanks for listening to Conversations with Tyler. You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. If you like this podcast, please consider giving us a rating and leaving a review. This helps other listeners find the show. On Twitter, I'm Attyler Cowan, and the show is At Cowan Convose. Until next time, please keep listening and learning.